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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11, line 2, after the word “compound” appears to have the numeral 6 inadvertently added. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 9, 10 and 11 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, in applicant’s specification, page 18, para [0074], applicant discloses “the coverage is more preferably 10% or more and less than 100%, preferably 20% or more and 80% or less, and more preferably 30% or more and 60% or less”. The recited ranges of claim 8 and 9, i.e., “50% or more and less than 100%” and “50% or more and less than 100%”, are not disclosed in applicant’s specification and leaves doubt as to whether the application describes applicant’s invention or the claim describes applicant’s invention. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the units in nanometers are in parentheses, i.e., [nm]. The parentheses result in the claim being indefinite as it is unclear the units are definitely being claimed and are not optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (WO 2022/075024) (US 2023/0086765 is used as the translation, all cites refer to the U.S. numbered translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell comprising:
a p-electrode (2);
an n-electrode (5);
a p-type light-absorbing layer (3) provided on the p-electrode and being mainly composed of a cuprous oxide compound;
an n-type layer (4A) disposed between the p-type light-absorbing layer and the n-electrode; and
a compound of first metal (4D) provided between the p-type light-absorbing layer (3) and the n-type layer (4A);
the cuprous oxide compound is in direct contact with the compound of the first metal and the n-type layer (see fig. 5, para [0022]-[0024], and [0082]-[0084]);
the first metal is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Al, Hf, Zr, and B (see para [0084] and [0096], i.e., M2 is Al and/or B, M3 can be Hf and/or Zr).
Yamamoto does not specifically disclose wherein coverage of the compound of the first metal covering the p-type light absorption layer is 10% or more and less than 100%,
Yamamoto does disclose wherein the sum of layers 4A + 4B + 4C + 4D is 3 nm or more, and further, layers less than 3 nm have leakage (see para [0097]), the result of which wherein the sum 3 nm, the thickness of 4D is less than 4D where leakage occurs and is less than 100% coverage.
The court has held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein layer 4D is a layer made up of a Ga oxide and other oxides. Yamamoto discloses M2 is one or a combination of Al and B. M3 can be a combination of Hf and Zr, M4 can be 0 percent of the metal oxide (see para [0083]-[0084]). When x1 (associated with M2) and x2 (associated with M3) is 2, y5 is between 3.0 and 3.8, not accounting for the Ga oxide, i.e., Ga2O3. Although Yamamoto discloses Ga2O3 and M2x1M3x2O(y-unknown) (see para [0083]-[0087], a comparison can not be made to the recited limitation “wherein the compound of the first metal is a compound represented by Alx1Hfx2Zrx3Bx4Oy, xl, x2, x3, and x4 satisfy 0.8 xl + x2 + x3 + x4 1.2, and xl, x2, x3, x4, and y satisfy 0.3 (xl + x2 + x3 + x4) / y 0.8”.
Yamamoto does disclose the structure as a result effective variable, i.e., determinant of the conduction band/band gap value (see para [0084]-[0087]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein layer 4D is a layer made up of a Ga oxide and other oxides. Alx1Oy being a possible oxide (see para [0083]-[0087]), although a comparison cannot be made to the recited limitation “wherein the compound of the first metal is a compound represented by Alx1Oy, and xl and y satisfy 0.5 xl / y 0.8”.
Yamamoto does disclose the structure as a result effective variable, i.e., determinant of the conduction band/band gap value (see para [0084]-[0087]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein layer 4D is a layer made up of a Ga oxide and other oxides. Hfx2Oy being a possible oxide (see para [0083]-[0087]), although a comparison cannot be made to the recited limitation “wherein the compound of the first metal is a compound represented by Hfx2Oy, and x2 and y satisfy 0.3 x2 / y 0.7”.
Yamamoto does disclose the structure as a result effective variable, i.e., determinant of the conduction band/band gap value (see para [0084]-[0087]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein layer 4D is a layer made up of a Ga oxide and other oxides. Zrx3Oy being a possible oxide (see para [0083]-[0087]), although a comparison cannot be made to the recited limitation “wherein the compound of the first metal is a compound represented by Zrx3Oy and x3 and y satisfy 0.3 x3 / y 0.7”.
Yamamoto does disclose the structure as a result effective variable, i.e., determinant of the conduction band/band gap value (see para [0084]-[0087]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein layer 4D is a layer made up of a Ga oxide and other oxides. Bx4Oy being a possible oxide (see para [0083]-[0087]), although a comparison cannot be made to the recited limitation “wherein the compound of the first metal is a compound represented by Bx4Oy and x4 and y satisfy 0.5 x4 / y 0.8”.
Yamamoto does disclose the structure as a result effective variable, i.e., determinant of the conduction band/band gap value (see para [0084]-[0087]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8 and claim 9, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the coverage is 50% or more and less than 100% (claim 8) and wherein the coverage is 60% or more and less than 100% (see para [0082]-[0084] and [0096]-[0097], see discussion of claim 1, see obviousness statement of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an average thickness of the compound of the first metal is 0.2 nm or more and 1 nm or less. Yamamoto does disclose that the minimum thickness for layers 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D is 3 nm (see para [0097]), also where the four layers are of equal thickness (see para [0137]). As a result, in at least one embodiment, the average thickness of layer 4D falls into the range of 0.2 nm and 3 nm or less.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a maximum thickness of the compound of the first metal is 0.2 nm or more and 1 nm or less.
Yamamoto does disclose that the minimum thickness for layers 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D is 3 nm (see para [0097]), also where the four layers are of equal thickness (see para [0137]). As a result, in at least one embodiment, the maximum thickness of layer 4D falls into the range of 0.2 nm and 3 nm or less.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a side surface of the compound of the first metal (i.e. top side in reference to fig. 5) is in direct contact with the n-type layer (see para [0022]-[0024], [0082]-[0084], and [0096]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein one or more side surfaces of the compound of the first metal which does not face the p-type light-absorbing layer (i.e., top side in reference to fig. 5, which reads on “one”) are in direct contact with the n-type layer (see para [0022]-[0024], [0082]-[0084], and [0096]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamoto discloses a multi-junction solar cell comprising: the solar cell according to claim 1 (see para [0022], and [0124]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell module comprising: the solar cell according to claim 1 (see fig. 11, para [0126]-[0127]).
Regarding claim16, Yamamoto discloses a photovoltaic power generation system comprising: the solar cell module according to claim 15 which generates electric power (see fig. 12, para [0129]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by Kim et al. (KR 101848323).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto discloses a solar cell according claim 1, wherein the p-type layer is cuprous oxide as recited in claim 1, (see abstract and rejection of claim 1). Cuprite is the known structure of cuprous oxide (i.e., Cu2O) (as evidenced by Kim page 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights