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 with traverse of species A1 in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search burden is not present. This is not found persuasive because a comprehensive search for a structure including an intermediate layer as claimed would require the use of different search terms, and art reading on the elected species may not read on art of the non-elected species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 3, 4, 8, 11, 14, and 15 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 3 recites “the titanium layer or the layer comprising titanium” and “the titanium layer”, which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “the titanium layer or the layer comprising titanium”, which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “the titanium layer or the layer comprising titanium” and “the titanium layer”, which lack antecedent basis. Claim 11 is also rejected because of its dependence from claim 8, as well as the recitation of “the titanium layer”.
Claim 14 recites “the finger-shaped first metallic contact regions”. Only one first metallic region has been claimed.
Claim 15 recites “the cover surface of the silver layer”, which lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2010/0012175 to Varghese, and further in view of US 2009/0151771 to Kothari. Supporting information is provided by “2.5 The extinction coefficient k” to PV Lighthouse.
Regarding claims 1-11, 13-15 and 17, Varghese teaches a stack-type III-V multijunction solar cell (Fig. 12) having an upper side (facing top of page) and an underside (side of “Surrogate Substrate” facing bottom of page), the solar cell comprising
A substrate 125 formed on the underside (¶0086)
A first subcell (“cell C” in Fig. 5C) having a first bandgap on the substrate layer 125 (¶0078)
A second subcell (“cell B”) having a second bandgap and arranged above the first subcell, the second bandgap being larger than the first bandgap (¶0064, 0065)
A tunnel diode 114 formed between the first subcell and the second subcell (¶0066)
A finger-shaped metallic contact region 501 formed on the upper side (Figs. 10A, 13, ¶0091), the first metallic region comprising at least two metal layers and having a silver layer as a main constituent (¶0095)
A second metallic contact region 123 formed over a wide area on the underside (¶0083).
Varghese does not teach an electrically conductive absorbent layer formed above the silver layer and connected in a materially bonded manner to the silver layer. Kothari teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include an absorbent layer (1070 of Fig. 10F, 301 of Fig. 10H, ¶0083) on and materially bonded to a similar first metallic contact region (1050 of Fig. 10F, 301 of Fig. 10H, ¶0079) in order to reduce the reflection from the contact region (¶0044, 0062).
Kothari’s absorbent layer preferably has a thickness between 2 nm and 30 nm, a range that is nearly encompassed by the claimed range of thicknesses. The absorbent layer is an electrically conductive layer. The limitation that the absorbent layer has a particular average absorptivity is interpreted in light of the instant application. Specifically, paragraph [0024] on page 4 of the specification recites that the term absorptivity and the term absorption coefficient α are used synonymously. Kothari specifically teaches that the extinction coefficient k of the absorbent layer is non-zero (¶0083). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the extinction coefficient k discussed by Kothari is related to the absorption coefficient α (specifically see equation spanning p. 1-2 of PV Lighthouse). Kothari specifically teaches that the extinction coefficient k is a result effective variable that would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary in order to optimize the reflection reducing effect.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore forming the absorbent layer to have an average absorptivity for solar radiation of more than 0.5, or per claim 13 greater than 0.7, is an obvious result of optimization.
The references do not specifically teach that the absorbent layer increases a heat input via the absorbent layer formed on the first contact region. However, the combination of references teaches that the positively claimed structure is obvious. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claim 2, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to connect the absorbent layer in a materially bonded manner to the silver layer as a titanium layer, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0083 of Kothari). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 3, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. Varghese teaches that an anti-reflection layer 130 is arranged above the first metallic contact region 501 (Fig. 14A, ¶0102). While Varghese does not contemplate an absorbent layer, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to omit the anti-reflection layer in the invention of modified-Varghese, and would have no expectation that the inclusion of the anti-reflection layer arranged above the absorbent layer and materially bonded to the absorbent layer would not still have the benefits of the anti-reflection layer. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the anti-reflection layer above and connected in a materially bonded manner to the absorbent layer. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the absorbent layer as a titanium layer, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0083 of Kothari). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 4, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. Varghese teaches that the silver layer has a thickness of five micrometers in an embodiment (¶0095). Further, Kothari teaches a range of thicknesses of the absorbent layer between 2 nm and 30 nm (¶0083 of Kothari). As such, a skilled artisan would form the silver layer of modified-Varghese to have a thickness greater than that of the absorbent layer at least by a factor of 10.
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the absorbent layer as a titanium layer, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0083 of Kothari). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 5, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. A contact metal system (“50 nm Pd/100 nm Ge/30 nm Ti/30 nm Pd”, ¶0095 of Varghese) is arrange under the silver layer, wherein the first contact metal region is electrically connected to the surface of the III-V multijunction solar cell via the contact metal system. Varghese teaches that the silver layer has a thickness of five micrometers in an embodiment, and the total thickness of the contact metal system is less than 500 nm, therefore the contact metal system has a thickness that is smaller than that of the silver layer by at least a factor of 5. In the case 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Per claims 6-8 and 11, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. The silver layer has a quadrangular cross-section (Fig. 14A, MPEP §2125; the thickness of layer 501 is substantially formed by the silver layer, according to ¶0095, therefore the shape of the layer 501 is substantially formed by the silver layer) with a base surface (wide surface of 501) and a first side surface (for instance, the left slanted surface of 501) and a cover surface (top, narrow surface of 501) and a second side surface (slanted surface opposing the first side surface).
Per claim 7, Varghese does not specifically teach a ratio of a length of the first and second side surfaces to the length of the cover surface. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the ratio in the claimed range, as it would have merely required the change of a form of shape of the silver layer. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Per claim 8, Varghese does not teach an absorbent layer. However, Kothari’s absorbent layer is specifically formed to reduce reflection from surfaces of a contact region. The exposed first and second side surfaces would be sources of reflection (see previously cited passages of Kothari), and therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the absorbent layer at the first and second side surfaces to be materially bonded on the surface of the silver layer in order to reduce reflection.
Varghese teaches that an anti-reflection layer 130 is arranged above the first metallic contact region 501 (Fig. 14A, ¶0102). While Varghese does not contemplate an absorbent layer, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to omit the anti-reflection layer in the invention of modified-Varghese, and would have no expectation that the inclusion of the anti-reflection layer arranged above the absorbent layer and materially bonded to the absorbent layer would not still have the benefits of the anti-reflection layer. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrange the anti-reflection layer above and connected in a materially bonded manner to the absorbent layer. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the absorbent layer as a titanium layer, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0083 of Kothari). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 11, Kothari does teach that the absorbent layer can be formed of an alloy of two metals (MoCr, ¶0083). However, Kothari does not specifically recite a titanium alloy. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the absorbent layer, when formed as a titanium layer, would be formed as a layer made up of purse titanium.
Per claims 9 and 10, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the absorbent layer as a titanium layer, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0083 of Kothari). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 10, Kothari’s absorbent layer preferably has a thickness between 2 nm and 30 nm, a range that substantially overlaps the claimed ranges.
Per claim 14, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. Varghese does not teach an absorbent layer. However, Kothari’s absorbent layer is specifically formed to reduce reflection from surfaces of a contact region (see previously cited passages of Kothari). The areas between the finger-shaped first metallic contact regions on the upper side would not be sources of reflection, and therefore a skilled artisan would have no motivation to arrange the absorbent layer between those regions.
Per claim 15, modified-Varghese teaches the limitations of claim 1. The silver layer has a quadrangular cross-section (Fig. 14A, MPEP §2125; the thickness of layer 501 is substantially formed by the silver layer, according to ¶0095, therefore the shape of the layer 501 is substantially formed by the silver layer) with a base surface (wide surface of 501) and a first side surface (for instance, the left slanted surface of 501) and a cover surface (top, narrow surface of 501) and a second side surface (slanted surface opposing the first side surface).
Kothari’s absorbent layer is specifically formed to reduce reflection from surfaces of a contact region. The cover surface and exposed first and second side surfaces would be sources of reflection (see previously cited passages of Kothari), and therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the absorbent layer at the cover surface and the two side surfaces directly connected to the cover surface in order to reduce reflection.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Varghese and Kothari teach the structure of the stack-type III-V multijunction solar cell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Varghese explicitly teaches that the solar cell of that invention is used for generating electricity by the application of light. While the references do not teach simultaneous generation of heat in the area of power generation, it would be expected that heat would necessarily be generated due to the interaction of applied light and the claimed structure. Regarding process or method claims, a prior art device anticipates a claimed process, if the device carries out the process during normal operation (see MPEP § 2112.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights