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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 7/22/2025. Claim 2 is amended. Claims 25-26 are newly added. Currently, claims 2, 4-5, 11-12, 14-15, and 23-26 are pending in the application.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is modified to address the above amendment.
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 25-26 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.
As newly added, claim 25 recites “when the thickness of each ETL is about 100nm, the module displays a PCE of about 9.5%” in lines 5-6. Applicant does not disclose such limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Applicant discloses when the thickness of the TiO2 film is 100nm, the PCE is 9.42% (see table 1 of Applicant’s disclosure). 9.42% is close to 9.4% and not close enough to be considered as about 9.5%.
As newly added, claim 26 recites “when the thickness of each ETL is about 100nm, the module displays a FF of about 0.45” in line 5. Applicant discloses when the thickness of the TIO2 is 100nm the FF is 0.465 (see table 1 of Applicant’s disclosure), which is not even close to be considered as “about 0.45”.
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 2, 4-5, 11-12, 14-15 and 23-26 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.
As amended, claim 2 recites “the second thickness is the same in each of the at least four cells and is selected from 10nm, 45nm, and 100nm” in lines 12-13; and also recites “the module is configured such that its power conversion efficiency (PCE) and its fill factor (FF) both decrease as the thickness of the second thickness increases” in lines 14-15. It is unclear what is being claimed, since the former recitation is directed to selecting one single thickness for module, while the later recitation is directed to the configuration of all three thicknesses being selected in the module. It is noted that a module with a (or a single) second thickness cannot be configured to have a characteristic of all three second thicknesses.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, 14-15 and 23-26 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action, the recitation “the module is configured such that its power conversion efficiency (PCE) and its fill factor (FF) both decrease as the thickness of the second thickness increases”, and more specifically “power conversion efficiency” and “fill factor”, are construed as the property/characteristic of the claimed solar cell module.
As newly added, claims 25-26 recite the term “about”. The term “about” in claims 25-26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 11-12, 14, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oooka et al. (US 2016/0276611) in view of Snaith et al. (WO 2013/171518).
Regarding claim 2, Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module (or the photoelectric conversion device 1, fig. 1) comprising
a substrate (2, fig. 1, [0016]) having a first surface;
a plurality of cells of a cell/ first cell and an adjacent cell/second cell (see photoelectric conversion parts 3B and 3A, or 3C and 3B, [0016]); each cell comprises:
a first contact layer (4, figs. 1-2) comprising a fluorine-doped tin oxide or FTO ([0019]), positioned on the substrate (2), having a second surface (or top surface) and a first thickness ([0020]);
a photoelectric conversion layer (5, figs. 1-2) comprising an electron transfer layer (see first intermediate layer 52 in fig. 2, [0029]) made of titanium oxide and having a second thickness of more preferably not less than 0.1nm nor more than 50 nm ([0029]), an active layer (51, fig. 2) comprising perovskite ([0028]) and having a third thickness (see fig. 2 and [0029]), and a hole transfer layer (see second intermediate layer 53, [0030]) having a fourth thickness ([0030]); and
a second contact layer (see counter electrode 6, figs. 1-2) constructed of a conductive material such as gold, silver, copper, aluminum, nickel, chromium, carbon nanotube, graphene or transparent conductive oxide (see [0031]);
a first gap (11, see figs. 1 and 3B) filled with the conductive material (or the material of the counter electrode 6a, 6b, see figs. 1 and 3C), wherein the first gap (11) passes through the thickness of the photoelectric conversion layer (5) which includes the second thickness (of layer 52), the third thickness (of layer 51) and the fourth thickness (of layer 53, see fig. 2) and terminate at the second surface (or the top surface of the first contact layer 4, see figs. 1 and 3A-C);
a second gap (see gap separating the first contact layer 4 in figs. 1 and 3C) filled with the material of the photoelectric conversion layer (5) that is in contact with the first contact layer (4, see figs. 1-2 and 3C), wherein the second gap passes through the first thickness (of the first contact layer 4) to terminate at the first surface (of the substrate 2, see figs. 1 and 3A-3C); and
an interconnect (see connection parts 13, fig. 1) consisting of a first gap (11, figs. 1 and 3B) filled the third material (or the material of counter electrode 6, see fig. 1) to electrically connect a cell (or the first cell 3B or 3C) and the adjacent cell (or the second cell 3A or 3B, respectively) by electrically connecting the first contact layer (4B) of the first cell with the second contact layer (6) of the second cell (see fig. 1).
Oooka et al. teaches the material of the photoelectric conversion layer (5) that is in contact with the first contact layer (4) is the electron transfer layer (52) comprising the titanium oxide (see fig. 2, [0029]) that fills in the second gap (or separation of first contact layer 4, see figs. 4B-4D, 6). In other words, Oooka et al. discloses the second gap filled with titanium oxide (or the material of layer 52 of the photoelectric conversion layer 5 that is in contact with the first contact layer 4), and electrically connecting the first cell and the second cell in series by the interconnect (13) comprising a first gap (11) filled with the fourth material (of the second contact layer 6), the titanium oxide (or the material of layer 52 of the photoelectric conversion layer 5, that is in contact with the first contact layer 4), the first contact layer (4) of the second cell (e.g. 3B), and the second contact layer (6) of the first cell (e.g. 3A).
Oooka et al. shows a portion of solar cell module with three (3) cells (or photoelectric conversion parts 3 of 3A, 3B, 3C) cells in fig. 1, and teaches the solar cell module (or the photoelectric conversion device 1, fig. 1) has four or more photoelectric conversion parts (3, see the last sentence of [0038]).
Ooka et al. does not explicit shows an entire solar cell module (or photoelectric conversion device 1) having at least four (4) cells (or photoelectric conversion parts 3) in fig. 1. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the solar cell module (or the photoelectric conversion device 1) in fig. 1 of Ooka et al. to have at least four cell (or the photoelectric conversion parts 3), because Ooka et al. explicitly teaches the solar cell module (or the photoelectric conversion device 1, fig. 1) having four or more cells (or photoelectric conversion parts 3, see the last sentence of [0038]).
Oooka et al. also teaches an exemplary perovskite being formed by a mixture of methylammonium halide and lead halide ([0028]). Oooka et al. does not explicitly disclose the titanium oxide, that is in contact with the first contact layer (4), is a compact TiO2 (or titanium oxide having a formula TiO2); nor do they teach the perovskite formed by a mixture of methylammonium halide and lead halide having MAxFA1-xPbI3 where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1.
Snaith et al. discloses an electron transfer layer comprising compact TiO2 (see Compact TiO2 in Figure 1) that is in contact with the first contact layer (FTO, see Figure 1). Snaith et al. teaches using compact TiO2 is typical in the art (see paragraph 6th & 7th of page 29) and known as highly efficient semiconducting photoelectrodes in the art (see “4. Deposition of the compact TiO2 layer” in page 58) to assure selective collection of electrons at the anode (see the last paragraph in page 62); wherein the compact layer has a thickness from 20nm to 200nm and typically a thickness of about 100nm (see page 29, paragraphs 6-7). Snaith et al. also teaches CH3NH3PbI3 is formed by mixing methylammonium iodide and lead iodide (see the fifth perovskite in the table in page 52). It is noted that CH3NH3PbI3 is the perovskite having formula MAxFA1-xPbI3 as claimed with x=1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used compact TiO2 as taught by Snaith et al. as the titanium oxide for the electron transfer layer (52) of Oooka et al.; because Oooka et al. explicitly suggests using titanium oxide and compact TiO2 is a titanium oxide, and Snaith et al. teaches using compact TiO2 is typical and known as highly efficient semiconducting photoelectrodes in the art to assure selective collection of electrons at the anode. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known materials for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07). In such modification, the second gap is filled with the compact TiO2 (or the material of layer 52 of photoelectric conversion layer 5 that is in contact with the first contact layer 4), and the first and second cells are electrically connected in series by the first interconnect, the second gap filled with the compact TiO2, the first contact layer (of the second cell) and the second contact layer (of the first cell). In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to have used the perovskite having the formula CH3NH3PbI3 which is formed by mixing methylammonium iodide and lead iodide as taught by Snaith et al., because Oooka et al. explicitly suggests using the perovskite that is formed from mixing methylammonium halide and lead halide. CH3NH3PbI3 is the perovskite having formula MAxFA1-xPbI3 with x=1.
Oooka et al. discloses the thickness of the electron transfer layer (52) comprising the titanium oxide to have a thickness more preferably not less than 0.1nm nor more than 50 nm ([0029] of Oooka et al.); and Snaith et al. discloses the thickness of the compact TiO2 is 20nm-200nm, and typically about 100nm (see page 29, paragraphs 6 and 7 of Snaith et al.).
Modified Oooka et al. does not explicitly disclose selecting the second thickness to be 10nm, 45nm or 100nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 10nm and 45nm in the preferable range of not less than 0.1nm nor more than 50nm disclosed by Oooka et al. or 100nm as exemplified by Snaith et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 and Snaith et al. teaches 100nm is typically used in the art.
Modified Oooka et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed solar cell module and the materials being used for the solar cell module as set forth above. The solar cell module of modified Oooka et al. will display the characteristics/properties of power conversion efficiency (PCE) and fill factor both decrease as the thickness of the second thickness increases. See MPEP 2112. Furthermore, as the second thickness increases, the performance of the solar cell module such as power conversion efficiency and fill factor are expected to be decreased; because the larger thickness allows less light passing through so that less light being absorbed by the photoactive layer (e.g. perovskite) compared to smaller thickness, and the charges take longer to cross the larger thickness.
Regarding claim 11, modified Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Snaith et al. discloses the ETL further comprises a mesoporous layer (Al2O3, fig. 1, page 57), and the compact layer (TiO2) is positioned between the mesoporous layer (Al2O3) and the first contact layer (FTO, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Oooka et al. solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Oooka et al. discloses the second material (or the hole transfer material/p-type semiconductor) to be organic (see [0024]), which corresponds to the claimed “any suitable organic material”. Snaith et al. discloses the second material (or the hole transporter material) comprises at least one of spiro-OMeTAD, CuSCN, Cul (see fig. 1, pages 23-24)
Regarding claim 14, modified Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Oooka et al. discloses the second contact layer (6) has a thickness preferably not less than 1nm nor more than 1m ([0032]), which is right within the claimed range of between about 1nm and about 1m. Snaith et al. also discloses the second contact layer (e.g. Ag cathode) having a thickness of 150nm (see fig. 1), which is right within the claimed range of between..
Regarding claim 23, modified Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 12 above, wherein Snaith et al. discloses the second material (or the hole transfer material) is spiro-OMeTAD (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 13 above, wherein Oooka et al. discloses the conductive material (or the material of the second contact layer 6) is copper (see [0031]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Oooka et al. discloses all the structural limitations as claimed in claim 2 above, wherein the second thickness is selected to be 10nm, 45nm, or 100nm (see claim 2 above). As such, the solar cell module of modified Oooka et al. will display the property/characteristic of having a PCE of about 15%, 13% or 9.5% when the thickness of the electron transport layer is 10nm, 45nm or 100nm, respectively. Same structure will display the same property/characteristic as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 26, modified Oooka et al. discloses all the structural limitations as claimed in claim 2 above, wherein the second thickness is selected to be 10nm, 45nm, or 100nm (see claim 2 above). As such, the solar cell module of modified Oooka et al. will display the property/characteristic of a fill factor (FF) of about 0.72, 0.64 or 9.5% when the thickness of the electron transport layer is 10nm, 45nm or 100nm, respectively. Same structure will display the same property/characteristic as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Oooka et al. (US 2016/0276611) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Reid et al. (WO 2015/092433).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Oooka et al. discloses including a third gap separating the second contact (e.g. 6A) of the first cell (e.g. 3A) from the second contact (e.g. 6B) of the second cell (e.g. 3B, see fig. 1)
Oooka et al. shows the third gap terminates at the second surface (or the top surface) of the photoelectric conversion layer 5) in fig. does not disclose a third gap passing through photoelectric conversion element comprising the fourth thickness (of the hole transporting layer 53), the third thickness (of the perovskite layer 51) and substantially through the second thickness (of the electron transfer layer 52) to terminate at the second surface (or the top surface of the first contact layer 4).
Reid et al. discloses a third gap (148) separating the second contact layers (134) of the cells (e.g. cell having photoactive region 133a and cell having photoactive region 133b) is configured to terminate at the top surface of the photoelectric conversion layer (133, see fig. 10) or extending through the photoelectric conversion layer (or the photoactive region 133) to terminate on the second surface (or the top surface) of the first contact layer (132, see figs. 11, 14, 17-19 ) to increase the electrical isolation between the second contact layers (or the second electrodes 134, see 2nd paragraph of page 18), wherein the photoelectric conversion layer (133 or 103) comprising a fourth thickness (of the hole transporting layer 108, fig. 2, pages 8-9), the third thickness (of the perovskite layer 109, fig. 2, pages 8-9) and the second thickness (of the electron transfer layer (106/107, fig. 2, pages 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the solar cell module of modified Oooka et al., by forming the third gap passing through the photoelectric conversion layer (5) including the fourth thickness, the third thickness and the second thickness to terminate at the second surface to increase the electrical isolation between the second contact layers as taught by Reid et al..
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Oooka et al. (2016/0276611) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Suezaki et al. (US 2006/0097259).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, modified Oooka et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above.
Modified Oooka et al. does not discloses including an insulating layer that is not electrically conductive, comprises an insulating material filling the third gap and positioned in physical contact with the second contact layer such that the second contact layer is positioned between the insulating layer and the HTL; nor do they teach the fourth material comprises a polymer.
Suezaki et al. teaches including an insulating layer of polymer (or sealing resin 6) filling in the third groove (22) and positioning in physical contact with the second contact layer (or back electrode 5) to electrically insulate the second contact layers (or back electrodes 5, see fig. 2, [0014], [0016]) and to enable adhesion of the protective layer (7) to the cell ([0047]), wherein the second contact layer (5) is positioned between the insulating layer (6) and the photovoltaic element (4, see fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the solar cell module of modified Oooka et al. by incorporating an insulating layer comprising a fourth material of polymer filling in the third groove and positioning on the second contact layer to electrically insulate the second contact layers (or back electrodes) and to enable adhesion of the protective layer to the cell as taught by Suezaki et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cites MPEP 2142 that the office bears the burden of establishing prima facie obviousness, and the prior art reference must teach or suggest all the claim limitation; In re Rouffet, that it is axiomatic that a claimed invention would not have been obvious solely because it is composed of elements that are all individually found in the prior art; In re Fritch that it is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or template to piece together the teaching of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious; MPEP 2143 citing In re Gordon and In re Ratti that if the modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious.
Applicant argues that Snaith teaches “Typically in the optoelectronic device of the invention, the compact layer comprises TiO2” and such description is for the device of Snaith and not that compact TiO2 is typically used in solar cells generically in the art. Applicant also argues Snaith uses the term “typically” throughout disclosure. Applicant then goes on and point to the term “typically” used in the description of forming dispersion in paragraph 37 of Snaith and concludes that such description does not mean everyone in the art uses 10% by weight of an electrolyte in water in every dispersion. Based on Applicant’s allegation that not everyone in the art would form the dispersion according to the description of Snaith using the term “typically”, Applicant concludes that combining Oooka with Snaith is an improper generalization, which is improper and disregard the requirement of analyzing the prior art as a whole.
Applicant then points to the description of porous TiO2 and Snaith perovskite infiltrated the pores as shown in figs. 1 and 3. Applicant then concludes that the porous TiO2 of Snaith is highly porous and the perovskite of Snaith does not exist as a simple solid layer, while Oooka does not disclose any porous layers at all, and therefore the combination of Oooka with Snaith would require a complete reconfiguration of Oooka’s ETL layer. Applicant then goes on and alleges the combination would ignore the entirety of Snaith’s disclosure and structure and would change the principle of operation of Oooka’s device, which is impermissible and there is no expectation of successful of combining the references.
The cited MPEP and case law are fully and carefully considered, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First of all, Snaith discloses on the very first paragraph that the disclosed optoelectronic device including photovoltaic devices such as solar cells (see “Field of the Invention”) and most of the optoelectronic devices being described are photovoltaic devices (see “Brief Description of the Figures” and the entire Detailed Description of Snaith). As such, Snaith is in the same field of Applicant’s and Oooka’s endeavor, e.g. solar cell or more specifically perovskite solar cell.
Secondly, Applicant explicitly describes the electron transport layer (230) includes a first compact layer and a mesoporous layer (see the last paragraph of page 12, and throughout Applicant’s specification). That is the optoelectronic device of perovskite solar cell described by Snaith is similar to Applicant’s disclosed perovskite solar cell.
Thirdly, Snaith explicitly shows the solar cell including the electron transport layer and the perovskite layer is a matter of fact a simple and solid layer (see fig. 9 of Snaith), which is similar to Applicant’s fig. 4A. Just because Snaith draws and presents more detail of the electron transport layer in a perovskite solar cell than Oooka and Applicant, that does not mean the reference to Snaith cannot be combined with Oooka.
Fourthly, Snaith explicitly uses the term “compact TiO2” (see fig. 1, page 29), the same term that being claimed and disclosed. Snaith is not relied upon to teach the porous TiO2 in correspondence to the claimed compact TiO2.
Fifthly, Snaith explicitly draws the thickness of the compact TiO2 to be 100nm (see fig. 1). In other words, Snaith explicitly exemplifies the thickness of the compact TiO2 to be 100 nm in the drawings, and teaches “usually, the compact layer has a thickness of from 20nm to 200nm, typically a thickness of about 100nm” (see paragraph 7th of page 29). Typically means “expected”, normal or average or usual (see the definition of typical from Britannica Dictionary below). Typical does not mean “everyone uses it” as argued by Applicant. From reading the description of Snaith, one skilled in the art would understand the term “typically” describing the thickness of the compact TiO2 layer in the solar cells means such thickness is typically (or expected, normal or average) known in the art, and does not imply that everyone uses it.
PNG
media_image1.png
695
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sixthly, Snaith cites Kavan, L and Grazel, M, which describes “Highly efficient semiconductor TiO2 photoelectrodes prepared by aerosol pyrolysis” in describing forming the compact layer of TiO2 by aerosol spray pyrolysis deposition to assure selective collection of electrons at the anode (see pages 58 and 62). As such, from reading the description of Snaith, one skilled in the art would understand that the compact layer of TiO2 is highly efficient semiconductor that would ensure selective collection of electrons at the anode. As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used compact TiO2 as taught by Snaith et al. as the titanium oxide for the electron transfer layer (52) of Oooka et al.; because Oooka et al. explicitly suggests using titanium oxide and compact TiO2 is a titanium oxide, and Snaith et al. teaches using compact TiO2 is typical and known as highly efficient semiconducting photoelectrodes in the art to assure selective collection of electrons at the anode. Such modification, or using electron transport layer comprising compact TiO2 taught by Snaith for an electron transport layer comprising TiO2 suggested by Oooka, would involve nothing more than use of known materials for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07). It is noted that TiO2 is the chemical symbol of titanium oxide, and compact TiO2 is still a titanium oxide. Furthermore, Oooka suggests using TiO2, and Snaith teaches using compact TiO2 for highly efficient semiconductor and to ensure selective collection of electrons at the anode. In other words, there are suggestions and motivation taught by the references to combine Oooka with Snaith.
Seventhly, Applicant has not provided any factually supported objective evidence that using an electron transport layer comprising a compact TiO2 in a solar cell as taught by Snaith would change the operation of an electron transport layer comprising titanium oxide (or TiO2 being written in words and not in chemical symbols) and the operation of the solar cell module of Oooka. It is well settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 on 5712721307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726