DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "two metal oxide layers" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change the limitation to “the at least two transparent metal oxide layers”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sputtered transparent conductive layer stack" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the roughness" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the applicant is referring to the average roughness as recited in line 7 or to a different roughness.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two adjacent layers" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a substrate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change the limitation to “the substrate”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an absorber layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change the limitation to “the absorber layer”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "at least two transparent metal oxide layers" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change the limitation to “the at least two transparent metal oxide layers”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "at least one interfacial transition area" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (JP 2011-183567 A) (cited in IDS dated 06/25/2025, refer to translation as provided by Applicant) in view of Lu et al. (US 2009/0126791 A1) (cited In IDS dated 06/25/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a photovoltaic device (solar cell, [0001]) comprising:
a substrate (1, fig. 1 and [0014]); and
a transparent conductive layer stack (base layer 2 and transparent electrode layer 3, figure 1 and [0014]) comprising at least two transparent metal oxide layers (base layer 2 is made of silicon oxide, [0021-0031]; transparent electrode layer 3 is made of ITO, [0033-0039], [0046], [0049], and examples 4-5) having different refractive indices to form a transparent conductive oxide layer stack (2+3) in which at least one interface between two metal oxide layers (2 and 3) within the transparent conductive oxide layer stack (2+3) or at least one interface between the transparent conductive oxide layer stack and an adjacent layer has an average roughness of 5 to 60 nm (0039], see also [0049] that discloses an average roughness of 5.8 nm).
Fujimoto further discloses that the refractive index of first transparent metal oxide layer (1) is 1.60 ([0022]). Fujimoto further discloses that the second transparent metal oxide layer (2) is made of ITO, which is known to have a refractive index of 2.1 to 2.2 (See [0040] of US 2003/0035906 A1). Therefore, the roughness (Ra, [0039]) of the at least one of the interface regions of the transparent conductive oxide layer stack (2+3) produces a transition area (between 2 and 3) of effective refractive index that is intermediate the refractive index of the two adjacent layers to form a more gradual gradient (from 1.6 to 2.1/2.2) of refractive indices ([0039] and figure 3a/3b).
Fujimoto further discloses that the transparent conductive oxide stack is used in solar or photovoltaic cell ([0001]), and thus, the solar or PV cell inherently comprises a semiconductor or absorber layer and a back contact layer.
However, Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose an absorber layer is disposed on the sputtered transparent conductive layer stack, and a back contact disposed on the absorber layer.
Lu discloses a photovoltaic device (fig. 3) wherein an absorber layer (semiconductor layer 5) comprising CdS/CdTe stack ([0026]) disposed on the TCO stack (4e+4f), and a back contact (7) disposed on the absorber layer (5).
It would also have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used the CdS/CdTe/back contact stack as taught by Lu to form the semiconductor layer/back contact layer of Fujimoto because doing so enables for formation of solar or photovoltaic cell, as shown by Lu and also desired by Fujimoto.
Thus, Fujimoto as modified by Lu discloses that the absorber layer is disposed on the sputtered transparent conductive layer stack (2+3) (see [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto further discloses that the average roughness is from about 5 nm to about 30 nm (5.8 nm, [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto further discloses that at least one of the metal oxide layers is indium tin oxide (ITO) ([0033-0039], [0046], [0049], and examples 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto further discloses a barrier layer (protective layer made of carbon, [0036]) that having a refractive index that furthers the gradual gradient of refractive indices ([0036]).
Regarding claim 5, although Fujimoto discloses that the substrate is made of glass ([0034]), Fujimoto does not disclose the glass substate has a refractive index of about 1.5.
Lu discloses a photovoltaic device (fig. 3) wherein a substrate (1) is formed of glass having a refractive index of 1.5 ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used the glass having a refractive index of 1.5 as taught by Lu to form the substrate layer of Fujimoto such that highly transparent substrate can be provided for the solar cell, as shown by Lu ([0026]).
Thus, Fujimoto as modified by Lu discloses that the substrate comprising glass substrate ([0034]) having a refractive index of about 1.5 (as modified by Lu).
Fujimoto as modified by Lu discloses the absorber layer comprising cadmium telluride (see [0026] of Lu). Since Fujimoto as modified by Lu discloses that the absorber layer comprises same material, CdTe, as in the case of the instant application (see instant claim 65), it must inherently or implicitly have refractive index of about 3. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Fujimoto as modified by Lu further discloses that at least two transparent metal oxide layers (2 and 3) disposed between them which, along with at least one interfacial transition area, define at least four interface regions (substrate 1 / TCO 2 / TCO 3 / Window CdS /Absorber CdTe) (/ indicates the interface) between the substrate and the absorber layer.
Fujimoto further discloses that the refractive index of first transparent metal oxide layer (1) is 1.60 ([0022]). Fujimoto further discloses that the second transparent metal oxide layer (2) is made of ITO, which is known to have a refractive index of 2.1 to 2.2 (See [0040] of US 2003/0035906 A1). Thus, the refractive indices of the at least two transparent metal oxide layers are between 1.5 and 3.
Accordingly, Fujimoto as modified further discloses the refractive index changes by no more than 0.5 at any of the interface regions (substrate n=1.5 / layer 2 n=1.6 / layer 3 ITO n=2.1/ CdS n=2.5/ CdTe n=3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights