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 .
Response to 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration
Applicant argues that the recombination layer 342 in Brabec is not said to contain a “transparent conducting oxide” let alone “nanoparticles of a transparent conducting oxide” and has only mentioned two components of a p-type semiconductor material and an n-type semiconductor material.
Applicant states that a transparent conducting oxide is different from a p-type or an n-type semiconductor material, such that the disclosure of an oxide which is a p-type semiconductor or an n-type semiconductor is not the same as a disclosure of a transparent conducting oxide.
However, it is noted that a “transparent conducting oxide” known by one of ordinary skill in the art are conductive oxides that are transparent, such that Brabec discloses doped zinc oxides and doped titanium oxides. However, it appears Applicant is unfamiliar with what transparent conducting oxides are because titanium oxide is a well-known transparent conducting oxide used in photovoltaic technology as well as zinc oxide. Applicant previously mentioned the TCO materials on page 56 of the PCT application as filed, which included indium zinc oxide and doped tin oxide as well as doped titanium dioxide, such that it is unclear why Applicant’s doped titanium oxide, tin oxide, or zinc oxide is a transparent conducting oxide but Brabec is not. It is further noted that the fact a transparent conducting oxide is also stated to be a semiconductor material does not mean it is not a transparent conducting oxide. Applicant is encouraged to explain if antimony doped titanium dioxide or niobium doped titanium dioxide listed on page 56 from the PCT application are not semiconductor materials. Sathasivam et al. (“Tungsten Doped TiO2 with Enhanced Photocatalytic and Optoelectrical Properties via Aerosol Assisted Chemical Vapor Deposition”) states that “titanium dioxide is a widely used intrinsically n-type semiconductor…the use of TiO2 as a TCO material has gained widespread attention…Parkin et al. were able to produce Nb and Ta doped TiO2 films” on page 1. Therefore, it appears that titanium dioxide is well known as a semiconductor material including Nb doped titanium dioxide, such that Applicant’s argument that the metal oxides of Brabec are semiconductor materials instead of TCO was not found to be persuasive.
It is noted that Applicant still has not provided any evidence that these materials disclosed by Brabec are not known to be transparent conducting oxides.
It appears that Applicant is arguing the only possible transparent conductive oxide is indium tin oxide, which contradicts with the instant specification as previously pointed out, such that page 56 of the PCT application states “aluminum zinc oxide…antimony doped tin oxide, antimony doped titanium dioxide, niobium doped tin oxide, niobium doped titanium dioxide” are all suitable transparent conductive oxides for the recombination layer, which was cited by Applicant in the Remarks on pages 14-15 as filed on 6/17/2025.
Applicant goes on to argue that transparent conducting oxides are a subset of materials known as degenerate semiconductors, which appear to indicate Applicant agrees they are semiconductors. It is noted that the claim has only required “a charge recombination layer…comprises nanoparticles of a transparent conducting oxide disposed in an electron-transporting organic matrix material”, in which Snaith in view of Brabec teaches. Nothing that Applicant has argued is directed to the claimed invention because nowhere does the claimed invention require anything besides a transparent conducting oxide, such that Applicant still has not provided any proof the materials of Brabec is not known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be a transparent conducting oxide. The fact that Brabec or anyone else also refers to them as semiconductor materials does not refute the fact they are also transparent conducting oxides. Even Applicant has stated that transparent conducting oxides are “degenerate semiconductors” themselves. What terminology the prior art or the instant application chooses to call a particular material is irrelevant. Applicant has not demonstrated the materials listed by Brabec are not the same as the ones claimed in the instant application. It is noted the materials are listed in claims 6, 55, and 57, in which Applicant has still not provided any evidence to refute the claimed materials being taught by the references besides arguing apparently the only transparent conducting oxide can be ITO, which is refuted by the list in claim 55.
Applicant argues that molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide, titanium oxide, and zinc oxides are not transparent conducting oxides can only be TCOs if they are doped with an appropriate amount of suitable dopant and that only a small subset of such metal oxides will meet these requirements and be TCOs and are not disclosed by Brabec.
Applicant is invited to look at Bhosole (“Novel Transparent Conductors Based on Molybdenum Oxide and Gallium Doped ZnO”), where it is stated “a novel class of TCOs based on MoOx films is proposed for development” on the first page of the dissertation that was published in 2007. It appears that at least one person views undoped molybdenum oxide to be a TCO. Bhosole goes on to state “the key requirement for the TCO applications is that transmittance should be greater than 80% while resistivity is less than 10-4 Ω cm“ on page 11 and that commonly known TCOs are ITO, SnO2, and ZnO, where CdO is also a known TCO (page 6), such that it appears transmittance and electrical conductivity are of the most important characteristics of TCOs that Applicant conveniently repeatedly ignore regarding the metal oxides of Brabec. Indeed, “transparent conducting oxide” already defines the material to be transparent and a conducting oxide, such that it is unclear why any other characteristic is to be discussed unless it teaches away from the functionality of the material in its application.
Next, Applicant is invited to look at Chen et al. (“Amorphous WO3 as transparent conductive oxide in the Near-IR”), where it discloses undoped tungsten oxide as a TCO alternative to ITO (page 1) and Ritzau et al. (“TCO work function related transport losses at the a-Si:H/TCO-contact in SHJ solar cells”) states in the abstract undoped tungsten oxide is a known TCO.
Hitosugi et al. (“Properties of TiO2 based transparent conducting oxides”) states in Figure 1 that “transparent conducting oxide (TCO)” are known for 1. High optical transmittance in visible > 80% and 2. Low electrical resistance of < 1 x 10-3 Ω cm”, such that once again, neither characteristic was highlighted by Applicant in determining whether or not the metal oxides of Brabec are “transparent conducting oxides”. Hitosugi goes on to state that TiO2 is a known TCO (2. Titanium dioxide). Dorow-Gerspach et al. (“Metal-like conductivity in undoped TiO2-x: Understanding an unconventional transparent conducting oxide”) states undoped TiO2-x films are also highly conductive and transparent (1. Introduction and 4. Conclusion).
Falcao et al. (“Preparation and Characterization of Undoped ZnO TCO films by Electron-Beam Evaporation and Activated Plasma Deposition Techniques”) discloses undoped zinc oxide is a known TCO used as transparent electrodes in photovoltaic and in display devices (Introduction).
Applicant repeatedly argues the metal oxides of Brabec are not “transparent conducting oxides”. However, it is noted that they are “conducting oxides” and are “transparent” as the recombination layer of Brabec is used as a layer between tandem solar sub-cells, such that transparency is required as well as the ability to be electrically conducting (page 22). It is unclear how they are not interpreted as “transparent conducting oxides”. Further, Applicant has not refuted that Brabec’s materials are not metal oxides, which are known to be “conducting oxides”, such that it appears Applicant is only arguing the metal oxides of Brabec are not transparent. Additionally, nothing Applicant provided and presented has shown Brabec’s recombination layer cannot use any of the “TCO” materials listed by Applicant as Brabec is not limited to a particular type of material besides being metal oxide and facilitates the transfer of electrons and holes between the tandem solar cell structures.
Therefore, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 47-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snaith et al. (WO 2017/153752) in view of Brabec et al. (WO 2007/104039).
Regarding claim 1, Snaith discloses a process for producing a multi-junction device (pages 4 and 32) comprising a layer of a crystalline A/M/X material, which crystalline A/M/X material comprises a compound of formula [A]a[M]b[X]c wherein:
[A] comprises one or more A cations;
[M] comprises one or more M cations which are metal or metalloid cations;
[X] comprises one or more X anions;
a is a number from 1 to 6;
b is a number from 1 to 6; and
c is a number from 1 to 18; and
wherein the process comprises forming the layer of the crystalline A/M/X material by disposing a film-forming solution on a substrate, wherein the film-forming solution comprises:
(a) one or more M cations; and
(b) a solvent;
wherein the solvent comprises
(i) an aprotic solvent (acetonitrile, propionitrile, acetone or mixture thereof); and
(ii) an organic amine (alkylamine) (page 12) and
wherein the substrate comprises:
a photoactive region comprising a photoactive material (it is disclosed the substrate comprises a layer of photoactive material; page 32), and
a charge recombination layer (a layer of a p-type semiconductor, a layer of transparent conducting oxide, a conducting organic semiconducting material, and an n-type semiconductor; page 35) which is disposed on the photoactive region by solution-deposition (it is disclosed all films are spin coated; page 37), wherein the charge recombination layer comprises transparent conducting oxide (TiO2 on page 37) and further comprises an electron-transporting organic matrix material (C60 on page 37),
but the reference does not expressly disclose the charge recombination layer comprises transparent conducting oxide nanoparticles disposed in an electron-transporting organic matrix material, and wherein the charge recombination layer further comprises a conducting polymer, further wherein the electron-transporting organic matrix material is different from the conducting polymer.
Brabec discloses a recombination layer 342 between tandem cells includes a p-type semiconductor material and an n-type semiconductor material, where the p-type semiconductor material includes a conductive polymer and a nanoparticle metal oxide and the n-type semiconductor material includes fullerene, inorganic nanoparticles, and conductive polymers (page 21), where the recombination layer can be two separate layers of the p-type and n-type semiconductor materials or a blend of the materials in one layer (page 22).
As Snaith is not limited to any specific examples of the recombination layer and as a charge recombination layer comprising a p-type semiconductor material including a conductive polymer and a nanoparticle metal oxide and an n-type semiconductor material including a metal oxide or a material selected from the group consisting of fullerenes, inorganic nanoparticles, oxadiazoles, discotic liquid crystals, carbon nanorods, inorganic nanorods, polymers containing CN groups, polymers containing CF3 groups, and combinations thereof for tandem solar cells were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Brabec above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable known material as the recombination layer, including one comprising a p-type semiconductor material including a conductive polymer and a nanoparticle metal oxide and an n-type semiconductor material including a metal oxide or a material selected from the group consisting of fullerenes, inorganic nanoparticles, oxadiazoles, discotic liquid crystals, carbon nanorods, inorganic nanorods, polymers containing CN groups, polymers containing CF3 groups, and combinations thereof in the method of Snaith. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
While modified Snaith does not expressly disclose selecting a conductive polymer such as fullerene as the n-type semiconductor material to be used with the p-type semiconductor material, it is noted that absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where the n-type semiconductor material includes a metal oxide or a material selected from the group consisting of fullerenes, inorganic nanoparticles, oxadiazoles, discotic liquid crystals, carbon nanorods, inorganic nanorods, polymers containing CN groups, polymers containing CF3 groups, and combinations thereof in the device of modified Snaith, such that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the aprotic solvent is a polar aprotic solvent (the above aprotic solvents are known to be polar).
Regarding claim 3, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the substrate further comprises a layer of a charge transporting material (p-type semiconductor; see page 35) disposed on the charge recombination layer.
Regarding claim 4, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a step of producing the substrate by:
disposing the charge recombination layer on the photoactive region by solution deposition (as set forth above); and
optionally, disposing a layer of a charge transporting material on the charge recombination layer.
Regarding claim 5, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the photoactive material in the substrate is soluble in dimethylformamide (DMF), dimethysulfoxide (DMSO) or a mixture thereof, and/or at least one component of the charge recombination layer in the substrate is soluble in dimethylformamide (DMF), dimethysulfoxide (DMSO) or a mixture thereof (page 32).
Regarding claim 11, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the aprotic solvent comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of chlorobenzene, acetone, butanone, methylethylketone, acetonitrile, propionitrile, toluene or a mixture thereof (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the organic amine is an unsubstituted or substituted alkylamine or an unsubstituted or substituted arylamine (page 12).
Regarding claim 15, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses [A] comprises at least one organic cation (page 17).
Regarding claim 16, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses (a) each A cation is selected from:
an alkali metal cation;
a cation of the formula [R1R2R3R4N]+, wherein each of R1, R2, R3, R4 is independently selected from hydrogen, unsubstituted or substituted C1-20 alkyl, and unsubstituted or substituted C6-12 aryl, and at least one of R1, R2, R3 and R4 is not hydrogen;
a cation of the formula [R5R6N=CH-NR7Rs]+, wherein each of R5, R6, R7 and R$ is independently selected from hydrogen, unsubstituted or substituted C1-20 alkyl, and unsubstituted or substituted C6-12 aryl; and
C1-10 alkylamammonium, C2-io alkenylammonium, C1-10 alkyliminium, C3-io cycloalkylammonium and C3-io cycloalkyliminium, each of which is unsubstituted or substituted with one or more substituents selected from amino, C1-6 alkylamino, imino, C1-6 alkylimino, C1-6 alkyl, C2-6 alkenyl, C3-6 cycloalkyl and C6-12 aryl (pages 17-18);
(b) each M cation is selected from Ca2+, Sr2+,Cd2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, Mn2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Pd2+, Ge2+, Sn2+,Pb2+, Yb2+ and Eu2+ (page 15); and
(c) each X anion is a halide (page 16).
Regarding claim 20, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses [A] comprises a cation of the formula [R1NH3]+,
wherein R1 is unsubstituted C 1-10 alkyl and wherein the organic amine comprises an unsubstituted (C 1-10 alkyl) amine (pages 14 and 18).
Regarding claim 21, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the photoactive material in the photoactive region in the substrate comprises a crystalline A/M/X material, which crystalline A/M/X material comprises a compound of formula [A]a[M]b[X]c as defined in claim 1 (it is disclosed the substrate photoactive material can be a layer of an A/M/X material; page 32).
Regarding claim 23, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the substrate comprises the photoactive region comprising the photoactive material as defined in claim 1 and a second photoactive region comprising a photoactive material (a layer of a first crystalline AMX material and a layer of a second crystalline material; page 35), such that the substrate comprises two separate photoactive regions, wherein the layer of the crystalline A/M/X material formed on the substrate forms a part of a third photoactive region such that the process produces a triple-junction device comprising three photoactive regions (it is disclosed that three or more junctions incorporating three or more crystalline materials of different band gaps can be used; page 35).
Regarding claim 25, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the film-forming solution further comprises one or more A cations and one or more X anions (as set forth above), or wherein the process further comprises a step of disposing on the substrate a composition comprising one or more A cations and optionally one or more X anions.
Regarding claim 27, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the process further comprises removing the solvent to form the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material,
optionally wherein the solvent is removed by heating the film-forming solution treated substrate,
optionally by heating the film-forming solution treated substrate to a temperature of from 50°C to 200°C, optionally for a time of from 10 to 100 minutes (100oC for 45 minutes; page 38).
Regarding claim 29, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the substrate comprises a first electrode (first electrode material; page 35) and wherein the process further comprises:
disposing a second electrode on the layer of the crystalline A/M/X material disposed on the substrate, or, preferably, disposing a charge transporting material (n-type semiconductor) on the layer of the crystalline A/M/X material disposed on the substrate (see page 35), and disposing a second electrode (second electrode material; page 35) on the charge transporting material.
Regarding claim 47, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the aprotic solvent comprises acetonitrile (as set forth in claim 1).
Regarding claim 48, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the C1-10 alkyl group on the A cation of formula [R1NH3]+ and the C1-10 alkyl group on the unsubstituted (C1-10 alkyl) amine are the same (it is disclosed the cation can be CH3NH3+ and the alkylamine can be methylamine; pages 35-36).
Regarding claim 49, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the photoactive materials in each of the two separate photoactive regions in the substrate comprise a crystalline A/M/X material, wherein each crystalline A/M/X material in each of the two separate photoactive regions in the substrate comprises a compound of formula [A]a[M]b[X]c as defined in claim 1 (page 35).
Regarding claim 50, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least two of the crystalline A/M/X materials selected from: (i) the crystalline A/M/X material of the layer of crystalline A/M/X material; and (ii) the crystalline A/M/X materials in the two separate photoactive regions in the substrate, are different (it is disclosed the two crystalline material can have band gaps of different energy; page 35).
Regarding claim 51, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses all three of the crystalline A/M/X materials selected from: (i) the crystalline A/M/X material of the layer of crystalline A/M/X material, and (ii) the crystalline A/M/X materials in the two separate photoactive regions in the substrate, are different (it is disclosed that three or more junctions incorporating three or more crystalline materials of different band gaps can be used; page 35).
Regarding claim 52, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses each A cation is selected from Rb+, methylammonium, dimethyl ammonium, trimethylammonium, ethylammonium, propylammonium. butylammonium, pentylammonium, hexylammonium, heptylammonium, octylammonium, tetramethylammonium, formamidinium, 1-aminoethan- 1 -iminium and guanidinium (page 18).
Regarding claim 53, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second electrode comprises elemental metal (for example, silver electrodes; page 38).
Regarding claim 54, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Brabec further discloses the charge recombination layer has a thickness of less than 250 nm (it is disclosed the recombination layer can have a thickness of at least 10 nm and at most about 100 nm on page 22).
As modified Snaith is not limited to any specific examples of the recombination layer thickness and as a thickness between 10 nm and 100 nm was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Brabec above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable thickness of between 10 nm and 100 nm so that the layers underneath are protected from any solvent applied onto the recombination layer and be substantially transparent in a tandem structure in the method of Snaith. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim(s) 6, 46, and 55-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snaith et al. (WO 2017/153752) in view of Brabec et al. (WO 2007/104039) and in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0005795).
Regarding claim 6, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the transparent conducting oxide comprises titanium oxide, zinc oxide, tungsten oxide (page 21), but the reference does not expressly disclose indium tin oxide (ITO).
Yang discloses a recombination layer for tandem solar cells comprising solution processed inorganic materials such as ITO nanoparticles, MoO3 and ZnO nanoparticles ([0048]), and where the recombination layer can comprise a metal oxide polymer hybrid including a conducting polymer such as PEDOT:PSS ([0064] and [0071]; see Figure 10A]).
Since the prior art of Yang recognizes the equivalency of using ITO nanoparticles and ZnO nanoparticles in the field of transparent conducting oxide nanoparticles in a recombination layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ZnO nanoparticles of modified Snaith with the ITO nanoparticles of Yang as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent transparent conducting oxide nanoparticles recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 46, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the conducting polymer comprises PEDOT (page 21), but the reference does not expressly disclose poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS).
Yang discloses a recombination layer for tandem solar cells comprising solution processed inorganic materials such as ITO nanoparticles, MoO3 and ZnO nanoparticles ([0048]), and where the recombination layer can comprise a metal oxide polymer hybrid including a conducting polymer such as PEDOT:PSS ([0064] and [0071]; see Figure 10A]).
As modified Snaith is not limited to any specific examples of conducting polymers and as PEDOT:PSS used in conjunction with nanoparticle metal oxides in a recombination layer were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Yang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable p-type semiconductor polymer comprising polythiophenes, including PEDOT:PSS in the method of modified Snaith. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 55, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Brabec further discloses the organic matrix material comprises:
a fullerene, a fullerene derivative, an organic electron transporting material comprising perylene or a derivative thereof, or poly { [N,NO-bis(2-octyldodecyl)-naphthalene-1,4,5,8-bis(dicarboximide)-2,6-diyl]-alt- 5,50-(2,20-bithiophene)} (P(NDI2OD-T2)) (fullerene on page 21); and
the conducting polymer comprises:
p-doped polyTPD, poly triarylamine (PTAA), polythiophene, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) or a derivative thereof, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), or poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene)-tetramethacrylate (PEDOT:TMA) (PEDOT, polythiophene on page 21).
Brabec further discloses the transparent conducting oxide comprises titanium oxide, zinc oxide, tungsten oxide (page 21), but the reference does not expressly disclose indium tin oxide (ITO).
Yang discloses a recombination layer for tandem solar cells comprising solution processed inorganic materials such as ITO nanoparticles, MoO3 and ZnO nanoparticles ([0048]), and where the recombination layer can comprise a metal oxide polymer hybrid including a conducting polymer such as PEDOT:PSS ([0064] and [0071]; see Figure 10A]).
Since the prior art of Yang recognizes the equivalency of using ITO nanoparticles and ZnO nanoparticles in the field of transparent conducting oxide nanoparticles in a recombination layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the ZnO nanoparticles of modified Snaith with the ITO nanoparticles of Yang as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent transparent conducting oxide nanoparticles recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Regarding claim 56, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Brabec further discloses the charge recombination layer has a thickness of less than 100 nm (as set forth above).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snaith et al. (WO 2017/153752) in view of Brabec et al. (WO 2007/104039) and in view of Speller (“The significance of fullerene electron acceptors in organic solar cell photo-oxidation”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the organic matrix material comprises fullerene (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose the organic matrix material comprises PCBM.
Speller discloses PCBM is a well-known fullerene derivative that is commonly used for charge transport (Introduction to the stability of organic solar cells; page 925) due to its low lying excited states of the fullerene anion, promoting fast charge separation, and its high solubility in organic solvents, making solvent processing possible (Photochemical stability of electron acceptors (fullerenes); page 929; see Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected PCBM as the organic matrix material in the method of modified Snaith, as taught by Speller, as PCBM is the most commonly used fullerene derivative material and has a higher solubility than fullerene with fast charge separation, as stated above, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snaith et al. (WO 2017/153752) in view of Brabec et al. (WO 2007/104039) in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0005795) and in view of Speller (“The significance of fullerene electron acceptors in organic solar cell photo-oxidation”).
Regarding claim 57, modified Snaith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Brabec further discloses the transparent conducting oxide comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) (as set forth in claim 55).
Brabec further discloses the conducting polymer comprises PEDOT (page 21), but the reference does not expressly disclose poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS).
Yang discloses a recombination layer for tandem solar cells comprising solution processed inorganic materials such as ITO nanoparticles, MoO3 and ZnO nanoparticles ([0048]), and where the recombination layer can comprise a metal oxide polymer hybrid including a conducting polymer such as PEDOT:PSS ([0064] and [0071]; see Figure 10A]).
As modified Snaith is not limited to any specific examples of conducting polymers and as PEDOT:PSS used in conjunction with nanoparticle metal oxides in a recombination layer were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Yang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable p-type semiconductor polymer comprising polythiophenes, including PEDOT:PSS in the method of modified Snaith. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Modified Snaith further discloses the organic matrix material comprises fullerene (as set forth above by Brabec), but the reference does not expressly disclose the organic matrix material comprises PCBM.
Speller discloses PCBM is a well-known fullerene derivative that is commonly used for charge transport (Introduction to the stability of organic solar cells; page 925) due to its low lying excited states of the fullerene anion, promoting fast charge separation, and its high solubility in organic solvents, making solvent processing possible (Photochemical stability of electron acceptors (fullerenes); page 929; see Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected PCBM as the organic matrix material in the method of modified Snaith, as taught by Speller, as PCBM is the most commonly used fullerene derivative material and has a higher solubility than fullerene with fast charge separation, as stated above, and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that none of the cited arts solves the problem of being able to solution-process all layers in a multi-junction cell containing an A/M/X material was not found to be persuasive because it is not directed to the invention as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to whether or not the metal oxides of Brabec are transparent conducting oxides have already been responded to in the above section titled Response to 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration.
Applicant further argues that Brabec’s p-type semiconductor material and n-type semiconductor material in the recombination layer are the only two classes of material in the recombination layer and are not the same as the transparent conducting oxides required for the recombination layer defined in the claims.
However, it is unclear how the transparent conducting oxides required and defined in the claims is any different than the ones disclosed by Brabec. As evidenced in the Response to 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration section above, it is well known in the art by one skilled in the art what a “transparent conducting oxide” would be, such that it would have a transparency of at least 80% in the visible spectrum and has an electrical resistance of < 1 x 10-3 Ω cm, where clearly Brabec’s metal oxides fall within that category. Furthermore, Applicant argues none of the metal oxides of Brabec are known to be “transparent conducting oxides” by one of ordinary skill in the art, but it appears Bhosole, Chen, Ritzau, Hitosugi, Dorow-Gerspach, and Falcao all disagree with Applicant’s assertion. Additionally, as stated repeatedly, the claim has only required a transparent conducting oxide and nothing more, such that even by virtue of its functionality, Brabec’s metal oxides must be transparent and a conducting oxide, as stated in the Response to 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration section above as it is used as a recombination layer between two subcells of a tandem solar cell structure.
Applicant’s further arguments related to Brabec’s metal oxides and whether or not they are “transparent conducting oxides” have already been responded to in the above Response to 37 C.F.R. 1.132 Declaration section, such that it is still apparent that Applicant is unfamiliar with what is defined as a “transparent conducting oxide” known in the art.
Applicant further argues unexpected advantages to the instant application. However, mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) (Claims were directed to grooved carbon disc brakes wherein the grooves were provided to vent steam or vapor during a braking action. A prior art reference taught noncarbon disc brakes which were grooved for the purpose of cooling the faces of the braking members and eliminating dust. The court held the prior art references when combined would overcome the problems of dust and overheating solved by the prior art and would inherently overcome the steam or vapor cause of the problem relied upon for patentability by applicants. Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function (here venting steam or vapor) "would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art." 596 F.2d at 1022, 201 USPQ at 661.); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).[AltContent: rect]
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.").
Additionally, objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence." "[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument."). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). See MPEP 716.01 (c).
Additionally, a lack of enablement rejection and a new matter rejection will be included in the next correspondence if Applicant incorporates the feature in the claims in the future as it is unsupported by the filed specification. For example, Applicant asserts the advantage of the claimed CRL includes “highly efficient charge transfer into the recombination layer”, which is not found to be supported by the instant specification. The instant specification has only stated “efficient charge transfer into the recombination layer”, where it is unclear what “highly efficient” would be without providing more details and guidance for one to ascertain the degree of efficiency. Nothing in the instant specification states anything out of the ordinary being carried out in the process in order to obtain this “highly efficient charge transfer” and has only stated in paragraph [0436] of the published application “ITO NP layer creates an ohmic contact between both electron and hole-accepting layer, which allows for efficient charge transfer into the recombination layer”, such that it is commonly known a recombination layer would allow for efficient charge transfer and ITO is also a known material.
Further, Applicant argues the use of TCO nanoparticles would scatter light, light absorption of the device would increase and internal reflective losses would be minimized, which are all well known effects of using nanoparticles.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights