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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 21 August 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Acknowledgment
Response filed on 23 June 2025 has been entered. Applicant has amended claim 1. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10-13 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.
Wei and Rybtchinski do not disclose wherein the first conductive layer is formed of a base layer and a porous semiconductor layer. New art disclosing this additional limitation is cited in combination with Wei and Rybtchinski.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 23 June 2025 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that the combination of Wei and Rybtchinski is a misinterpretation of Wei as the second electrode (240) is a conventional layer, such as a metal thin film. However, Wei (¶26) clearly identifies that this layer can be a number of alternatives to a conventional thin metal film layer: “The second electrode 240 can be the transparent conductive layer, an opaque conductive layer or the porous network structure, such as a metal thin film, a metal mesh, the ITO layer, the FTO layer or the carbon nanotube film. If the light incident surface of the organic thin film solar battery 200 is a surface of the second electrode 240, the substrate 210 may be an opaque substrate, such as a silicon substrate. The second electrode 240 can be the transparent conductive layer or the porous network structure, such as the ITO layer, the FTO layer or the carbon nanotube film.”
Regarding claims 7-8, applicant asserts that Yukio is non-analogous art as a “a terahertz (THz) wave photodetector that operates on the photothermoelectric (Seebeck) effect.” While not solving the same problem, both Wei and Yukio disclose devices for conversion of incoming photons via light receiving elements into electrical potential.
Regarding claim 14, applicant asserts that Peigney is non-analogous. Both Peigney and the instant application disclose heat pressing of carbon nanotube structures. Applicant further asserts that the combination of Peigney would not be obvious as it discloses the process is “detrimental to densification because it inhibits the rearrangement and shrinkage of the matrix particles.” However, this assertion is flawed due to only applying to a subset of the results provided by Peigney, labeled CM where the catalytic material increases CNT content near matrix grains.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. US20170346014 (hereinafter Wei) in view of Rybtchinski et al. US20200140439 (hereinafter Rybtchinski) and Takada et al. US20110315213 (hereinafter Takada).
Regarding claim 1, Wei discloses (fig. 8) a photoelectric conversion element (200 ¶21, 26) comprising a unified laminate that includes, in stated order,
a light-transmitting base plate (210 ¶22, 26),
a transparent conductive film, a first conductive layer (where the first electrode 220 is also a transparent conductive film ¶22, 24, 26),
a power-generating layer (250 ¶46), and
a second conductive layer (240 ¶26), wherein the second conductive layer (240) contains a porous structure of one or more single-walled carbon nanotubes (¶26).
Wei does not disclose the porous structure as a self-supporting sheet.
In the same field of endeavor, Rybtchinski discloses a porous self-supporting sheet formed from carbon nanotubes (¶254-265). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the structure disclosed by Rybtchinski in the element of Wei, improving device stability without increased weight of support structures.
Wei in view of Rybtchinski does not disclose the first conductive layer is formed of a base layer and a porous semiconductor layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Takada discloses (fig. 1) a photoelectric conversion element, where the first conductive layer (2a and 3) is formed of a base layer (2a) and a porous semiconductor layer (3) (Takada ¶106-108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the first conductive layer to include a non-porous base layer, improving device consistency by including a continuous conductive layer along the width of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1,
wherein a joining layer (252 Wei ¶60) is included in at least part of between the power-generating layer (250 Wei ¶46) and the second conductive layer (240 Wei ¶46), and the joining layer is formed of an organic material A and has a different composition and property to the power-generating layer and the second conductive layer (Wei ¶60).
Regarding claim 3, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 2,
wherein the porous self-supporting sheet contains the organic material A (Rybtchinski discloses organic compounds for use in the self-supporting sheet ¶184-186).
Regarding claim 4, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1,
wherein the porous self-supporting sheet has a thickness of 20 µm or more (Rybtchinski ¶193).
Regarding claim 5, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1 or 4,
wherein the porous self-supporting sheet contains a constituent material of the power-generating layer or at least part of a constituent material of the power-generating layer.
Wei discloses materials of the power-generating layer (¶26-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the self-supporting sheet disclosed by Rybtchinski to include power-generating material, enhancing device efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1, wherein the power-generating layer contains a perovskite compound (Wei ¶27-28, 57).
Regarding claim 9, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1, wherein the first conductive layer contains either or both of a metal oxide and an organic compound (Wei ¶26).
Claims 7-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Rybtchinski, and Takada in view of Yukio et al. WO2018159638 (hereinafter Yukio).
Regarding claim 7, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1.
Wei in view of Rybtchinski does not disclose wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes have an average diameter (Av) and a diameter standard deviation (σ) satisfying a relationship: 0.20 <(3σ/Av) < 0.60.
In the same field of endeavor, Yukio discloses single-walled carbon nanotubes in a free-standing film with an average diameter (Av) and a diameter standard deviation (σ) satisfying a relationship: 0.20 <(3σ/Av) < 0.60 (Yukio ¶24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use nanotubes as disclosed by Yukio in the device of Wei modified by Rybtchinski to enhance structural integrity (Yukio ¶24).
Regarding claim 8, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1.
Wei in view of Rybtchinski does not disclose single-walled carbon nanotubes in a free-standing film wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes exhibit a convex upward shape in a t-plot obtained from an adsorption isotherm.
In the same field of endeavor, Yukio discloses single-walled carbon nanotubes in a free-standing film wherein the single-walled carbon nanotubes exhibit a convex upward shape in a t-plot obtained from an adsorption isotherm (Yukio ¶24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use nanotubes as disclosed by Yukio in the device of Wei modified by Rybtchinski to enhance structural integrity (Yukio ¶24).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei, Rybtchinski, and Takada in view of Rinzler et al. US20100272981 (hereinafter Rinzler).
Regarding claim 10, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element that is a method of producing the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1. Wei further discloses dissolving and drying of a solvent (Wei ¶41-43), but does not explicitly disclose comprising a step of stacking the porous self-supporting sheet on the power-generating layer in a state in which a joining surface of at least one of the power-generating layer and the porous self-supporting sheet retains a solvent or a solution.
In the same field of endeavor, Rinzler discloses a method comprising a step of stacking the porous self-supporting sheet on the power-generating layer in a state in which a joining surface of at least one of the power-generating layer and the porous self-supporting sheet retains a solvent or a solution (Rinzler ¶7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to join the self-supporting sheet with the power-generating layer as disclosed by Rinzler, maintaining the desired homogenous nanotube structure.
Regarding claim 11, Wei in view of Rybtchinski, Takada, and Rinzler discloses method of producing a photoelectric conversion element according to claim 10, wherein the solvent is a poor solvent, and the porous self-supporting sheet that is stacked on the power-generating layer is impregnated with the solvent (Rinzler ¶7-8).
Regarding claim 12, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element that is a method of producing the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 1.
Wei in view of does not disclose comprising a step of stacking the porous self-supporting sheet on the power-generating layer in a state in which a joining surface of at least one of the power-generating layer and the porous self-supporting sheet retains a solvent or a solution, wherein the power-generating layer is a layer that is formed of a perovskite compound, the solution is a solution having at least one perovskite compound precursor dissolved in a poor solvent, and the porous self-supporting sheet that is stacked on the power-generating layer is impregnated with the solution.
In the same field of endeavor, Rinzler discloses a method comprising a step of stacking the porous self-supporting sheet on the power-generating layer in a state in which a joining surface of at least one of the power-generating layer and the porous self-supporting sheet retains a solvent or a solution, wherein the power-generating layer is a layer that is formed of a perovskite compound, the solution is a solution having at least one perovskite compound precursor dissolved in a poor solvent, and the porous self-supporting sheet that is stacked on the power-generating layer is impregnated with the solution (Rinzler ¶7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to join the self-supporting sheet with the power-generating layer as disclosed by Rinzler, maintaining the desired homogenous nanotube structure.
Regarding claim 13, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Takada discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element that is a method of producing the photoelectric conversion element according to claim 2.
Wei in view of does not disclose comprising a step of stacking the porous self-supporting sheet on the power-generating layer in a state in which a joining surface of at least one of the power-generating layer and the porous self-supporting sheet retains a solvent or a solution, wherein the solution is an organic material-containing solution having the organic material A dissolved in a poor solvent, and the porous self-supporting sheet that is stacked on the power-generating layer is impregnated with the organic material-containing solution.
In the same field of endeavor, Rinzler discloses a method comprising a step of stacking the porous self-supporting sheet on the power-generating layer in a state in which a joining surface of at least one of the power-generating layer and the porous self-supporting sheet retains a solvent or a solution, wherein the solution is an organic material-containing solution having the organic material A dissolved in a poor solvent, and the porous self-supporting sheet that is stacked on the power-generating layer is impregnated with the organic material-containing solution (Rinzler ¶7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to join the self-supporting sheet with the power-generating layer as disclosed by Rinzler, maintaining the desired homogenous nanotube structure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei and Rybtchinski and Rinzler in view of Peigney et al. Densification during hot-pressing of carbon nanotube-metal-magnesium aluminate spinel nanocomposites, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 27 (2007) 2183–2193 (hereinafter Peigney).
Regarding claim 14, Wei in view of Rybtchinski and Rinzler disclose the method of producing a photoelectric conversion element according to claim 10.
Rybtchinski discloses use of pressure, but does not disclose further comprising a step of heat pressing the porous self-supporting sheet that has been stacked on the power-generating layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Peigney discloses the effects of heat pressing a structure containing carbon nanotubes. It would have been obvious to use a heat pressing step disclosed by Peigney to the porous self-supporting sheet that has been stacked on the power-generating layer of Wei modified by Rybtchinski and Rinzler, improving energy efficiency by increasing the density of the power-generating layer.
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 Seth Lawson whose telephone number is (703)756-5675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PST.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/Seth D Lawson/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights