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 6/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 7, 41 are amended. Claims 13, 42, 46-47 are canceled. Claims 48-49 are newly added.
Previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 39, 41, 43 are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejections of claims 44-45 are maintained since the claims are not amended and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 depends on claim 13, which is canceled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 39, 41, 43 and 48-49 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 amended, claim 1 recites “transmission of 0% to 70% across a first wavelength range” in lines 13-16. Applicant points to paragraph [0013], figs. 1-B, 2B-2D, 5D, 6D, 7B and 23B. However, paragraph [0013], figs. 1-B, 2B-2D, 5D, 6D, 7B and 23B do not show such limitation. The transmission at peak 70% is nowhere to be found, and figs. 2B-2D shows the transmission of 0% to 70% for the entire range of spectrum of 0-1000nm. It is noted that wavelength with 0% transmission is not transmitting, but reflecting.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 39, 41, 43 and 48-49 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
As amended, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the outcoupling layer is further configured to reflect 10% to 60% of light in a second wavelength range different from first wavelength range” in lines 1-3, while claim 1 recites “transmission of 0% to 70% across a first wavelength range” in lines 13-16. Applicant has no support for the limitation in the originally filed disclosure. Applicant points to paragraph [0013], figs. 1-B, 2B-2D, 5D, 6D, 7B and 23B. However, paragraph [0013], figs. 1-B, 2B-2D, 5D, 6D, 7B and 23B do not show such limitations. The peak of 60% reflection is nowhere to be found. It is noted that 10% reflection means 90% transmission. On the contrary, figs. 2B-2D shows the wavelength range having a reflection of 10% to 60% is for the entire spectrum of 0-1000nm, which is the same wavelength range as the first wavelength range of transmission, or the first second wavelength range is not different from the first wavelength range.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 39, 41, 43 and 48-49 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 1 recites “the outcoupling layer is configured to shape the transmission by varying selective transmission of 0% to 70% across a first wavelength range” in lines 13-16. It is noted that wavelength having 0% transmission or low transmission is considered to be reflected 100% or highly reflected. The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined as it is unclear what percentage (%) is considered to be transmission and what percentage (%) is considered to be reflection.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 39, 41, 43 and 48-49 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
As amended, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recite “the outcoupling layer is further configured to reflect 10% to 60% of light in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range” in lines 1-3. It is noted that 10% reflection is low and considered to be transmissive. As such, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined as it is not clear what percents to considered to be transmission and what percentage is considered to be reflection.
Claim 3 is rejected on the same ground as claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 39-40, 42, 44 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wei et al. (“Angular and Wavelength Simultaneous Selection in Transparent OPVs Based on Near-Infrared Bragg Reflector and Antireflection Coating”) in view of Guichard et al. (WO 2012/018649), and further in view of and Yim et al. (US 2018/0013100).
Regarding claim 1, Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell (OPV), comprising:
an outcoupling layer (see near-infrared Bragg reflector in Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of alternating paired sublayers of high refractive index (titanium oxide - TiO2) and low refractive index (silicon oxide - SiO2) to transmit light in the visible wavelength range (see fig. 5a, page 6) and reflect near-infrared light (see figs. 1 and 5, page 6), or the coupling layer (Bragg-reflector) is an external layer configured to shape the transmission spectrum of light exiting the cell in the first wavelength range (or visible wavelength range) by vary selective transmission of 0% to 70% across a first wavelength in the visible region (see Fig. 3);
a first electrode (see bottom ITO – or the ITO adjacent to the Bragg reflector in Fig. 1);
a second electrode (see top ITO – or the ITO adjacent to the anti-reflection coating in Fig. 1);
an active layer (see absorbing layer of ClAlPc/C60 in Fig. 1) comprising at least one donor material (see ClAlPc in Fig. 1) and at least one acceptor material (see C60 in Fig. 1), positioned between the first electrode (e.g. bottom ITO) and the second electrode (e.g. top ITO).
Wei et al. draws the solar cell having the outcoupling layer (or the Bragg reflector) being arranged at the bottom and the antireflective layer on top side (or the typical light incident side) in fig. 1. Wei et al. does not draw the solar cell in a reverse order of arrangement such that the outcoupling layer is arranged on top side, the first electrode is positioned below the outcoupling layer, the active layer is positioned below the first electrode, and the second electrode positioned below the active layer as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell drawn by Wei et al., by rearranging (or flipping) the solar cell of Wei et al. to have the optical layer (or the Bragg reflector) on the top side such that the first electrode (or the ITO adjacent to the Bragg reflector) is positioned below the outcoupling layer, the active layer is positioned below the first electrode, and the second electrode (or the ITO adjacent to the anti-reflection layer) positioned below the active layer as claimed; because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Wei et al. teaches the outcoupling layer of one-dimensional grating reflector with three pairs of bilayer of high refractive index titanium oxide - TiO2 and low refractive index silicon oxide - SiO2), wherein the dielectric layer (e.g. TiO2 or SiO2) is adjusted and optimized between the range of maximum thickness of 450nm and the minimum thickness of 20nm (see “3. Theoretical Analysis” in page 4). Wei et al. does not explicitly exemplify the thickness of the dielectric layers (e.g. TiO2 or SiO2) such that the (total) thickness of the outcoupling layer is in a range of 100-300nm.
Guichard et al. discloses the thickness of an optical coupling layer/interlayer (110) having at thickness ranging from a few nanometers to multiple millimeters, or over about 150nm to permit optical structures such as one-dimensional design with 2 pairs of bilayer of high refractive index layer (132, fig. 13A) and low refractive index layer (130, fig. 13A) to be incorporated into the outcoupling layer (or optical layer) to guide light directly toward the solar cells to optimize absorption of a particular part of the solar spectrum (see [00144]). Guichard et al. also teaches the thickness of the outcoupling layer (or the optical layer 110) is a matter of design choice for tuning wavelength selective reflection and wavelength selective transmission (see [00145]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Wei et al. by adjusting the thickness of the dielectric layer (or the high refractive index layer TiO2 and the low refractive index layer SiO2) to form the outcoupling layer (or the optical layer of ) having a thickness over about 150nm to permit optical structure (e.g. one-dimensional design of high refractive index layer and low refractive index layer) as taught by Guichard et al.; because Wei et al. teaches adjusting and optimizing the thickness of the dielectric layer (e.g. high refractive index layer and low refractive index layer) between the range 20nm to 450nm, and Guichard et al. teaches using an outcoupling layer (or optical coupling layer) having such thickness (e.g. a thickness over about 150nm) would allow light being guided directly toward the solar cells to optimize absorption of a particular part of the solar spectrum by tuning the wavelength selective reflection and wavelength selective transmission. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of over about 150nm to 300nm of the range over about 150nm disclosed by Guichard 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.
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose using magnesium fluoride (MgF2) as the low refractive index material and carbazole derivative such as 4,4-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl (or CBP) as the high refractive
Yim et al. teaches silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride are equivalent materials having low refractive index, and titanium oxide and 4,4-dicarbazolyl-1,1’-biphenyl (CBP) are equivalent materials having high refractive index ([0011]).
Since the prior art of Yim et al. recognize the equivalency of silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride as the low refractive index materials, and titanium oxide and CBP as the high refractive index materials; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outcoupling layer of Wei et al. or modified Wei et al. by using magnesium fluoride and CBP taught by Yim et al. in place of silicon oxide (SiO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2) for the low refractive index material and high refractive index material, respectively, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent low refractive index material and high refractive index material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its 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).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Wei et al. discloses all the structural limitations as claimed in claim 1 above, therefore the photovoltaic cell of modified Wei et al. will display the characteristic/properties as claimed in the instant claims, reflecting 10% to 60% of light in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range, wherein the first wavelength range comprises visible light comprising wavelengths in the range of 380nm to 750nm, and the second wavelength range comprises near-infrared light comprising wavelengths in a range of 750nm to 1100nm. See MPEP 2112.
Furthermore, Wei et al. discloses the outcoupling layer is configured to reflect wavelength range near infrared light and transmit wavelength range in the visible light (see Figs. 1a and 3), wherein a transmission of wavelengths in the visible light in the range 400nm-750nm is 0-70% (see figs. 3 and 5) and the transmission of wavelengths in the visible light is 0-70%, and the reflection of near infrared light in the range of 750 -900nm is about 30% (see figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 39, modified Wei et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Wei et al. discloses an anti-reflective coating positioned over the second electrode (or the top ITO) such that the second electrode (or the top ITO) is positioned between the anti-reflective coating and the active layer (or the absorbing layer, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 42, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell (OPV) as in claim 1 above, wherein Wei et al. discloses the outcoupling layer (or near infrared Bragg reflector) is configured to transmit visible light and reflect or recycle near-infrared light back to the active layer (or the absorbing see the arrows in Fig. 1). Therefore, the coupling layer (or the near-infrared Bragg reflector) of Wei et al. is configured to improve or enhance transmission of visible light (see Fig. 5(a)), and to reflect or recycle near-infrared light for absorption within the active layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 44, Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell (OPV), comprising:
an optical layer (see near-infrared Bragg reflector in Fig. 1) of three pairs of bilayer (high refractive index titanium oxide - TiO2 and low refractive index silicon oxide - SiO2) to transmit light in the visible wavelength range (see fig. 5a, page 6) and reflect near-infrared light (see figs. 1 and 5, page 6), or the coupling layer (Bragg-reflector) is configured to shape the transmission spectrum of light exiting the cell in the first wavelength range (or visible wavelength range) by selective reflection of at least a portion of light in the second wavelength (or the near infrared light);
a first electrode (see bottom ITO – or the ITO adjacent to the Bragg reflector in Fig. 1);
a second electrode (see top ITO – or the ITO adjacent to the anti-reflection coating in Fig. 1);
an active layer (see absorbing layer of ClAlPc/C60 in Fig. 1) comprising at least one donor material (see ClAlPc in Fig. 1) and at least one acceptor material (see C60 in Fig. 1), positioned between the first electrode (e.g. bottom ITO) and the second electrode (e.g. top ITO).
Wei et al. teaches the optical layer of one-dimensional grating reflector with three pairs of bilayer of aperiodic sublayers of high refractive index titanium oxide - TiO2 and low refractive index silicon oxide - SiO2, wherein the thickness of the dielectric layer (e.g. TiO2 or SiO2) is adjusted and optimized between the range of maximum thickness of 450nm and the minimum thickness of 20nm (see “3. Theoretical Analysis” in page 4 and in page 6). Wei et al. does not explicitly exemplify the thickness of each sublayer (or dielectric layer TiO2 or SiO2) to be 10nm to 50nm, nor do they teach such the (total) thickness of the outcoupling layer is in a range of 100-300nm.
Guichard et al. discloses the thickness of an outcoupling layer (or optical outcoupling/interlayer 110) having at thickness ranging from a few nanometers to multiple millimeters, or over about 150nm to permit optical structures such as one-dimensional design with 2 pairs of bilayer of high refractive index layer (132, fig. 13A) and low refractive index layer (130, fig. 13A) to guide light directly toward the solar cells to optimize absorption of a particular part of the solar spectrum (see [00144]). Guichard et al. also teaches the thickness of the outcoupling layer (or the optical layer 110) is a matter of design choice for tuning wavelength selective reflection and wavelength selective transmission (see [00145]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Wei et al. by selecting the overlapping portion of 20-50nm in the disclosed range of 20-450nm taught by Wei et al. for the thickness of each sublayer, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the first two pairs of bilayer (or sublayers) adjacent to the first electrode as the outcoupling layer (or optical coupling) as taught by Guichard et al. such that the total thickness of the outcoupling layer is from 100-300nm (with the thickness of each sublayers to be 20-50nm), because Guichard et al. teaches the thickness of the outcoupling (or optical coupling layer) is a matter of design choice for tuning wavelength for selective reflection and selective transmission. In such modification, the layer of the first two pairs of bilayer adjacent to the electrode corresponds to the claimed outcoupling layer, the rest of the pairs of bilayers in modified Wei et al. corresponds to the distributed Bragg reflector.
Wei et al. draws the solar cell having the optical layer (or the outcoupling layer and the distributed Bragg reflector) being arranged at the bottom and the antireflective layer on top side (or the typical light incident side) in fig. 1. Wei et al. does not draw the solar cell in a reverse order of arrangement to have the optical layer of distributed Bragg reflector and the outcoupling layer is arranged on top side such that the outcoupling layer is positioned below the distributed Bragg layer, the first electrode is positioned below the outcoupling layer , the active layer is positioned below the first electrode, and the second electrode positioned below the active layer as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell drawn by Wei et al., by rearranging (or flipping) the solar cell of Wei et al. to have the optical layer on the top side such that the outcoupling layer (or the 2 pairs of bilayer adjacent to ITO electrode) is positioned below the distributed Bragg layer (or the rest of the pairs of bilayer), the first electrode (or ITO adjacent to the optical layer – near infrared Bragg reflector) is positioned below the outcoupling layer , the active layer is positioned below the first electrode, and the second electrode positioned below the active layer as claimed; because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 48, modified Wei et al. discloses all the structural limitations as in claim 1 above, wherein CBP (or carbazole derivative) and magnesium fluoride (or MgF2) or the same material as claimed and disclosed to be used in the outcoupling layer. Therefore, the outcoupling layer of modified Wei et al. will display the property/characteristic of the first and second sublayers of the alternating paired sublayers have a difference in a reflective index of 0.48 to 0.56 as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 49, modified Wei et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Wei et al. discloses the first wavelength range to be the visible light (see fig. 1a), and the visible light inherently includes violet light, blue light, green light, yellow light, orange light, and red light as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wei et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2003/0175557).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Wei et al. shows the antireflective coating is on top of the photovoltaic cell and the coupling layer at the bottom is for reflecting near infrared wavelength range (see Fig. 1). As such, the reflected near infrared wavelength range must be transmitted through the absorbing layer (or active layer) from the top.
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose a substrate positioned between the second electrode and the anti-reflective coating.
Anderson discloses a transparent substrate (6, figs. 1 and 5) provided with an antireflective film (A) such that the substrate (6) is positioned between the second electrode (or the top electrode) of the solar cell (9) and the antireflective layer (A, see fig. 5). Anderson teaches such substrate would carry the antireflective layer to increase the transmission through the substrate within a broad wavelength band, especially in the visible and infrared (see [0001] and [0008]) in order to increase the efficiency and optimize the transmission of solar energy through the substrate (or glass) in the wavelengths important for the solar cell ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Wei et al. by incorporating a substrate carrying the antireflective coating such that the substrate is positioned between the second electrode (or top electrode) and the antireflective coating as taught by Anderson; because Wei et al. explicitly teaches reflecting near infrared wavelength range which must be transmitted at the top of the photovoltaic cell, and Anderson teaches such substrate would carry the antireflective layer to increase the transmission through the substrate within a broad wavelength band, especially in the visible and infrared (see [0001] and [0008]) in order to increase the efficiency and optimize the transmission of solar energy through the substrate (or glass) in the wavelengths important for the solar cell ([0005]).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wei et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (“Ultrathin, Smooth, and Low-Loss Al-Doped Ag Film and Its Application as a transparent Electrode in Organic Photovoltaics”, Cite No. 18 of Other Documents in IDS 7/28/2021).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Wei et al. does not teach the first electrode (or bottom ITO) having a thickness of less than 15 nm and comprising two metals.
Zhang et al. discloses an ultrathin, smooth, and low-loss electrode comprising two metals, Al and Ag (see title), and having a thickness of 6, 7, 9 and 11 nm (Figures 2-3). Zhang et al. teaches such electrode has high transparency while retaining good electrical conductivity (see page 4, first paragraph of first column), simple deposition process, close to flatness, high transmittance, high conductivity, and easy device integration thereby enhancing the performance of the organic photovoltaic device (see page 5, paragraph bridging the first and second columns). 6, 7, 9 and 11 nm is right within the claimed range of less than 15nm.
It would have been obvious to on skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the organic photovoltaic cell of modified Wei et al. by using the electrode comprising two metals and having a thickness of 6, 7, 9 and 11 nm as taught by Zhang et al. for the first electrode, because Zhang et al. teaches such electrode has high transparency while retaining good electrical conductivity, simple deposition process, close to flatness, high transmittance, high conductivity, and easy device integration thereby enhancing the performance of the organic photovoltaic device.
Claims 13, 15 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wei et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yim et al. (US 2018/0013100)
Regarding claims 13 and 15, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Wei et al. discloses reflecting near-infrared wavelength range back to the active layer by using the outcoupling layer (or the near infrared reflector, see Fig. 1), wherein the outcoupling layer (or the near infrared reflector) comprises a plurality of sublayers of low refractive index SiO2 and high refractive index TiO2 (see fig. 1) having aperiodic thicknesses (D=(D2, D3, … D7); see Fig. 1, section “2. Structure” and last two paragraphs of “3. Theoretic Analysis”).
Modified Wei et al. does not teach the plurality of sublayers comprising alternating of low refractive index of first sublayer comprising metal compound such as magnesium fluoride (MgF2) and high refractive index of second sublayer comprising a carbazole derivative such as 4,4-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl (or CBP).
Yim et al. teaches silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride are equivalent materials having low refractive index, and titanium oxide and 4,4-dicarbazolyl-1,1’-biphenyl (CBP) are equivalent materials having high refractive index ([0011]).
Since the prior art of Yim et al. recognize the equivalency of silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride as the low refractive index materials, and titanium oxide and CBP as the high refractive index materials; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outcoupling layer of modified Wei et al. by using magnesium fluoride and CBP taught by Yim et al. in place of silicon oxide (SiO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2) for the low refractive index material and high refractive index material, respectively, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent low refractive index material and high refractive index material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its 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).
Regarding claim 41, Regarding claims 13 and 15, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Wei et al. discloses reflecting near-infrared wavelength range back to the active layer by using the outcoupling layer (or the near infrared reflector, see Fig. 1), wherein the outcoupling layer (or the near infrared reflector) comprises a plurality of sublayers of low refractive index SiO2 and high refractive index TiO2 (see fig. 1) having aperiodic thicknesses (D=(D2, D3, … D7); see Fig. 1, section “2. Structure” and last two paragraphs of “3. Theoretic Analysis”). teaches the thickness of each sublayer (or dielectric layer of TIO2 and SiO2) is adjusted and optimized in the range of [20nm, 450nm] (or maximum thickness of the layer is set to 450nm and the minimum thickness is set to 20nm, see “3. Theoretical Analysis” in page 4).
Modified Wei et al. does not teach the plurality of sublayers comprising alternating of low refractive index of first sublayer comprising metal compound such as magnesium fluoride (MgF2) and high refractive index of second sublayer comprising a carbazole derivative such as 4,4-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl (or CBP).
Yim et al. teaches silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride are equivalent materials having low refractive index, and titanium oxide and 4,4-dicarbazolyl-1,1’-biphenyl (CBP) are equivalent materials having high refractive index ([0011]).
Since the prior art of Yim et al. recognize the equivalency of silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride as the low refractive index materials, and titanium oxide and CBP as the high refractive index materials; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outcoupling layer of modified Wei et al. by using magnesium fluoride and CBP taught by Yim et al. in place of silicon oxide (SiO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2) for the low refractive index material and high refractive index material, respectively, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent low refractive index material and high refractive index material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its 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).
Wei et al. discloses selecting the thickness of the sublayer in the range of 20-450nm. Modified Wei et al. does not disclose the exact range of 10-50nm for the thickness of each sublayer.
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 20-50nm in the range 20-450nm disclosed by Wei 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wei et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“High Efficiency Near Infrared and Semitransparent Non-Fullerene Acceptor Organic Photovoltaic Cells”, Cite No. 6 of Other Documents in IDS 7/28/2021).
Regarding claim 18, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose the at least one acceptor material comprises a non-fullerene acceptor.
Li et al. discloses using non-fullerene acceptors (BT-CIC) would achieve high performance NIR solar cell at low cost (see abstract, conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Wei et al. by using a non-fullerene acceptor to achieve high performance NIR solar cell at low cost as taught by Li et al.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wei et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (“High Efficiency Near Infrared and Semitransparent Non-Fullerene Acceptor Organic Photovoltaic Cells”, Cite No. 6 of Other Documents in IDS 7/28/2021) and Gao et al. (“Design and synthesis of low band gap non-fullerene acceptors for organic solar cells with impressively high Jsc over 21 mA cm-2”), and further in view of Nielson (“Non-Fullerene Electron Acceptors for Use in Organic Solar Cells”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose using non-fullerene acceptors comprise 4,4, 10,10-tetrakis(4-hexylphenyl)-5, 1 1-(2-ethylhexyloxy)-4, 10-dihydro-dithienyl[1,2- b:4,5b'] benzodi-thiophene-2,8-diyl) bis(2-(3-oxo-2,3-dihydroinden-5,6-dichloro-1-ylidene) malononitrile, and 4,4, 10, 10-tetrakis(4-hexylphenyl)-4, 10-dihydrothieno [2",3":4',5"]thieno[3',2':4,5 ]cyclopenta[1,2-b]thieno[2,3-d]thiophene-2,8-diyl)bis(2-(3-oxo-2,3-dihydroinden- 5,6-difluoro-1-ylidene) malononitrile; and wherein the polymer donor comprises poly[4,8-bis(5-(2-ethylhexy])thiophen-2- yl)benzo[1,2-b;4,5-b']dithiophene-2,6-diyl-alt-(4-(2-ethylhexyl)-3-fluorothieno[3,4-b |thiophene- )-2-carboxylate-2-6-diyl)].
Li et al. teaches using non-fullerene acceptor comprises 4,4, 10,10-tetrakis(4-hexylphenyl)-5, 1 1-(2-ethylhexyloxy)-4, 10-dihydro-dithienyl[1,2- b:4,5b'] benzodi-thiophene-2,8-diyl) bis(2-(3-oxo-2,3-dihydroinden-5,6-dichloro-1-ylidene) malononitrile (or BT-CIC) would achieve high performance NIR solar cell at low cost (see abstract, conclusions).
Gao et al. teaches using non-fullerene acceptor comprises 4,4, 10, 10-tetrakis(4-hexylphenyl)-4, 10-dihydrothieno [2",3":4',5"]thieno[3',2':4,5 ]cyclopenta[1,2-b]thieno[2,3-d]thiophene-2,8-diyl)bis(2-(3-oxo-2,3-dihydroinden- 5,6-difluoro-1-ylidene) malononitrile (or TTIC-F, see Fig. 1). Gao et al. teaches such non-fullerene acceptor would work with near-infrared absorption to give high performance such that higher efficiencies could be obtained (see conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the photovoltaic cell of modified Wei et al. by using the non-fullerene acceptors of BT-CIC and TTIC-F taught by Li et al. and Gao et al., because both Li et al. and Gao et al. disclose such non-fullerene acceptors would allow higher efficiencies or higher performance of the photovoltaic cell to be achieved. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine BT-CIC and TTIC-F or the like to obtain broader absorption, where doing so is technically feasible and further increase the efficiency and performance of the photovoltaic cell. See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976).
Modified Wei et al. does not teach the polymer donor comprises poly[4,8-bis(5-(2-ethylhexy])thiophen-2- yl)benzo[1,2-b;4,5-b']dithiophene-2,6-diyl-alt-(4-(2-ethylhexyl)-3-fluorothieno[3,4-b |thiophene- )-2-carboxylate-2-6-diyl)].
Nielsen et al. teaches using polymer donor comprises poly[4,8-bis(5-(2-ethylhexy])thiophen-2- yl)benzo[1,2-b;4,5-b']dithiophene-2,6-diyl-alt-(4-(2-ethylhexyl)-3-fluorothieno[3,4-b |thiophene- )-2-carboxylate-2-6-diyl)] (or PBDTT-F-TT) among others polymer donors being used together with non-fullerene electron acceptors (see pages 2804, table 1, page 2806, also see abbreviations).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used polymer donor comprising poly[4,8-bis(5-(2-ethylhexy])thiophen-2- yl)benzo[1,2-b;4,5-b']dithiophene-2,6-diyl-alt-(4-(2-ethylhexyl)-3-fluorothieno[3,4-b |thiophene- )-2-carboxylate-2-6-diyl)] (or PBDTT-F-TT) together with non-fullerene electron acceptors as taught by Nielsen et al., because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its 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).
Claims 23 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wei et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (“Conjugated polyelectrolyte and zinc oxide stacked structure as an interlayer in highly efficient and stable organic photovoltaic cells”).
Regarding claims 23 and 43, modified Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose an interfacial layer comprising a non-fullerene surfactant material and being positioned between a buffer layer comprising ZnO and the active layer, wherein the non-fullerene surfactant material of the interfacial layer is selected from the group consisting of PFN, PFN-Br, PFN-2TNDI, and ICFA.
Chang et al. discloses incorporating ZnO/conjugated polyelectrolyte (CPE) of PFN as an electron transporting layer would improve the electron collection efficiency and reduce the leakage current thereby improving the device reliability and achieving highly efficient and stable photovoltaic device (see abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1, Conclusions), wherein the ZnO layer is positioned between the first electrode (ITO, fig. 1) and the second electrode (Ag, fig. 1), and the CPE (of PFN) is positioned between and adjacent to the ZnO layer and the active layer (PCBM and PTB7, see fig. 1). As such, the ZnO layer of Chang et al. corresponds to the claimed buffer layer and the CPE of PFN of Chang et al. corresponds to the claimed interfacial layer comprising a non-fullerene surfactant material which is selected to be PFN.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Wei et al. or modified Wei et al. by incorporating the stacked layers of ZnO/PFN between the first electrode (e.g. bottom ITO) and the active layer (e.g. C60/ClAlPc) as an electron transporting layer as taught by Chang et al., because Chang et al. teaches such stacked layer s would improve the electron collection efficiency and reduce the leakage current thereby improving the device reliability and achieving highly efficient and stable photovoltaic device.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (“Angular and Wavelength Simultaneous Selection in Transparent OPVs Based on Near-Infrared Bragg Relecftor and Antireflection Coating”) in view of Guichard et al. (WO 2012/018649) and Yim et al. (US 2018/0013100), and further in view of Chang et al. (“Conjugated polyelectrolyte and zinc oxide stacked structure as an interlayer in highly efficient and stable organic photovoltaic cells”) and Anderson et al. (US 2003/0175557).
Regarding claim 45, Wei et al. discloses an organic photovoltaic cell (OPV), comprising:
an optical layer (see near-infrared Bragg reflector in Fig. 1) of three pairs of bilayer (high refractive index titanium oxide - TiO2 and low refractive index silicon oxide - SiO2) to transmit light in the visible wavelength range (see fig. 5a, page 6) and reflect near-infrared light (see figs. 1 and 5, page 6), or the coupling layer (Bragg-reflector) is configured to shape the transmission spectrum of light exiting the cell in the first wavelength range (or visible wavelength range) by selective reflection of at least a portion of light in the second wavelength (or the near infrared light);
a first electrode (see bottom ITO – or the ITO adjacent to the Bragg reflector in Fig. 1);
a second electrode (see top ITO – or the ITO adjacent to the anti-reflection coating in Fig. 1);
an active layer (see absorbing layer of ClAlPc/C60 in Fig. 1) comprising at least one donor material (see ClAlPc in Fig. 1) and at least one acceptor material (see C60 in Fig. 1), positioned between the first electrode (e.g. bottom ITO) and the second electrode (e.g. top ITO).
Wei et al. teaches the optical layer of one-dimensional grating reflector with three pairs of bilayer of aperiodic sublayers of high refractive index titanium oxide - TiO2 and low refractive index silicon oxide - SiO2, wherein the thickness of the dielectric layer (e.g. TiO2 or SiO2) is adjusted and optimized between the range of maximum thickness of 450nm and the minimum thickness of 20nm (see “3. Theoretical Analysis” in page 4 and page 6). Wei et al. does not explicitly exemplify the thickness of each sublayer (or dielectric layer TiO2 or SiO2) to be 10nm to 50nm, nor do they teach such that the (total) thickness of the outcoupling layer is in a range of 100-300nm.
Guichard et al. discloses the thickness of an outcoupling layer (or optical outcoupling/interlayer 110) having at thickness ranging from a few nanometers to multiple millimeters, or over about 150nm to permit optical structures such as one-dimensional design with 2 pairs of bilayer of high refractive index layer (132, fig. 13A) and low refractive index layer (130, fig. 13A) to guide light directly toward the solar cells to optimize absorption of a particular part of the solar spectrum (see [00144]). Guichard et al. also teaches the thickness of the outcoupling layer (or the optical layer 110) is a matter of design choice for tuning wavelength selective reflection and wavelength selective transmission (see [00145]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Wei et al. by selecting the overlapping portion of 20-50nm in the disclosed range of 20-450nm taught by Wei et al. for the thickness of each sublayer, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the first two pairs of bilayer (or sublayers) adjacent to the first electrode as the outcoupling layer (or optical coupling) as taught by Guichard et al. such that the total thickness of the outcoupling layer is from 100-300nm (with the thickness of each sublayers to be 20-50nm), because Guichard et al. teaches the thickness of the outcoupling (or optical coupling layer) is a matter of design choice for tuning wavelength for selective reflection and selective transmission. In such modification, the layer of the first two pairs of bilayer adjacent to the electrode corresponds to the claimed outcoupling layer, the rest of the pairs of bilayers in modified Wei et al. corresponds to the distributed Bragg reflector.
Wei et al. and Guichard et al. teach using silicon oxide as the low refractive index sublayers and titanium oxide as the high refractive index material (see Fig. 1 of Wei et al. and [00153] of Guichard et al.). Modified Wei et al. does not disclose using magnesium fluoride (MgF2) as the low refractive index material and carbazole derivative such as 4,4-bis(N-carbazolyl)-1,1’-biphenyl (or CBP) as the high refractive
Yim et al. teaches silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride are equivalent materials having low refractive index, and titanium oxide and 4,4-dicarbazolyl-1,1’-biphenyl (CBP) are equivalent materials having high refractive index ([0011]).
Since the prior art of Yim et al. recognize the equivalency of silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride as the low refractive index materials, and titanium oxide and CBP as the high refractive index materials; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the outcoupling layer of Wei et al. or modified Wei et al. by using magnesium fluoride and CBP taught by Yim et al. in place of silicon oxide (SiO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2) for the low refractive index material and high refractive index material, respectively, as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent low refractive index material and high refractive index material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its 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).
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose a buffer layer between the first electrode and the second electrode, and an interfacial layer positioned between and adjacent to the buffer layer and the active layer.
Chang et al. discloses incorporating ZnO/conjugated polyelectrolyte (CPE) of PFN as an electron transporting layer would improve the electron collection efficiency and reduce the leakage current thereby improving the device reliability and achieving highly efficient and stable photovoltaic device (see abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1, Conclusions), wherein the ZnO layer is positioned between the first electrode (ITO, fig. 1) and the second electrode (Ag, fig. 1), and the CPE (of PFN) is positioned between and adjacent to the ZnO layer and the active layer (PCBM and PTB7, see fig. 1). As such, the ZnO layer of Chang et al. corresponds to the claimed buffer layer and the CPE of PFN of Chang et al. corresponds to the claimed interfacial layer comprising a non-fullerene surfactant material which is selected to be PFN.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Wei et al. by incorporating the stacked layers of ZnO/PFN between the first electrode (e.g. bottom ITO) and the active layer (e.g. C60/ClAlPc) as an electron transporting layer as taught by Chang et al., because Chang et al. teaches such stacked layer s would improve the electron collection efficiency and reduce the leakage current thereby improving the device reliability and achieving highly efficient and stable photovoltaic device.
Wei et al. shows the antireflective coating is on top of the photovoltaic cell and the coupling layer at the bottom is for reflecting near infrared wavelength range (see Fig. 1). As such, the reflected near infrared wavelength range must be transmitted through the absorbing layer (or active layer) from the top.
Modified Wei et al. does not disclose a substrate positioned between the second electrode and the anti-reflective coating.
Anderson discloses a transparent substrate (6, figs. 1 and 5) provided with an antireflective film (A) such that the substrate (6) is positioned between the second electrode (or the top electrode) of the solar cell (9) and the antireflective layer (A, see fig. 5). Anderson teaches such substrate would carry the antireflective layer to increase the transmission through the substrate within a broad wavelength band, especially in the visible and infrared (see [0001] and [0008]) in order to increase the efficiency and optimize the transmission of solar energy through the substrate (or glass) in the wavelengths important for the solar cell ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Wei et al. by incorporating a substrate carrying the antireflective coating such that the substrate is positioned between the second electrode (or top electrode) and the antireflective coating as taught by Anderson; because Wei et al. explicitly teaches reflecting near infrared wavelength range which must be transmitted at the top of the photovoltaic cell, and Anderson teaches such substrate would carry the antireflective layer to increase the transmission through the substrate within a broad wavelength band, especially in the visible and infrared (see [0001] and [0008]) in order to increase the efficiency and optimize the transmission of solar energy through the substrate (or glass) in the wavelengths important for the solar cell ([0005]).
Wei et al. draws the solar cell having the optical layer (or the outcoupling layer and the distributed Bragg reflector) being arranged at the bottom and the antireflective layer on top side (or the typical light incident side) in fig. 1. Wei et al. does not draw the solar cell in a reverse order of arrangement to have the optical layer of distributed Bragg reflector and the outcoupling layer is arranged on top side such that the outcoupling layer is positioned below the distributed Bragg layer, the first electrode is positioned below the outcoupling layer , the active layer is positioned below the first electrode, the interfacial layer positioned below the active layer, the buffer layer positioned below the interfacial layer, the second electrode positioned below the buffer layer; the substrate positioned below the second electrode, and the antireflective coating positioned below the substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell drawn Wei et al., by rearranging (or flipping) the solar cell of modified Wei et al. to have the optical layer on the top side such that such that the outcoupling layer (or two pairs of sublayers adjacent to the ITO electrode) is positioned below the distributed Bragg layer (or the rest of the pairs of sublayers), the first electrode is positioned below the outcoupling layer , the active layer is positioned below the first electrode, the interfacial layer positioned below the active layer, the buffer layer positioned below the interfacial layer, the second electrode positioned below the buffer layer; the substrate positioned below the second electrode, and the antireflective coating positioned below the substrate as claimed; because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Guichard teaches away from utilizing interlayer in a monolithical grown multijunction solar cell in paragraph [00114]. Applicant alleges monolithically grown solar cell to be layer by layer, and then concludes Guichard teaches away from utilizing interlayer (or optically coupling layer) 110 in a monolithically grown (layer by layer) solar cell, and therefore one skilled in the art would not be motivated to utilizing the teachings of Guichard. The examiner replies that it is known in the art, monolithically grown solar cell is the solar cell being grown or formed from a single crystal silicon (see the prefix “mono” in the term monolithically), not being grown layer by layer (or not mono) as alleged by Applicant. From the context of the description of paragraph [00114], Guichard teaches it’s surely possible to insert an interlayer to the solar cells being grown layer by layer (see figs. 12-13), because one skilled in the art cannot insert an extra optical coupling layer as described into a monolithic solar cell (or solar cell being formed by a single crystal or single layer) to make the solar monolithic. The claimed solar cell is not monolithically grown solar cell and the solar cell disclosed by Wei is not monolithically grown solar cell, and therefore one skilled in the art is motivated to utilize the teaching of Guichard with Wei, because Wei explicitly teaches the optical coupling layer (or the Bragg reflector layer).
Applicant argues Yim simply describes materials based on indices of refraction in relative terms and does not equate materials directly. The examiner replies that Yim does equate materials directly by describing silicon oxide and magnesium fluoride are material of low refractive index materials to be used in an optical layer design (e.g. control layer, filter, reflector, optical coupling) of alternating sublayers, and titanium oxide and CBP are high refractive index materials to be used in an optical layer design of alternating sublayers. Such design concept is shown in figs. 12-13 and discussed in paragraph [00147] of Guichard.
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