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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed 6/9/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz-Ruhtenberg et al. (“Seminal Tools for Roll-to-Roll Manufacturing”; reference already of record) in view of Lewis et al. (US 2014/0007925 A1) and Oh et al. (“Effect of PEDOT Nanofibril Networks on the Conductivity, Flexibility, and coatability of PEDOT:PSS Films”; reference already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Schulz-Ruhtenberg discloses a photovoltaic module (Fig. 3b, Pgs 21-22) comprising:
a substrate made of polymer material (“PET”, Fig. 3b, Page 23),
at least two photovoltaic cells, a first photovoltaic cell and a second photovoltaic cell on said substrate (Fig. 3, Pages 23-24), each of said two photovoltaic cells comprising:
a cathode layer of indium-tin oxide (“ITO”, Fig. 3b, Page 23) covering said substrate
a first interfacial layer of zinc oxide (“Zno” Fig. 3b, Page 23-24), said first interfacial layer covering said cathode,
a photovoltaic active layer (“P3HT:PCBM”, Fig. 3b, Pages 23-24), and
a second interfacial layer (“PEDOT:PSS”, Fig. 3b, Page 24) comprising a polymer blend of poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) and sodium poly(styrene sulfonate) (as stated in Applicant’s Specification, PEDOT:PSS is formed of a polymer blend of poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) and sodium poly(styrene sulfonate)), said second interfacial layer covering said photovoltaic active layer, said second interfacial layer being continuous.
The second interfacial layer does not constitute the anode in Fig. 3b.
Lewis, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming a photovoltaic module in which the PEDOT:PSS layer constitutes the anode as well (see Fig. 4). There was a benefit to such a configuration in which the PEDOT:PSS layer constitutes the anode in that an additional anode material layer is not required which allows for less material to be used, resulting in lower materials cost. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the PEDOT:PSS layer such that it also constituted the anode for this benefit. To form the PEDOT:PSS layer as the anode, Lewis discloses forming the PEDOT:PSS layer such that it has a thickness within the claimed range (400 nm, ¶ 0016 of Lewis). In the resulting configuration in which the PEDOT:PSS and Silver layer in Fig. 3b of Schulz-Ruhtenberg is replaced with a single layer of PEDOT:PSS, the second interfacial layer (i.e., the PEDOT:PSS layer) will be the outermost layer of the photovoltaic cell and the second interfacial layer of the first photovoltaic cell is in direct contact with the indium-tin oxide layer of the second photovoltaic cell (see Fig. 3b of Schulz-Ruhtenberg).
Schulz-Ruhtenberg does not explicitly state whether the PEDOT:PSS layer has an organic fibrous structure.
Oh, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming PEDOT:PSS with an organic fibrous structure (Abstract of Oh). There was a benefit to such a configuration in that it increases the conductivity (Abstract of Oh). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the PEDOT:PSS layer to have an organic fibrous structure for this benefit.
Regarding claim 2, Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh disclose the photovoltaic module of claim 1, as discussed above.
Further, the PEDOT:PSS layer of Lewis having a thickness of 400 nm has a square resistance within the claimed range (as evidenced by Fig. 8 of US 2013/0263916 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh disclose the photovoltaic module of claim 1, as discussed above.
The substrate of Schulz-Ruhtenberg is also flexible (as it is made from the polymer PET).
Regarding claim 7, Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh disclose the photovoltaic module of claim 1, as discussed above.
Further, as the structure and composition of the photovoltaic module is consistent with that claimed, the photovoltaic module of the prior art should inherently also be functional under a radiation equal to or less than 1000 lux (see MPEP 2113(II)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (“Effective Approaches to Improve the Electrical Conductivity of PEDOT:PSS: A Review”; reference already of record).
Regarding claim 3, Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh disclose the photovoltaic module of claim 1, as discussed above.
Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh do not explicitly disclose the roughness of the second interfacial layers.
Shi, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that the surface roughness of PEDOT:PSS can be formed within the claimed range (Fig. 3). There was a benefit to forming the PEDOT:PSS to have as small a resistance as possible to reduce irregularities on the surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the PEDOT:PSS layer to have a roughness Ra within the claimed range for this benefit.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (A series connection architecture for large-area organic photovoltaic modules with a 7.5% module efficiency, Nature Communications volume 7, Article number: 10279 (2016)).
Regarding claim 4, Schulz-Ruhtenberg differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a polymer blend comprising methyl [6,6]-phenyl-C61-butanoate associated with poly(thieno[3,4-b ]-thiophene with P3HT:PCBM. However, using poly(thieno[3,4-b ]-thiophene in a polymer blend and the corresponding function was known in the art (Results section of Hong). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known polymer of poly(thieno[3,4-b ]-thiophene as taught by Hong to pair with the PCBM of Schulz-Ruhtenberg for and the results of the substitution would have been predictable as a photovoltaic active layer. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the limitation that the second interfacial layer of the first photovoltaic cell be in “direct contact” with the indium-tin oxide layer, while the previous rejection used either of the two configurations of the photovoltaic module in Fig. 3 of Schulz-Ruhtenberg, the new rejections, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments, are directed exclusively to the photovoltaic module of Fig. 3b of Schulz-Ruhtenberg which, in the device of the combination, will have the second interfacial layer of the first photovoltaic cell be in direct contact with the indium-tin oxide layer of the second photovoltaic cell.
Applicant further argues that no reference “suggests a module architecture in which the PEDOT:PSS second interfacial layer of one cell is in direct contact with the ITO cathode layer of an adjacent cell.” This argument is not persuasive as Schulz-Ruhtenberg discloses this feature in Fig. 3b.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
1252
media_image1.png
Greyscale
annotated portion of Fig. 3b of Schulz-Ruhtenberg
Applicant further argues that “Schulz-Ruhtenberg, Lewis, and Oh do not teach or suggest ‘the second interfacial layer being the outermost layer of the photovoltaic cell’ as recited in claim 1.” This argument is not persuasive as while none of the references may individually teach the entirety of this limitation, 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). As noted in the rejection, in the obvious modification of Schulz-Ruhtenberg in view of Lewis in which the bi-layer of PEDOT:PSS and anode of Schulz-Ruhtenberg is replaced with a single layer of PEDOT:PSS, the second interfacial layer of PEDOT:PSS will be the outermost layer of the photovoltaic cell.
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights