www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/460,398
`
`08/30/2021
`
`SHINYA OKAMOTO
`
`083710-3504
`
`3817
`
`McDermott Will and Emery LLP
`The McDermott Building
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`MALLEYJR., DANIEL PATRICK
`
`1726
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/24/2023
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`mweipdocket@mwe.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-25 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 5-6,11-15 and 21-25 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-4,7-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`“If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s)filed on 30 AUGUST 2021 is/are: a)M accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[¥] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.4] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have beenreceived in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 8/30/2021.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 5/18/2023,
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230518
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`47/460,398
`OKAMOTOetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`DANIEL P MALLEYJR.
`1726
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 30 MARCH 2023.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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
`
`Claims 5-6, 11-15, and 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
`
`1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
`
`Election was made withouttraverse in the reply filed on April 21%, 2023.
`
`Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 7-11 and 16-21 in the reply filed on April 21%,
`
`2023 is acknowledged.
`
`Its noted that claims 11 & 21 are directed towards Species E (Figure 1E), wherein
`
`a metal film is between the nanostructure body and the oxide layer. Applicant has elected Species A
`
`(Figure 1A). Accordingly, claims 11 & 21 has been withdrawnas being directed towards a non-elected
`
`species.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis
`
`for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale,
`or otherwise available to the public before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 3
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 contentsofthe 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.
`
`Claims 1-4, 7-10, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the
`
`alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hoangetal. (US 2017/0276547 A1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 4
`
`In view of Claim 1, Hoanget al. discloses an optical device (Figure 1 & Paragraph 0050)
`
`comprising:
`
`e
`
`ananostructure body which induces surface plasmon resonance when irradiated with light
`
`(Figure 1, #40 - Paragraph 0028 & 0031);
`
`e
`
`an oxide layer whichis in contact with the nanostructure body (Figure 1, #50 & Paragraph
`
`0033-0034);
`
`e
`
`e
`
`a layer whichis in contact with the oxide layer (Figure 1, #60 & Paragraph 0036);
`
`ann-type semiconductor whichis in Schottky contact with the layer (Figure 1, #70 &
`
`Paragraph 0050 — TiO).
`
`Hoangetal. discloses that the layer in contact with the oxide layer can comprise a metal such as
`
`Au, Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd and be in the form of a compound material (Paragraph 0036), thus reading on
`
`an alloy layer comprised of first and second metals that have different work functions from each other
`
`(Paragraph 0031).
`
`Alternatively, Hoangetal. discloses that the nanostructure body and the layer in contact with
`
`the oxide layer can comprise a metal such as Au,Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd and bein the form of a compound
`
`material (Paragraph 0036), thus reading on an alloy layer comprised of first and second metals that have
`
`different work functions from each other (Paragraph 0031). Hoangetal. discloses that the plasmon
`
`resonance wavelength can be controlled by the type of the plasmonic material (Paragraph 0032).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art it would have been obvious for
`
`the layer to be an “alloy layer” comprising a compound ofat least a first and second metal selected from
`
`Au, Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd that have different work functions from each other as disclosed by Hoangetal.
`
`because on of ordinaryskill in the art would recognize that Hoangetal. discloses a finite numberof
`
`identified predictable solutions for a compound layer, and that there is a design need in that the
`
`plasmon resonance wavelength can be controlled by the type of the plasmonic material. One of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 5
`
`ordinary skill in the art would arrive at an alloy layer comprised offirst and second metals that have
`
`different work functions from each other with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. I. E.
`
`Alternatively, Hoangetal. discloses that the nanostructure body and the layer in contact with
`
`the oxide layer can comprise a metal such as Au,Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd and bein the form of a compound
`
`material (Paragraph 0036), thus reading on an alloy layer comprised of first and second metals that have
`
`different work functions from each other (Paragraph 0031). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP
`
`2144.07, it would be obvious to arrive at an alloy comprising first and second metals with different work
`
`functions from each other becausethe selection of a known material based on its suitability for its
`
`intended use supports a determination of prima facie obviousness.
`
`In view of Claim 2, Hoangetal. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim 1.
`
`Hoanget al. teaches that the nanostructure body can comprise materials with different work functions
`
`than the alloy layer such as ZnO (Paragraph 0031). Hoang et al. teaches above why it would be obvious
`
`to have an alloy layer comprising a compound ofat least a first and second metal selected from Au, Ag,
`
`Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd. Accordingly, an alloy layer comprising at least a first and second metal selected from
`
`Ag and Al would arrive at an alloy layer with a lower work function that a ZnO nanostructure body.
`
`In view of Claim 3, Hoangetal. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim 1.
`
`Hoanget al. teaches that the nanostructure body can comprise at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of the first metal alone, an intermetallic compound containing the first metal and the second
`
`metal, a solid-solution alloy containing the first metal and the second metal, conductive oxides, and
`
`metal nitrides (Paragraph 0031).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 6
`
`In view of Claim 4, Hoangetal. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim 1.
`
`Hoanget al. teaches that the nanostructure body can comprise at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of the first metal alone, an intermetallic compound containing the first metal and the second
`
`metal, a solid-solution alloy containing the first metal and the second metal (Paragraph 0031). Hoang et
`
`al. was relied upon to disclose whyit would be anticipated or obvious for the first and second metals to
`
`have different work functions and therefore one would be lower than the other.
`
`In view of Claim 7, Hoang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim 1.
`
`Hoanget al. teaches why it would be obvious to arrive at a first metal selected from Au,Ag, Cu, Pd or Al
`
`and to arrive at a second metal selected from Ag,Cu,Al.
`
`In view of Claim 8, Hoangetal. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim 1.
`
`Hoanget al. teaches that the n-type semiconductor is an inorganic semiconductor (Figure 1, #70 &
`
`Paragraph 0050 — TiO).
`
`In view of Claim 9, Hoangetal. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1.
`
`Hoangetal. teaches that the nanostructure body has a comb-shapedstructure (Figure 1, #40a/b).
`
`In view of Claim 10, Hoanget al. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim
`
`1. Hoanget al. teaches that the nanostructure body includes at least one nanoparticle, and a particle
`
`diameterof the least one nanoparticle is 1 nm to 100 nm (Paragraph 0040).
`
`In regards to the limitation that, “the at least one nanoparticle is greater than or equal to 1 nm
`
`and less than or equal to 200 nm”, the Examiner directs Applicant to MPEP 2144.05 |.
`
`In the case where
`
`the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 7
`
`obviousness exists. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
`
`selected the overlapping ranged disclosed by Hoanget al. because selection of the overlapping portion
`
`or ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`In view of Claim 16, Hoanget al. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim
`
`10. Applicant discloses that a light source that emits light having an energy which is lower than or equal
`
`to a band gap energy of the n-type semiconductor and which corresponds to a surface plasmon
`
`resonance wavelengthof the at least one nanoparticle corresponds to a xenon lamp (Instant
`
`Specification — Paragraph 0079). Hoangetal. discloses the light source is a xenon lamp (Paragraph
`
`0052).
`
`Hoanget al. teaches the same structure for an optical device as recited, and thereforeit will,
`
`inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a light source that emits light having an
`
`energy which is lower than or equal to a band gap energyof the n-type semiconductor and which
`
`corresponds to a surface plasmon resonance wavelength of the at least one nanoparticle”. See MPEP
`
`2112.01 I.
`
`In view of Claim 18, Hoanget al. is relied upon for the reasons given abovein addressing Claim
`
`10. Hoangetal. discloses that the n-type semiconductor includes TiO2 (Paragraph 0050) and that a
`
`surface plasmon resonance wavelength of the at least one nanoparticle is greater than or equal to 400
`
`nm (Figure 5-14 — Wavelengths A).
`
`In view of Claim 19, Hoang et al. teaches a photoelectric converter comprising an optical device
`
`(Figure 4 & Paragraph 0050) comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 8
`
`e
`
`ananostructure body which induces surface plasmon resonance when irradiated with light
`
`(Figure 4, #40 - Paragraph 0028 & 0031);
`
`e
`
`an oxide layer whichis in contact with the nanostructure body (Figure 4, #50 & Paragraph
`
`0033-0034);
`
`e
`
`e
`
`a layer whichis in contact with the oxide layer (Figure 4, #60 & Paragraph 0036);
`
`ann-type semiconductor whichis in Schottky contact with the layer (Figure 4, #70 &
`
`Paragraph 0050 — TiQ2);
`
`e
`
`anelectrode and a conductor that electrically connects the electrode and the nanostructure
`
`body(Figure 4, #31-#32 & Paragraph 0044)
`
`Hoangetal. discloses that the layer in contact with the oxide layer can comprise a metal such as
`
`Au, Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd and be in the form of a compound material (Paragraph 0036), thus reading on
`
`an alloy layer comprised of first and second metals that have different work functions from each other
`
`(Paragraph 0031).
`
`Alternatively, Hoangetal. discloses that the nanostructure body and the layer in contact with
`
`the oxide layer can comprise a metal such as Au,Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd and bein the form of a compound
`
`material (Paragraph 0036), thus reading on an alloy layer comprised of first and second metals that have
`
`different work functions from each other (Paragraph 0031). Hoangetal. discloses that the plasmon
`
`resonance wavelength can be controlled by the type of the plasmonic material (Paragraph 0032).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art it would have been obvious for
`
`the layer to be an “alloy layer” comprising a compound ofat least a first and second metal selected from
`
`Au, Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd that have different work functions from each other as disclosed by Hoangetal.
`
`because on of ordinaryskill in the art would recognize that Hoangetal. discloses a finite numberof
`
`identified predictable solutions for a compound layer, and that there is a design need in that the
`
`plasmon resonance wavelength can be controlled by the type of the plasmonic material. One of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 9
`
`ordinary skill in the art would arrive at an alloy layer comprised offirst and second metals that have
`
`different work functions from each other with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143. I. E.
`
`Alternatively, Hoangetal. discloses that the nanostructure body and the layer in contact with
`
`the oxide layer can comprise a metal such as Au,Ag, Al, Cu, Pt, and Pd and bein the form of a compound
`
`material (Paragraph 0036), thus reading on an alloy layer comprised of first and second metals that have
`
`different work functions from each other (Paragraph 0031). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP
`
`2144.07, it would be obvious to arrive at an alloy comprising first and second metals with different work
`
`functions from each other becausethe selection of a known material based on its suitability for its
`
`intended use supports a determination of prima facie obviousness.
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
`
`basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a
`
`prior Office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 10
`
`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 contentsofthe 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.
`
`Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Souzaet al. (US 2012/0285517 A1) in view of Wuet al. (US 2015/0034160 A1).
`
`In view of Claim 1, Souza et al. teaches an optical device (Figure 8 & Paragraph 0031)
`
`comprising:
`
`e
`
`an oxide layer (Figure 8-9, passivating oxide & Paragraph 0050);
`
`=
`
`the passivating oxide layer can be presentin Figure 8 as it is disclosed the solar cell
`
`can include a surface passivation layer
`
`e=analloy layer which comprises an alloy containing a first metal and a second metal that are
`
`different in work function from each other (Figure 8, high Wf & Paragraph 0045 — high work
`
`function region can comprise mixtures of metals selected from the group consisting of
`
`nickel, platinum, nickel platinum, titanium, and tungsten);
`
`e
`
`ann-type semiconductor whichis in Schottky contact with the alloy layer (Figure 8, the
`
`substrate isn’t annotated but is located between the high and low work function regions);
`
`=
`
`the substrate is n-type Si (Figure 7 & 14-15 — Paragraph 0056).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 11
`
`Souzaet al. does not disclose that a nanostructure body which induces surface plasmon
`
`resonance when irradiated with light and an oxide layer which is in contact with the
`
`nanostructure body.
`
`Wuetal. discloses an optical device that comprises a nanostructure body (Figure 2, #14) that
`
`induces surface plasmon resonance (Paragraph 0027) when irradiated with light that is positioned
`
`directly below a transparent conducting oxide layer (Figure 2, #160 & Paragraph 0033). Wuet al.
`
`discloses that when a plasmon nanostructuredlayer is used in conjunction with a photovoltaic device
`
`that the resulting photovoltaic device has improved photovoltaic efficiency (Paragraph 0012).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`filed to incorporate the nanostructure body that induces surface plasmon resonance when irradiated
`
`with of Wu etal. in Souza et al. photoelectric converter such that the nanostructure bodyis
`
`“sandwiched” between the TCO and in contact with the oxide layer for the advantage of having a
`
`photovoltaic device with improved photovoltaic efficiency.
`
`In view of Claim 2, Souza et al. and Wuetal. are relied upon for the reasons given abovein
`
`addressing Claim 1. Souza et al. teaches that the alloy layer can comprise a first and second metal
`
`selected from titanium and tungsten (Paragraph 0045), which materials have a lower work function that
`
`the gold particles in Wuet al. nanostructure body (Paragraph 0030).
`
`In view of Claim 3, Souza et al. and Wuetal. are relied upon for the reasons given abovein
`
`addressing Claim 1. Wuet al. teaches that the nanostructure body can comprise platinum (Paragraph
`
`0030). Souza et al. discloses that the first metal may be selected from platinum (Paragraph 0045).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 12
`
`In view of Claim 8, Souza et al. and Wuetal. are relied upon for the reasons given abovein
`
`addressing Claim 1. Souza et al. teaches that the n-type semiconductor is an inorganic semiconductor
`
`(Paragraph 0056).
`
`In view of Claim 10, Souza et al. and Wuetal. are relied upon for the reasons given abovein
`
`addressing Claim 1. Wu et al. teaches that the nanostructure bodyincludes at least one nanoparticle
`
`with 5-250 nm diameter (Paragraph 0030).
`
`In view of Claim 17, Souza et al. and Wuetal. are relied upon for the reasons given abovein
`
`addressing Claim 1. Souza et al. teaches that the n-type semiconductor includessilicon (Paragraph
`
`0056). Wuetal. teaches that the nanoparticles can comprise a combination of gold and silver and have
`
`diameters in the range of 5-250 nm (Paragraph 0030). Applicant discloses that the nanoparticles can
`
`comprise gold and silver (Instant Specification - Paragraph 0033-0034) and has dimensions less than 200
`
`nm that enables plasmon absorption to be enhanced(Instant Specification - Paragraph 0037) and that
`
`the surface plasmon resonance wavelength of the allow particles is adjusted by particle diameter,
`
`shape, and structure of the nanoparticles (Instant Specification — Paragraph 0036).
`
`Wuet al. discloses the same nanostructure body as disclosed by Applicant. As evidenced by
`
`Applicant’s specification, Wu et al. nanoparticles would have a surface plasmon resonance wavelength
`
`of greater than or equal to 900 nm.
`
`In view of Claim 19, Souza et al. teaches a photoelectric converter comprising an optical device
`
`(Figure 8 & Paragraph 0031) comprising:
`
`e
`
`an oxide layer (Figure 8-9, passivating oxide & Paragraph 0050);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 13
`
`=
`
`the passivating oxide layer can be presentin Figure 8 as it is disclosed the solar cell
`
`can include a surface passivation layer
`
`e=analloy layer which comprises an alloy containing a first metal and a second metal that are
`
`different in work function from each other (Figure 8, high Wf & Paragraph 0045 — high work
`
`function region can comprise mixtures of metals selected from the group consisting of
`
`nickel, platinum, nickel platinum, titanium, and tungsten);
`
`e
`
`ann-type semiconductor whichis in Schottky contact with the alloy layer (Figure 8, the
`
`substrate isn’t annotated but is located between the high and low work function regions);
`
`=
`
`the substrate is n-type Si (Figure 7 & 14-15 — Paragraph 0056).
`
`an electrode (Figure 8, low Wf);
`
`aconductor that electrically connects the electrode (Figure 8, Contacting Grid);
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e wherein the n-type semiconductor has a first surface that is in contact with the allow layer
`
`and a second surface that is opposite to the first surface and the electrode is in contact with
`
`the second surface of the n-type semiconductor (See Annotated Souzaetal. Figure 8,
`
`below).
`
`AnnotatedSouzaetal. Figure 8
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 14
`
`Contacting gridoo —~ —
`
` hte,Phrnanne
`nanangat hy
` vageceeen.
`
`Thin silicide,
`4
`high WR ="
`
`
`
` aS
`
` Law Wisilicide
`
`Fig. 8
`
`Although Souzaetal. does disclose that a transparent conducting oxide covers the passivated
`
`surface (Paragraph 0060)its not disclosed that the optical device comprises a nanostructure body which
`
`induces surface plasmon resonance when irradiated with light and an oxide layer which is in contact
`
`with the nanostructure body.
`
`Wuetal. discloses an optical device that comprises a nanostructure body (Figure 2, #14) that
`
`induces surface plasmon resonance (Paragraph 0027) when irradiated with light that is positioned
`
`directly below a transparent conducting oxide layer (Figure 2, #160 & Paragraph 0033). Wuet al.
`
`discloses that when a plasmon nanostructuredlayer is used in conjunction with a photovoltaic device
`
`that the resulting photovoltaic device has improved photovoltaic efficiency (Paragraph 0012).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinaryskill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`filed to incorporate the nanostructure body that induces surface plasmon resonance when irradiated
`
`with of Wu etal. in Souza et al. photoelectric converter such that the nanostructure bodyis
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 15
`
`“sandwiched” between the TCO and in contact with the oxide layer for the advantage of having a
`
`photovoltaic device with improved photovoltaic efficiency.
`
`In view of Claim 20, Souza et al. and Wuetal. are relied upon for the reasons given abovein
`
`addressing Claim 19. The Examiner notes that the combination aboveresults in a transparent
`
`conductive film that covers the nanostructure body.
`
`Souza et al. discloses the transparent conductivefilm is not in physical contact with the n-type
`
`semiconductor (Figure 8-9 & Paragraph 0060 — thereis passivating oxide betweenthe layers), and the
`
`conductor electrically connects the electrode and the transparent conductive film (Paragraph 0002 — the
`
`device is generating power so all the conducting layers must be electrically connected).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone numberis (571)270-1638. The examiner
`
`can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
`
`Examiner interviewsare 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 T Barton can be reached on 571-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where
`
`this application or proceedingis 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/460,398
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 16
`
`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 aboutfiling 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.
`
`/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
`
`