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 .
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.
Claims 1, 6, 14-15, 21, 25-27, 29-30, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529), as evidenced by Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0358398), in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997).
Regarding claim 1, 15, 25, and 35, Uzu discloses a multijunction device
(abstract) comprising: a first photoactive region comprising a layer of a first photoactive material comprising RNH3MX3 ([0040] L5), a second photoactive region comprising a layer of a second photoactive material ([0021]), and an intermediate layer disposed between the first and second photoactive regions ([0047]).
Uzu discloses the intermediate layer 3 also has a function of capturing carriers (holes and electrons) generated in the two photoelectric conversion units 1, 2, and recombining the carriers ([0059]; it is noted that based on the disclosure of [0059] of Uzu, the intermediate layer disclosed satisfies the limitation “charge recombination layer”).
Uzu further discloses the material of the intermediate layer has a refractive index of at least 2 ([0050]) at a wavelength of from 500 nm to 1200 nm ([0051] L2; [0057]), and further discloses the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index ([0057]).
Uzu discloses the intermediate layer ([0059] - charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range ([0061]).
While Uzu does disclose that it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index, such as a silicon-based material, when the transparent conductive oxide is used as a material of the intermediate layer ([0061]); Uzu does not explicitly disclose the material stacked with the transparent conductive oxide is TiO2.
Homma discloses a photoelectric conversion element (abstract) and further discloses rutile type TiO2 (n approximately 2.72) is a material whose refractive index is high ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the multilayer film constituting the intermediate layer of Uzu with the disclosed transparent conductive oxide stacked with rutile type TiO2 because as taught by Uzu, it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index ([0061]). Homma discloses TiO2 has a refractive index of approximately 2.72 ([0074]). Additionally, Uzu discloses the intermediate layer ([0059] - charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range ([0061]).
Modified Uzu discloses each layer of photoactive material is disposed between a respective electron transporting layer and a respective hole transporting layer (Uzu - [0033] – layers 12 and 13; [0030] – layers 22a, 23a, 22b, 23b), wherein the respective electron transporting and hole transporting layers (Uzu - [0033] – layers 12 and 23; [0030] – layers 22a, 23a, 22b, 23b) are other than the charge recombination layer (Uzu - 3 in Fig. 1). It is noted that with regard to the intrinsic amorphous silicon layers 22a and 22b and the p-type and n-type conductive silicon layers 23a and 23b, as evidenced by Beaumont, an electron transporter layer may comprise any of an n-type semiconductor material and an intrinsic semiconductor material, and a hole transporter layer may comprise any of a p-type semiconductor material and an intrinsic semiconductor material ([0015]).
With regard to the limitation “wherein the charge recombination layer material has a resistivity below 500 ohm cm,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses the refractive index of the charge recombination layer material at the wavelength is less than 3.5 ([0050]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses the wavelength is 600 nm ([0051] L2).
Regarding claim 21, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Uzu does not explicitly disclose the TiO2 is at least 20% by volume of the total volume of the transparent conducting oxide and the TiO2.
Uzu does, however, disclose the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index ([0057]), and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range. Examples of the material other than the silicon-based material, which forms the intermediate layer, include transparent conductive oxides mainly composed of indium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide or the like. Generally, transparent conductive oxide has a refractive index of about 1.9. Therefore, it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index, such as a silicon-based material, when the transparent conductive oxide is used as a material of the intermediate layer ([0061]).
Based on the teaching of Uzu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to stack a material having a relatively high refractive index ([0061]), such as TiO2 (Homma – [0074]) with a transparent conductive oxide ([0061]) in order to achieve the above-mentioned refractive index ([0050]; [0057]).
Additionally, as evidenced by Uzu ([0051]), the average refractive index n is the product of the refractive index and the thickness of each layer that forms the intermediate layer. The precise volume percentage of TiO2 of the total volume of the transparent conductive oxide and the TiO2 is dependent on the type of transparent conductive oxide and the corresponding refractive index of the particular type of transparent conductive oxide, and the resulting amount/thickness of TiO2 necessary to achieve the disclosed refractive index range of 2.0 to 3.5 in the intermediate layer (Uzu - [0050]). The precise volume percentage of TiO2 of the total volume of the transparent conductive oxide and the TiO2 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed volume percentage of TiO2 of the total volume of the transparent conductive oxide and the TiO2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the volume percentage of TiO2 of the total volume of the transparent conductive oxide and the TiO2 in the intermediate layer of Uzu to obtain the desired intermediate layer refractive index of 2.0 to 3.5 (Uzu – [0050]) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 26, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses an organic cation ([0040] L5-7).
Regarding claim 27, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses each A cation is RNH3 ([0040] L5).
Regarding claim 29, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses wherein each M cation is a dication ([0040] L7).
Regarding claim 30, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses each X anion is a halide ([0040] L8).
Regarding claim 33, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Uzu further discloses an optical spacer layer (14 in Fig. 1; it is noted that layer 14 satisfies the limitation requiring an optical spacer layer; it is noted that the materials or characteristics of the claimed optical spacer layer are not specified, therefore, the transparent layer 14 satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 37, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Uzu further discloses the charge recombination layer has a thickness of 100 nm (Uzu – [0078] L2).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529), as evidenced by Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0358398), in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997), as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Todorov et al. ("A road towards 25% efficiency and beyond: perovskite tandem solar cells").
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Uzu does not explicitly disclose the photoactive semiconductor compound is a chalcogenide anion.
Todorov discloses a perovskite tandem solar cell with a CIGS bottom cell (Fig. 3; page 374, right column, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perovskite tandem cell of modified Uzu with a CIGS bottom cell, as disclosed by Todorov, because as evidenced by Todorov, forming the bottom cell of a perovskite tandem cell with CIGS material amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the bottom cell of the perovskite tandem solar cell of modified Uzu with CIGS based on the teaching of Todorov.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529), as evidenced by Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0358398), in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Lal et al. ("Perovskite Tandem Solar Cells").
Regarding claim 18, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Uzu does not explicitly disclose the second photoactive material comprises at least one second A/M/X material.
Lal discloses a perovskite tandem solar cell with a bottom cell comprised of an A/M/X material (first paragraph, right column of page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the bottom cell of modified Uzu with an A/M/X material as disclosed by Lal, because as evidenced by Lal, the formation of tandem perovskite cells with an A/M/X material for the bottom cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended use to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the bottom cell of modified Uzu with an A/M/X material based on the teaching of Lal.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529), as evidenced by Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0358398), in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Furubayashi et al. (US 2007/0287025).
Regarding claim 23, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Uzu does disclose the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index (Uzu - [0057]), and further discloses examples of the material other than the silicon-based material which forms the intermediate layer, include transparent conductive oxides mainly composed of indium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, or the like (Uzu - [0061]), modified Uzu does not explicitly disclose the charge recombination layer material comprises metal-doped TiO2 wherein the metal is a transition metal.
Furubayashi discloses a transparent conductive oxide having transparency and conductivity which is capable of being stably supplied and is composed of raw materials with superior chemical resistance ([0010]). Furubayashi further discloses a remarkable increase of the electric conductivity while maintaining the transparency by using M:TiO2 obtained by replacing the Ti site of an anatase type TiO2 with another metal atom (Nb, Ta, Mo, As, Sb, W, or the like) ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Ta:TiO2 as a transparent conductive oxide in the intermediate layer of Uzu, because as taught by Uzu, the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index ([0057]). Additionally, Furubayashi discloses the transparent conductive oxide having transparency and conductivity which is capable of being stably supplied and is composed of raw materials with superior chemical resistance ([0010]). Furubayashi further discloses a remarkable increase of the electric conductivity while maintaining the transparency by using M:TiO2 obtained by replacing the Ti site of an anatase type TiO2 with another metal atom (Nb, Ta, Mo, As, Sb, W, or the like) ([0040]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529), as evidenced by Beaumont et al. (US 2017/0358398), in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) and Furubayashi et al. (US 2007/0287025) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Higashikawa et al. (US 2012/0138134).
Regarding claim 24, modified Uzu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Uzu does not explicitly disclose the metal in the metal-doped TiO2 is present in an amount of at least 0.5% by weight of the total weight of the metal-doped TiO2.
As evidenced by Higashikawa ([0086]), conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the material composition of the intermediate layer. The precise amount of metal by weight in the total weight of the transparent conducting oxide would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of metal by weight in the transparent conducting oxide cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of metal in the transparent conducting oxide of the device of modified Uzu to obtain the desired balance between the conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 1, 6, 14-15, 25-27, 29-30, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2018/0175112) in view of Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529) and further in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997).
Regarding claims 1, 15, 25, and 35, Robinson discloses a multijunction device comprising a first photoactive region comprising a layer of a first photoactive material ([0098] L3-4), a second photoactive region comprising a layer of a second photoactive material ([0098] L5-6), and a charge recombination layer disposed between the first and second photoactive regions ([0099] L2-6), wherein the charge recombination layer comprises a charge recombination layer material comprising a metal oxide ([0145]), wherein the first photoactive material comprises FA1-xCsxPbI3-yBry ([0160] - [0164]), wherein the second photoactive material comprises a silicon heterojunction cell ([0102]), wherein each layer of photoactive material is disposed between a respective electron transporting layer and a respective hole transporting layer, wherein the respective electron transporting and hole transporting layers are other than the charge recombination layer ([0158] L2-3 disclose an organic charge transport material above the photoactive layer; Fig. 4 depicts the perovskite layer between layers 111 and 112; [0145] discloses the intermediate region 130 can comprise one or more interconnect layers; it is noted that one of the disclosed interconnect layers satisfies the limitation requiring a respective electron or hole transporting layer other than the charge recombination layer; [0102] L18-20 disclose a TCO layer between the BSF layer of the SHJ cell and the back electrode).
While Robinson does disclose the interconnect layer(s) can comprise any of a recombination layer and a tunnel junction ([0099]), and further discloses an interconnect layer may comprise a transparent conductive oxide ([0145]), Robinson does not explicitly disclose the charge recombination layer material has a refractive index of at least 2 at a wavelength from 500 nm to 1200 nm.
Uzu discloses a multijunction device (abstract) and further discloses a charge recombination layer ([0059]) having a refractive index of at least 2 ([0050]) at a wavelength of from 500 nm to 1200 nm ([0051] L2; [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the charge recombination layer of Robinson such that it has a refractive index of at least 2 at a wavelength of from 500 to 1200 nm, as disclosed by Uzu, because as evidenced by Uzu, the use of a charge recombination layer in a multijunction photovoltaic device with a refractive index of at least 2 at a wavelength of from 500 to 1200 nm amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the charge recombination layer of Robinson such that it has a refractive index of at least 2 at a wavelength of from 500 to 1200 nm based on the teaching of Uzu.
Modified Robinson discloses the charge recombination layer material comprises a transparent conducting oxide (Robinson - [0145] discloses the intermediate region 130 can comprise one or more interconnect layers; it is noted that one of the interconnect layers comprised of TCO material satisfies the limitation requiring a transparent conducting oxide).
Modified Robinson discloses the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index (Uzu - [0057]).
Modified Robinson discloses the intermediate layer (Uzu – [0059], charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range (Uzu - [0061]).
While modified Robinson does disclose that it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index, such as a silicon-based material, when the transparent conductive oxide is used as a material of the intermediate layer (Uzu - [0061]); modified Robinson does not explicitly disclose the material stacked with the transparent conductive oxide is TiO2.
Homma discloses a photoelectric conversion element (abstract) and further discloses rutile type TiO2 (n approximately 2.72) is a material whose refractive index is high ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the multilayer film constituting the intermediate layer of modified Robinson with the disclosed transparent conductive oxide stacked with rutile type TiO2 because as taught by Uzu, it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index ([0061]). Homma discloses TiO2 has a refractive index of approximately 2.72 ([0074]). Additionally, Uzu discloses the intermediate layer ([0059] - charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range ([0061]).
With regard to the limitations "a crystalline compound” and “wherein the charge recombination layer material has a resistivity below 500 ohm cm,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 6, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Robinson further discloses the refractive index of the charge recombination layer material at the wavelength is less than 3.5 (Uzu - [0050]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Robinson discloses the wavelength is 600 nm (Uzu - [0051] L2).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Robinson further discloses FA as an organic cation
(Robinson - FA1-xCsxPbI3-yBry disclosed in [0160] - [0164]).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Robinson further discloses FA1-xCsxPbI3-yBry as the first photoactive material (Robinson, [0160] - [0164]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Robinson further discloses an optical spacer layer (Robinson - [0145] discloses the intermediate region 130 can comprise one or more interconnect layers; it is noted that one of the disclosed interconnect layers satisfies the limitation requiring an optical spacer layer; it is noted that the materials or characteristics of the claimed optical spacer layer are not specified, therefore, one of the disclosed interconnect layers satisfies the limitation).
Regarding claim 37, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Robinson further discloses the charge recombination layer has a thickness of 100 nm (Uzu – [0078] L2).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2018/0175112) in view of Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529) further in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Todorov et al. ("A road towards 25% efficiency and beyond: perovskite tandem solar cells").
Regarding claims 16 and 17, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Robinson does not explicitly disclose the photoactive semiconductor compound is a chalcogenide anion.
Todorov discloses a perovskite tandem solar cell with a CIGS bottom cell (Fig. 3; page 374, right column, line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perovskite tandem cell of modified Robinson with a CIGS bottom cell, as disclosed by Todorov, because as evidenced by Todorov, forming the bottom cell of a perovskite tandem cell with CIGS material amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the bottom cell of the perovskite tandem solar cell of modified Robinson with CIGS based on the teaching of Todorov.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2018/0175112) in view of Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529) further in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lal et al. ("Perovskite Tandem Solar Cells").
Regarding claim 18, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Robinson does not explicitly disclose the second photoactive material comprises at least one second A/M/X material.
Lal discloses a perovskite tandem solar cell with a bottom cell comprised of an A/M/X material (first paragraph, right column of page 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the bottom cell of modified Robinson with an A/M/X material as disclosed by Lal, because as evidenced by Lal, the formation of tandem perovskite cells with an A/M/X material for the bottom cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended use to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the bottom cell of modified Robinson with an A/M/X material based on the teaching of Lal.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2018/0175112) in view of Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529) further in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Higashikawa et al. (US 2012/0138134).
Regarding claim 21, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Robinson does not explicitly disclose the TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 is at least 20% by volume of the total volume of the transparent conducting oxide and the TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2.
As evidenced by Higashikawa ([0086]), conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the material composition of the intermediate layer. The precise amount of TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 by volume in the total volume of the transparent conducting oxide and the TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 by volume in the total volume of the transparent conducting oxide and the TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 by volume in the total volume of the transparent conducting oxide and the TiO2 or metal-doped TiO2 in the device of modified Robinson to obtain the desired balance between the conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2018/0175112) in view of Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529) further in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furubayashi et al. (US 2007/0287025).
Regarding claim 23, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Robinson does disclose the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index (Uzu - [0057]), and further discloses examples of the material other than the silicon-based material which forms the intermediate layer, include transparent conductive oxides mainly composed of indium oxide, zinc oxide, tin oxide, or the like (Uzu - [0061]), modified Robinson does not explicitly disclose the charge recombination layer material comprises metal-doped TiO2 wherein the metal is a transition metal.
Furubayashi discloses a transparent conductive oxide having transparency and conductivity which is capable of being stably supplied and is composed of raw materials with superior chemical resistance ([0010]). Furubayashi further discloses a remarkable increase of the electric conductivity while maintaining the transparency by using M:TiO2 obtained by replacing the Ti site of an anatase type TiO2 with another metal atom (Nb, Ta, Mo, As, Sb, W, or the like) ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Ta:TiO2 as a transparent conductive oxide in the intermediate layer of modified Robinson, because as taught by modified Robinson, the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index (Uzu - [0057]). Additionally, Furubayashi discloses the transparent conductive oxide having transparency and conductivity which is capable of being stably supplied and is composed of raw materials with superior chemical resistance ([0010]). Furubayashi further discloses a remarkable increase of the electric conductivity while maintaining the transparency by using M:TiO2 obtained by replacing the Ti site of an anatase type TiO2 with another metal atom (Nb, Ta, Mo, As, Sb, W, or the like) ([0040]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2018/0175112) in view of Uzu et al. (US 2018/0226529) further in view of Homma et al. (US 2010/0116997) and Furubayashi et al. (US 2007/0287025) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Higashikawa et al. (US 2012/0138134).
Regarding claim 24, modified Robinson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Robinson does not explicitly disclose the metal in the metal-doped TiO2 is present in an amount of at least 0.5% by weight of the total weight of the metal-doped TiO2.
As evidenced by Higashikawa ([0086]), conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the material composition of the intermediate layer. The precise amount of metal by weight in the total weight of the transparent conducting oxide would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of metal by weight in the transparent conducting oxide cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of metal in the transparent conducting oxide of the device of modified Robinson to obtain the desired balance between the conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Uzu teaches that the intermediate layer must have a refractive index between that of the layers either side (charge transport layer 13 and semiconductor layer 23a), i.e. must satisfy the relationship n1 < n < n2. Applicant further argues that in practical terms, this means that the intermediate layer cannot be the same material as either of these two layers.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the intermediate layer of modified Uzu is a
multilayer film containing the materials rutile type TiO2 (n approximately 2.72, Homma [0074]) and a transparent conductive oxide (refractive index of about 1.9, Uzu – [0061]). Therefore, the intermediate layer of modified Uzu is not the same material as either the charge transport layer 13 (refractive index of about 2.3 in the case of titanium oxide, Uzu – [0048]) or the second photoelectric conversion layer (refractive index of about 4.3 in the case of amorphous silicon, Uzu - [0048]). Moreover, the average refractive index n of the intermediate layer of modified Uzu is consistent with the teaching in paragraph [0050] of Uzu.
Applicant argues that the key question here is why would the skilled person select TiO2 (the same material as used in the charge transport layer 13 in Uzu) as that high refractive index material when the entire teaching of Uzu is to use a material with a refractive index intermediate between that of charge transport layer 13 and conductive semiconductor layer 23.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth above, the intermediate layer of modified Izu is not the same material as either the charge transport layer 13 (refractive index of about 2.3 in the case of titanium oxide, Uzu – [0048]) or the second photoelectric conversion layer (refractive index of about 4.3 in the case of amorphous silicon, Uzu - [0048]). An intermediate layer which is a multilayer film containing the materials rutile type TiO2 (n approximately 2.72, Homma [0074]) and a transparent conductive oxide (refractive index of about 1.9, Uzu – [0061]) is not the same as either the charge transport layer 13 (refractive index of about 2.3 in the case of titanium oxide, Uzu – [0048]) or the second photoelectric conversion layer (refractive index of about 4.3 in the case of amorphous silicon, Uzu - [0048]).
Additionally, even if Uzu requires the relationship n1<n<n2, the average refractive index n of the intermediate layer of modified Uzu is consistent with the teaching in paragraph [0050] of Uzu as set forth above.
Applicant argues that there is ambiguity between these two documents about what exactly the refractive index of TiO2 is.
In response to Applicant’s argument, there is no ambiguity between the two documents about the refractive index of rutile phase TiO2 and the refractive index of the TiO2 disclosed in Uzu. The refractive index is dependent on the crystal structure.
As set forth in the office action, Uzu discloses the intermediate layer 3 also has a function of capturing carriers (holes and electrons) generated in the two photoelectric conversion units 1, 2, and recombining the carriers ([0059]; it is noted that based on the disclosure of [0059] of Uzu, the intermediate layer disclosed satisfies the limitation “charge recombination layer”).
Uzu further discloses the material of the intermediate layer has a refractive index of at least 2 ([0050]) at a wavelength of from 500 nm to 1200 nm ([0051] L2; [0057]), and further discloses the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index ([0057]).
Uzu discloses the intermediate layer ([0059] - charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range ([0061]).
While Uzu does disclose that it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index, such as a silicon-based material, when the transparent conductive oxide is used as a material of the intermediate layer ([0061]); Uzu does not explicitly disclose the material stacked with the transparent conductive oxide is TiO2.
Homma discloses a photoelectric conversion element (abstract) and further discloses rutile type TiO2 (n approximately 2.72) is a material whose refractive index is high ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the multilayer film constituting the intermediate layer of Uzu with the disclosed transparent conductive oxide stacked with rutile type TiO2 because as taught by Uzu, it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index ([0061]). Homma discloses TiO2 has a refractive index of approximately 2.72 ([0074]). Additionally, Uzu discloses the intermediate layer ([0059] - charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range ([0061]).
Applicant argues that the only expressly described subgenus within that broad genus of high refractive index materials in Uzu are Si-based materials.
In response to Applicant’s argument, paragraph [0061] of Uzu does not limit the material that is stacked with the transparent conductive oxide to be a silicon-based material. The teaching states the phrase “such as”. Paragraph [0061] of Uzu teaches “Therefore, it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index, such as a silicon-based material, wherein the transparent conductive oxide is used as a material of the intermediate layer.”
Applicant argues that the prior art subgenus of high refractive index silicon-based materials described in Uzu is “significantly different in structure from the claimed species or subgenus” such that there would be no “reasonable expectation” that other, structurally distinct materials with different properties such as TiO2 (or metal-doped TiO2) would also be useful in this layer.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the multilayer film constituting the intermediate layer of Uzu with the disclosed transparent conductive oxide stacked with rutile type TiO2 because as taught by Uzu, it may be possible that the transparent conductive oxide is stacked with a material having a relatively high refractive index ([0061]). Homma discloses TiO2 has a refractive index of approximately 2.72 ([0074]). Additionally, Uzu discloses the intermediate layer ([0059] - charge recombination layer) may be a multilayer film, and further discloses when the intermediate layer includes a plurality of layers, the material that forms each layer is not particularly limited as long as the average refractive index n is in the above-mentioned range ([0061]).
Applicant argues that not all materials falling within the category of materials “having a relatively high refractive index” would be suitable as components in the intermediate layer.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not provided a reason that rutile type TiO2 (n approximately 2.72, Homma [0074]) would not be suitable in the intermediate layer based on the teachings of Uzu.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments directed to Robinson, Uzu and Homma are not persuasive for the same reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues that none of the recombination layers taught in Todorov fulfill the requirements of claim 1 of the present application. Applicant further argues that Todorov makes no mention of including ITO, TiO2 or Nb:TiO2 in the recombination layer. Applicant further argues that Todorov does not discuss refractive index mismatch.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Todorov is relied upon to teach a perovskite tandem solar cell with a CIGS bottom cell (Fig. 3; page 374, right column, line 4).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that no mention of using TiO2 or Nb:TiO2 in the recombination layer is made in Lal. Applicant further argues that Lal does not offer any further teaching or motivation to provide a refractive index matched recombination layer as recited in the present claims, and does not remedy the deficiencies noted above.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Lal is relied upon to teach a perovskite tandem solar cell with a bottom cell comprised of an A/M/X material (first paragraph, right column of page 1).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the skilled person would not select a TCO material, as disclosed in Furubayashi, for the charge recombination layer as they would assume that the refractive index would not be high enough to provide a layer satisfying the relationship n1<n<n2.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Furubayashi is relied upon for its teaching of a transparent conductive oxide having transparency and conductivity which is capable of being stably supplied and is composed of raw materials with superior chemical resistance ([0010]). Furubayashi further discloses a remarkable increase of the electric conductivity while maintaining the transparency by using M:TiO2 obtained by replacing the Ti site of an anatase type TiO2 with another metal atom (Nb, Ta, Mo, As, Sb, W, or the like) ([0040]).
As set forth in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Ta:TiO2 as a transparent conductive oxide in the intermediate layer of Uzu, because as taught by Uzu, the material of the intermediate layer 3 is not particularly limited as long as it has the above-mentioned refractive index ([0057]). Additionally, Furubayashi discloses the transparent conductive oxide having transparency and conductivity which is capable of being stably supplied and is composed of raw materials with superior chemical resistance ([0010]). Furubayashi further discloses a remarkable increase of the electric conductivity while maintaining the transparency by using M:TiO2 obtained by replacing the Ti site of an anatase type TiO2 with another metal atom (Nb, Ta, Mo, As, Sb, W, or the like) ([0040]).
It is noted that Applicant does not provide evidence to support the assertion that one skilled in the art would assume that the refractive index would not be high enough to provide a layer satisfying the relationship n1<n<n2.
Applicant argues that Higashikawa teaches away from the specific combination of materials in claim 1. Applicant argues that the materials for the charge recombination layer material in claim 1 of the present application would inherently fall outside the narrow range of 0.956 to 0.976 because they contain much higher ratios of oxygen atoms to metal atoms.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Higashikawa provides evidence that conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission characteristics ([0086]) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the material composition of the intermediate layer. Higashikawa’s teaching of another intermediate layer which achieves associated advantages, does not constitute a teaching away of the intermediate layer disclosed by Uzu. The teaching of Higashikawa does not describe an inoperability of the device of Uzu. One skilled in the art would understand the range disclosed by Higashikawa is applicable to the parameters/materials in Higashikawa’s device, to achieve a desired property in Higashikawa, and not necessarily applicable to other intermediate layers in other devices which have different parameters/materials. Additionally, as evidenced by Higashikawa, multiple properties are determined by the material composition of the intermediate layer.
It is further noted that Applicant does not provide evidence supporting the assertion that the charge recombination layer material in claim 1 would inherently fall outside the range.
Applicant argues that a broad reference to “adjusting the material composition of the intermediate layer” is not enough.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the teaching of Higashikawa is interpreted in a manner consistent with the understanding of one skilled in the art of photovoltaic design. Further, the teaching of Higashikawa is interpreted in light of the teachings of the art of record, including the teachings of Uzu and Furubayashi. Additionally, even if one skilled in the art would not recognize that a change in material composition affects properties such as the refractive index and conductivity, it is noted that the art of record clearly suggests the relationship between material composition and properties such as refractive index and conductivity, for example.
As set forth in MPEP 2141, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As set forth in the office action, as evidenced by Higashikawa ([0086]), conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the material composition of the intermediate layer. The precise amount of metal by weight in the total weight of the transparent conducting oxide would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount of metal by weight in the transparent conducting oxide cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of metal in the transparent conducting oxide of the device of modified Uzu to obtain the desired balance between the conductivity, sheet resistance, and light transmission (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Applicant argues with regard to Figure 7 and page 64, second paragraph of the as-filed specification that improvement in PCE is achieved when using TiO2 in the interlayer. In response to Applicant’s argument, the results described in the as-filed specification are achieved with material combinations and parameters that are not commensurate in scope with the limitations claimed.
With regard to the results depicted in Fig. 5B of the as-filed specification, the as-filed specification states Figure 5B shows PCE as a function of recombination layer thickness for various ITO/Nb:TiO2 blend ratios. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the as-filed specification clearly describes the results depicted in Figure 5B are a function of recombination layer thickness for various ITO/Nb:TiO2 blend ratios.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726