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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 10/1/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO2019/072163, Machine translation) in view of Okabe (US Pub No. 2017/0229590), Chen 2 (Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 5670–5677) and Meng (US Pub No. 2008/0128681)
Regarding Claim 12-13, and 16-17, Chen et al. teaches a multi-junction tandem organic solar cell [Fig. 2A-2B, 0077-0078], comprising:
a hole-transporting sub-layer [140, Fig. 2A, 0116] of an interconnection layer [130, Fig. 2A, 0221] of the multi-junction tandem organic solar cell [Fig. 2A, 0115] formed by drying a coating of an aqueous poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate dispersion liquid [0223, 0242] formed on a sub-cell surface of a multi-junction tandem organic solar cell [0223]
Chen et al. teaches wherein said hole transporting layer has a dry thickness of 10 to 20 nm [0222].
Chen et al. is silent on wherein said interconnection layer has a dry thickness of less than 20 nm, and at least two interconnection layers, and drying the coating comprises thermal annealing at a temperature greater than 100 degrees Celsius; the multi-junction tandem organic solar cell has a PCE of at least 14.7 percent.
Okabe et al. teaches an interconnection layer [electron transport layer 26, Fig. 1, 0047] with a dry thickness of 0.1 nm to 0.5 nm overlapping the claimed less than 20 nm. The interconnection layer of Okabe et al. is used to transport electrons [0048].
Since Chen et al. teaches the interconnection layer comprising a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer, and Okabe et al. teaches the interconnection layer comprising a electron transport layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the electron transport layer of Chen et al. with the electron transport layer thickness of Okabe et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for interconnection layers in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches an interconnection layer comprising a electron transport layer with a thickness of 0.1 nm to 0.5 nm and a hole transport layer with a thickness of 10-20 nm. This combination would result in the interconnection layer having a thickness overlapping the claimed less than 20 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Chen 2 et al. teaches a triple junction tandem solar cell [Fig. 1, page 5671, top of page], with a hole transport layer comprising PEDOT:PSS of an interconnection layer [ZnO and PEDOT:PSS, Fig. 1, page 5671, top of page]. The interconnection layers are between three organic photoactive layers [Fig. 1, page 5671, top of page]. The triple junction solar cell of Chen 2 et al. has a first and second electrode [Al and ITO, Fig. 1, top of page 5671].
Since modified Chen et al. an interconnection layer 130 comprises ZnO and PEDOT:PSS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the interconnection layer of modified Chen et al. in place of the interconnection layers (ZnO/PEDOT:PSS) of Chen 2 et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional interconnection layers for tandem solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
As a result of the combination, the interconnection layer of Chen et al. is applied in place of each interconnection layer of Chen 2 et al. in figure 1 [Page 5671, top of page]. The tandem cell in figure 1 of Chen 2 et al. provides the three organic photoactive layers, the two interconnection layers [Each layer comprising ZnO/PEDOT:PSS], and the first and second electrodes.
Meng et al. teaches a method of forming a PEDOT layer which is annealed at a temperature of 200 degrees for 10 minutes under vacuum [0042] overlapping the claimed greater than 100 degrees Celsius.
Since modified Chen et al. teaches the formation of PEDOT, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the PEDOT method of Meng et al. which involves annealing a PEDOT layer at a temperature of 200 degrees for 10 minutes under vacuum as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Chen et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the solar cell of modified Chen et al. meeting the limitation of “the multi-junction tandem organic solar cell has a PCE of at least 14.7 percent.”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen (WO2019/072163, Machine translation) in view of Okabe (US Pub No. 2017/0229590), Chen 2 (Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 5670–5677) and Meng (US Pub No. 2008/0128681) with supporting evidence by Ossila (Clevios HTL SOLAR)
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein said poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate has a PEDOT:PSS ratio of 1:2.5. [the PEDOT:PSS used in Chen et al. shows the PEDOT:PSS was from Clevios HTL SOLAR [0242]]
Ossila et al. teaches Clevios HTL Solar PEDOT:PSS have a composition of PEDOT/PSS (1:2.5 w/w) [Technical Data, bottom of second page]
Chen et al. does not explicitly teaches the ratio of the PEDOT:PSS; however, Chen et al. teaches the PEDOT:PSS used was from Clevios HTL Solar.
Since Chen et al. teaches the use of PEDOT:PSS form Clevios HTL SOLAR, one skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have been able to recognize the PEDOT:PSS used by Chen et al. would have the ratio of 1:2.5 according to the teaching of Ossila et al.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO2019/072163, Machine translation) in view of Okabe (US Pub No. 2017/0229590), Chen 2 (Adv. Mater. 2014, 26, 5670–5677) and Meng (US Pub No. 2008/0128681) as applied above in addressing claim 12, in further view of Hu (US Pub No. 2021/0047562)
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on wherein the thermal annealing comprises at least wo distinct thermal steps within a vacuum and each greater than 100 degrees Celsius.
Hu et al. teaches a method of forming a PEDOT layer which is annealed at 150 degrees for 30 minutes and then at 120 degrees for 20 minutes [0085] overlapping the claimed greater than 100 degrees Celsius
Since modified Chen et al. teaches the formation of PEDOT, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the PEDOT method of Hu et al. which involves a PEDOT layer annealed at 150 degrees for 30 minutes and then at 120 degrees for 20 minutes as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12, 14, and 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728