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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 2nd, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous grounds for rejection in the Office Action dated May 2nd, 2025 has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane” and “wherein the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third pane within the interior insulating space separated from both the first glass pane and the second glass pane” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 20.
Therefore, the “integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane” and “wherein the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third glass pane that divides the interior insulating space into: a first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the first glass pane, and a second insulating space that is independent from the first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the glass pane” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 32.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 20, Applicant recites, “integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane” and “wherein the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third pane within the interior insulating space separated from both the first glass pane and the second glass pane”. Applicant has already limited the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module to be applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane in independent claim 15. This embodiment is represented by Applicant’s Figure 6, where the PV module 610 is applied to the first glass pane 605. The limitation recited in claim 20, which depends from claim 15, recites that the PV module is an independent third pane, wherein this embodiment is represented in Fig. 7 of Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant did not describe claim 20 in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 32, Applicant recites, “integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane” and “wherein the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third glass pane that divides the interior insulating space into: a first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the first glass pane, and a second insulating space that is independent from the first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the glass pane”. Applicant has already limited the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module to be applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane in independent claim 15. This embodiment is represented by Applicant’s Figure 6, where the PV module 610 is applied to the first glass pane 605. The limitations recited in claim 32, which depends from claim 15, recites that the PV module is an independent third pane, wherein this embodiment is represented in Fig. 7 of Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant did not describe claim 32 in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Appropriate action is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15, 18, 24-27, 33-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 15, Sun discloses an insulated glass unit (Fig. 1 – Page 2, Lines 16-43) comprising: a frame (Fig. 1, #6), a first glass pane (Fig. 1, #1) and a second glass pane (Fig. 1, #5) both secured within the frame (Fig. 1, #6), wherein the first glass pane, the second glass pane and the frame encloses a volume defining an interior insulating space (Page 1, Lines 32-38); and an integrated photovoltaic module (Fig. 1, #2) secured within the interior insulating space and the integrated photovoltaic module (Fig. 1, #2) is applied to an inner surface of the first glass pane (Fig. 1, #1 backside).
Sun does not disclose that the integrated photovoltaic module is a transparent organic photovoltaic module that comprises an organic semiconductor absorber layer; a first flexible glass sheet having a thickness of 200 microns or less; a second glass sheet; and a plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells deposited onto a substrate including the first flexible glass sheet and sealed between the first flexible glass sheet and the second glass sheet with a transparent adhesive, wherein the transparent adhesive is applied over an entirety of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells, and the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is configured to collect light through the first flexible glass sheet and to generate electrical current through photovoltaic conversion of a first percentage of the light having wavelengths outside of a spectrum defined by light visible toa human eye and to pass a second percentage of the light having wavelengths within the spectrum through the second glass sheet.
Janowski discloses an integrated photovoltaic module that is a transparent organic photovoltaic module that comprises an organic semiconductor absorber layer (Figs. 3-5, #216 & Paragraph 0047, 0138), a first glass sheet (Fig. 4, #208) a second glass sheet (Fig. 4, #206 – Paragraph 0137); and a plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells (Fig. 3-5, #216 – Paragraph 0138) deposited onto a substrate that includes the first glass sheet (Fig. 5, #216 are deposited onto #208), and sealed between the first glass sheet and second glass sheet (Fig. 4, #206 & #208 are sealed via #213 – Paragraph 0140), wherein the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is configured to collect light through the first glass sheet and to generate electrical current through photovoltaic conversion of a first percentage of the light having wavelength outside of a spectrum defined by light visible to a human eye and to pass a second percentage of light have wavelengths with the spectrum through the second glass sheet (Paragraph 0048, 0090). Janowski teaches that this advantageously blocks harmful non-visible light that can help protect individuals’ eyes (Paragraph 0090). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate an integrated photovoltaic module that is a transparent organic photovoltaic module that comprises an organic semiconductor absorber layer, a first glass sheet, a second glass sheet; and a plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells deposited onto a substrate that includes the first glass sheet, and sealed between the first glass sheet and second glass sheet for the advantage of protecting individuals eye when viewing out of the IGU of Sun.
Modified Sun does not teach that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module comprises: a first glass sheet comprising a first ultra-thin flexible glass material having a thickness of 200 micrometers or less and a second glass sheet.
Kang et al. discloses flexible glass sheets that are utilized in solar cells with thickness of 200 micrometers or less (Paragraph 0062) that can provide a barrier layer for thin film photovoltaics such as building integrated photovoltaic applications and provide improved impact protection for PV modules as well as acting as a moisture barrier and blocking undesired UV light (Paragraph 0126). Kang et al. discloses that the glass sheets may be used as encapsulants for organic solar cells (Paragraph 0115). Kang et al. discloses that a technique to improve the mechanical reliability of bare flexible glass is to laminate the flexible glass substrate with one or more thin film polymers and depending on the mechanical strength requirements and the expecting bending stresses and direction of the end application, according to the concepts disclosed herein, a flexible glass-polymer laminate substrate can be designed to meet mechanical requirements (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the flexible glass sheet with a thickness of 200 micrometers or less as disclosed by Kang et al. as the first and second glass sheet of modified Sun’s insulated glass unit for the advantages of having a barrier layer for thin film photovoltaics such as building integrated photovoltaic applications and provide improved impact protection for PV modules as well as acting as a moisture barrier and blocking undesired UV light and also improving the mechanical reliability of the glass structures.
Modified Sun does not disclose that a transparent adhesive is applied over an entirety of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells.
Yamanaka et al. discloses a transparent adhesive (Fig.1, #7 & Paragraph 0120 – sealing layer can be transparent) that is applied over an entirety of a plurality of electrically interconnected organic (Paragraph 0079) photovoltaic cells (Fig. 1 S1 & Paragraph 0120). Yamanaka et al. teaches that a transparent adhesive is advantageous for many reasons including: preventing water permeation into a solar cell, absorbing an impact of falling object or stress (impact) which affects the solar cell module and for absorbing flexures which affects the substrate when used over an extended period of time (Paragraph 0114). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the transparent adhesive of Yamanaka et al. to apply over an entirety of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells of Aoki et al. for the advantages of preventing water permeation into a solar cell, absorbing an impact of falling object or stress (impact) which affects the solar cell module and for absorbing flexures which affects the substrate when used over an extended period of time.
In view of Claim 16, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not teach is that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module comprises: a first second sheet comprising a second ultra-thin flexible glass material with a thickness of 200 micrometers or less
Kang et al. discloses flexible glass sheets that are utilized in solar cells with thickness of 200 micrometers or less (Paragraph 0062) that can provide a barrier layer for thin film photovoltaics such as building integrated photovoltaic applications and provide improved impact protection for PV modules as well as acting as a moisture barrier and blocking undesired UV light (Paragraph 0126). Kang et al. discloses that the glass sheets may be used as encapsulants for organic solar cells (Paragraph 0115). Kang et al. discloses that a technique to improve the mechanical reliability of bare flexible glass is to laminate the flexible glass substrate with one or more thin film polymers and depending on the mechanical strength requirements and the expecting bending stresses and direction of the end application, according to the concepts disclosed herein, a flexible glass-polymer laminate substrate can be designed to meet mechanical requirements (Paragraph 0005). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the flexible glass sheet with a thickness of 200 micrometers or less as disclosed by Kang et al. as the second glass sheet of Kim et al. insulated glass unit for the advantages of having a barrier layer for thin film photovoltaics such as building integrated photovoltaic applications and provide improved impact protection for PV modules as well as acting as a moisture barrier and blocking undesired UV light and also improving the mechanical reliability of the glass structures.
In view of Claim 18, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Yamanaka et al. teaches that the transparent adhesive is insulating (Paragraph 0114-0115).
In view of Claim 24, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Janowski was relied upon to disclose organic photovoltaic cells that are applied to a first glass sheet.
In view of Claim 25, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Janowski was relied upon to disclose that the second sheet is disposed over top of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells, while Kang et al. teaches that the substituted second glass sheet comprises one or more layered laminating foils (Paragraph 0114).
In view of Claim 26, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Kang et al. discloses that the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet comprise a laminated flexible glass material (Figure 1).
In view of Claim 27, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Janowski teaches that the transparent organic photovoltaic module comprises a plurality of transparent organic photovoltaic cells coupled by electrical interconnects (Figs. 6-9, & Paragraph 0040 & 0139).
In view of Claim 33, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Janowski teaches the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells and the second glass sheet define a volume therebetween (Paragraph 0137). Yamanaka et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to fill this volume with transparent adhesive (Paragraph 0120).
In view of Claim 34, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 33. Yamanaka et al. discloses that the transparent adhesive completely seals the volume between the series of solar cells S1 and the layer 8. It is the Examiner’s position that adopting this transparent adhesive in Janowski’s electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells would by hermetically sealed as it prevents water to permeate into a solar cell (Paragraph 0114).
In view of Claim 36, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Sun teaches that the first glass pane is an exterior-facing pane (Fig. 1, #1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, in further view of Avellan et al. (US 2014/0109949 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 17, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose the second sheet comprises a rigid glass sheet.
Avellan et al. discloses that known carrier substrates include inorganic glass and can depending on the respective layer thickness and the specific material properties be designed as rigid plates or flexible films and due to widely available carrier substrate a simple monolithic integration or large area arrangements of thin film solar cells can be produced cost-effectively (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a rigid glass sheet as the second sheet of Kim et al. because it is a known material that is widely available and use for large area arrangements of thin film solar cells that can be produced cost effectively.
Claims 20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, in further view of Yoda et al. (US 2004/0182432 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 20, as best understood by the Examiner, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third pane within the interior insulating space separated from both the first glass pane and the second glass pane.
Yoda discloses a PV module that defines an independent third pane w/I an interior insulating space (Fig. 2, #20 & Paragraph 0052), separated from both a first and second glass pane (Fig. 2, #11-#12 & Paragraph 0053). Yoda et al. discloses that this configuration provides excellent sound and heat insulation and has enhanced strength and anti-weatherability (Paragraph 0017). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt this configuration in modified Sun’s IGU such that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third pane within the interior insulating space separated from both the first glass pane and the second glass pane for the advantage of utilizing a configuration that provides excellent sound and heat insulation and has enhanced strength and anti-weatherability.
In view of Claim 32, as best understood by the Examiner, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third pane that divides the interior insulating space into a first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the first glass pane, and a second insulating space that is independent from the first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the second glass pane.
Yoda discloses a PV module that defines an independent third pane w/I an interior insulating space (Fig. 2, #20 & Paragraph 0052), separated from both a first and second glass pane (Fig. 2, #11-#12 & Paragraph 0053) and divides the interior insulating space into a first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the first glass pane, and a second insulating space that is independent from the first insulating space between the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module and the second glass pane (Fig. 2, #14 top and #14 bottom). Yoda et al. discloses that this configuration provides excellent sound and heat insulation and has enhanced strength and anti-weatherability (Paragraph 0017). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt this configuration in modified Sun’s IGU such that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module defines an independent third pane within the interior insulating space separated from both the first glass pane and the second glass pane for the advantage of utilizing a configuration that provides excellent sound and heat insulation and has enhanced strength and anti-weatherability.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, in further view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0003038 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 21, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is electrically coupled to at least one electronic device external to the frame.
Kim et al. teaches that the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is electrically coupled to at least one electronics device external to the frame (Figure 1, #130). Kim et al. discloses that this allows electrical power to be stored by PV modules while allowing received electrical power to providing lighting to a window frame (Paragraph 0036). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the integrated transparent organic photovoltaic module is electrically coupled to at least one electronic device external to the frame in modified Sun’s insulated glass unit for the advantages of providing a configuration that can allow electrical power to be stored by PV modules while allowing received electrical power to providing lighting to the window frame.
Claims 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, in further view of Aoki (US 2015/0380670 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claims 22 & 30, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose each of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells includes at least one transparent contact layer that includes a transparent conducting oxide.
Aoki teaches an integrated transparent organic (Abstract) photovoltaic module (Figure 24B & Paragraph 0230) comprises a plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells (Figure 24 & Paragraph 0231) deposited onto a substrate (Figure 24B, #10) that are configured to generate electrical current from at least some light outside of the visible light spectrum and to pass at least some visible light (Paragraph 0184). Aoki teaches that each of the electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells comprise a TCO layer (Paragraph 0390). Aoki et al. teaches that these devices advantageously have enhanced photoelectric conversion efficiency (Paragraph 0004). Aoki teaches that this configuration avoids damage to organic layers of a solar cell (Paragraph 0187) and avoids use of dangerous chemicals while also being weight saving (Paragraph 0196). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to ensure each of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells includes at least one transparent contact layer that includes a transparent conducting oxide as disclosed by Aoki in modified Sun’s insulated glass unit for the advantage of having a device with enhanced efficiency for the advantages of avoiding damage to the organic layers of the solar cell, avoiding the use of dangerous chemicals, and reducing the weight of a PV module.
Claims 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, in further view of in view of Conklin et al. (US 2014/0198371 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claims 24 and 29, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose that each of the organic photovoltaic cells of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells includes: a first transparent contact layer including a first transparent conducting oxide applied to the first flexible glass sheet; a first transparent charge collection layer interfacing with the first transparent contact layer; a second transparent contact layer including a second transparent conducting oxide; and a second charge collection layer interfacing with the second transparent contact layer, wherein the organic semiconductor absorber layer is positioned between the first transparent charge collection layer and the second charge collection layer.
Conklin et al. discloses organic photovoltaic cells of a plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells includes: a first transparent contact layer including a first transparent conducting oxide applied to the first glass sheet; a first transparent charge collection layer interfacing with the first transparent contact layer; a second transparent contact layer including a second transparent conducting oxide; and a second charge collection layer interfacing with the second transparent contact layer, wherein the organic semiconductor absorber layer is positioned between the first transparent charge collection layer and the second charge collection layer (Fig. 2, & Paragraph 0030). Conklin et al. teaches that this configuration of stacked contact layers facilitates charge selectivity in order to maximize open-circuit voltage and short circuit current from organic PV cells (Paragraph 0030). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Conklin’s stacked contact layers to sandwich modified Sun’s organic semiconductor absorber layer such that each of the organic photovoltaic cells of the plurality of electrically interconnected organic photovoltaic cells includes: a first transparent contact layer including a first transparent conducting oxide applied to the first flexible glass sheet; a first transparent charge collection layer interfacing with the first transparent contact layer; a second transparent contact layer including a second transparent conducting oxide; and a second charge collection layer interfacing with the second transparent contact layer, wherein the organic semiconductor absorber layer is positioned between the first transparent charge collection layer and the second charge collection layer for the advantages of facilitating charge selectivity in order to maximize open-circuit voltage and short circuit current from organic PV cells.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (CN-102587792-A) in view of Janowski (US 2017/0170776 A1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2015/0258750 A1) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2010/0071743 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, in further view of Salzman et al. (US 2007/0087449 A1). Sun is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 35, Sun, Janowski, Kang et al., and Yamanaka et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Modified Sun does not disclose that the organic semiconductor absorber layer is a bilayer organic semiconductor absorber layer, the bilayer organic semiconductor layer includes a first layer of electron acceptor material and a second layer of electron donor material and the second layer is distinct from the first layer, instead, Aoki discloses that the organic semiconductor absorber layer is a bulk heterojunction device
Salzman et al. discloses an organic (Paragraph 0077) semiconductor absorber layer is a bilayer organic semiconductor absorber layer (Fig. 3, #152/#154 - Paragraph 0028, 0051) that includes a first layer of electron acceptor material, and a second layer of electron donor material and the second layer is distinct from the first layer (Paragraph 0011-0013). Salzman et al. discloses that the example structures in their experiments were donor-acceptor bilayer heterojunctions and the improvement in performance to a bilayer device is directly applicable to bulk heterojunction devices, as the basic principles of operation are the same, and based upon past experience with mixed donor-acceptor heterojunction and Schottky devices, the improvements in mobility and absorption efficiency achieved through material purification are expected to result in performance improvements in mixed heterojunction and Schottky devices, relative to the performance of such architectures without purification (Paragraph 0095). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt the configuration of Salzman et al. organic semiconductor absorber layer as modified Sun’s organic semiconductor absorber layer such that the bilayer organic semiconductor layer includes a first layer of electron acceptor material and a second layer of electron donor material and the second layer is distinct from the first layer because donor-acceptor bilayer heterojunctions and the improvement in performance to a bilayer device is directly applicable to bulk heterojunction devices, as the basic principles of operation are the same, and based upon past experience with mixed donor-acceptor heterojunction and Schottky devices, the improvements in mobility and absorption efficiency achieved through material purification are expected to result in performance improvements in mixed heterojunction and Schottky devices, relative to the performance of such architectures without purification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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 T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726