DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/28/2025 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, and 18 are amended.
Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 12-17, and 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, and 18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “each said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in line 6. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are objected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “a unique energy bandgap.” in line 7. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “a unique energy bandgap; and”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are objected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “any said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in line 8. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are objected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “plurality of said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pairs” in lines 11-12. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are objected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “each said member” in line 1. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “each said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in lines 1-2. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “each said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in line 6. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the informality in the multiple recitation “each said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in claim 6. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the informality in the multiple recitation “the transparent or translucent PV thin-film pairs” in claim 2. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the informality in the multiple recitation “the transparent or translucent PV thin-film pairs” in claim 2. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “that” in line 9. It is unclear as to what Applicant intends the limitation “that” to further limit. For the purpose of office action, the limitation “that” will be treated as if it recites “an energy bandgap”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “each transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “said members” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “said member and the other member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “the electricity” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “electricity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “the electricity” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “electricity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “said members” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “said member and the other member”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 recites “the electricity” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “electricity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103 would be proper. The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, GANAPATI (Air Gaps as Intermediate Selective Reflectors to Reach Theoretical Efficiency Limits of Multibandgap Solar Cells) teaches the state of the art of a solar cell comprising a layered sandwiched structure separated in space by air.
But, the prior art fails to explicitly teach a combination of all the claimed features including “With a member of any said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair cauterized by said unique energy bandgap identical to that of the other member of the transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair, and with the unique energy bandgap of plurality of said transparent or translucent PV thin-film pairs progressively decreasing in magnitude from a top-most transparent or translucent PV thin-film pair to a bottom-most transparent or translucent PV thin- film pair in the layered sandwiched structure, to target absorption of light with progressively loner wavelengths as sunlight traverses down the layered sandwiched structure”, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/28/2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726