DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the RCE on 2/6/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanei et al. (US 2017/0243698, cited by Applicant IDS 10/27/22) in view of Honda et al. (US 2019/0305168, cited by Examiner in PTO-892 mailed 3/28/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kanei et al. teaches a photoelectric conversion element (Figure 1A and 2C, Paragraph 00251 – 253) in which a first substrate 1, a first electrode 2, a photoelectric conversion layer 101, a second electrode 7, and a second substrate 8 are sequentially laminated, the photoelectric conversion element 101 comprising: an adhesive layer 9 surrounding at least the photoelectric conversion layer 10, wherein a clearance surrounding an outer edge of the adhesive layer 9 is formed between the outer edge of the adhesive layer 9 and an outer edge of the first substrate 1 in a plan view (see Figure 2C).
Kanei et al. does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element includes a hollow part between the adhesive layer 9 and the photoelectric conversion layer 10, however, Honda et al. shows (Figure 1) that a photoelectric conversion element 101 include a hollow part between an adhesive layer 8 and a photoelectric conversion layer 4/5/6 (Paragraph 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kanei et al. to include a hollow part in the manner as taught by Honda et al. since doing so may prevent unwanted transfer of mechanical stress from the second substrate or adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 2, Kanei et al. teaches that there is an interval between the outer edge of the adhesive layer 9 of the clearance and the outer edge of the first substrate 1, however, Kanei et al. does not teach the measurement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to use an interval measurement of 0.01 mm or more, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, 1980). Kanei et al. shows (Figure 4B) that the claimed values are possible.
Regarding claim 3, Kanei et al. teaches that a thickness of the adhesive layer 9 in a circumferential direction is 0.2 mm or more (Figure 4A – 4B).
Regarding claim 4, Kanei et al. teaches wherein the second substrate is composed of part of the adhesive layer (as one can arbitrarily designate the top of element 9 as part of the second substrate), and wherein an edge portion of the second substrate is curved (all physical edges are curved microscopically; no degree of “curved” is claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Kanei et al. teaches that the adhesive layer 9 is formed of a pressure-sensitive adhesive (Paragraph 0232 lists adhesives which can be considered pressure-sensitive).
Regarding claim 6, Kanei et al. teaches that the adhesive layer 9 contains a moisture absorbent (Paragraph 0233).
Regarding claim 7, Kanei et al. teaches that an electrode protective layer is provided between the second electrode 7 and the second substrate 8 (indicated by “combination” of Paragraph 0226 or anti-reflection layer in Paragraph 0228).
Regarding claim 9, Kanei et al. teaches that the photoelectric conversion layer 10 includes an electron transporting layer 4 and a hole transporting layer 6, the electron transporting layer 4 having a photosensitizing compound 5 (Paragraph 0252).
Regarding claim 11, Kanei et al. teaches a photoelectric conversion element module comprising the photoelectric conversion element of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Kanei et al. does not teach that the adhesive layer is not adhered to the first substrate, however, Honda et al. (Figure 1, Paragraph 0034) shows that a first electrode 2 and a second electrode 7 can form a sandwich without covering the sides of the photoelectric conversion layer 4/5/6, thus allowing for the adhesive layer 8 to not adhere to a first substrate 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kanei et al. such that the adhesive layer is not adhered to the first substrate in the manner taught by Honda et al., since doing so may prevent unwanted shorting between the first electrode and the second electrode.
Regarding claim 13, Kanei et al. does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element includes a hollow part between the second electrode and the second substrate. Honda et al. shows (Figure 1, Paragraph 0034) that a photoelectric conversion element 101 includes a hollow part between the second electrode 7 and the second substrate 9. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kanei et al. such that the photoelectric conversion element includes a hollow part between the second electrode and the second substrate in the manner as taught by Honda et al., since doing so may prevent unwanted transferring of mechanical stress between the second substrate and the photoelectric conversion element.
Regarding claim 14, Kanei et al. does not teach that that the hollow part contains oxygen at a concentration of 10.0 vol % to 21.0 vol %. Honda et al. teaches (Paragraph 0278) that the hollow part (“void space”) can contain an oxygen concentration of about 0% - 21%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kanei et al. in view of Honda et al. such that the hollow part contains oxygen at a concentration of 10.0 vol % to 21.0 vol % since it has been held that 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, 191 USPQ 90, 1976, see also MPEP §2144.05 (I)). Please note that MPEP §2123 Part II states “[d]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanei et al. (US 2017/0243698) in view of Honda et al. (US 2019/0305168) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Fujimori et al. (US 2007/0252229).
Regarding claim 8, Kanei et al. does not teach that the electrode protective layer contains a fluorine compound having a silane structure. Fujimori et al. teaches (Paragraph 0078) that electrodes can be treated with a fluorine compound having a silane structure to decrease contact resistance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Kanei et al. such that the electrode protective layer contains a fluorine compound having a silane structure, in the manner as taught by Fujimori et al., since doing so may decrease contact resistance with the photoelectric conversion element.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanei et al. (US 2017/0243698) in view of Honda et al. (US 2019/0305168) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2004/0256002, cited by Applicant IDS 10/27/22).
Regarding claim 10, Kanei et al. does not teach that the second substrate is formed of a metal film. Horiuchi et al. teaches (Paragraph 0063) that a substrate can have a metal mesh. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a metal film on the second substrate of Kanei et al. in the manner as taught by Horiuchi et al. since doing so may improve conductivity of the second electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points out that “Kanei actually discloses low-melting-point frit glass and ultraviolet/thermal curing resin as sealing material… Kanei does not disclose “an adhesive layer””(pp. 6). All arguments presented by Applicant depend on their assertion that Kanei does not disclose an adhesive layer. The argument that cured resin and frit glass cannot be an adhesive layer because they lose adhesiveness after curing is not found persuasive. The adhesive layer 9 of Kanei provides adhesion (Paragraph 0065) between the elements it contacts. Also, Applicant includes cured resin and a low melting point glass resin as example materials for adhesive layer (sealing member) 8 in Paragraphs 0332 – 0323 of the original specification. The original specification also states that a cured resin can be used as a pressure-sensitive adhesive (Paragraph 0325). If Applicant’s adhesive layer has different properties than as taught as the references, they should be claimed.
New claim 14 has been addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights