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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 pending.
Claims 12-15 withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09/19/2025 has been accepted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1, and its respective dependent claims and corresponding arguments, specifically see page 6 and 7 of Applicant’s remarks filed 09/19/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4 (Hsu in view of Gotanda) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Hsu in view of Gotanda (with respect to independent claim 1) does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 1 (i.e. the wiring scheme and support film are cuttable (Cl. 1), the support film sandwiching the photovoltaic device, the support film having an adhesive backing (Cl. 3), the support film having a printed grid (Cl. 4)) and thus and its respective dependent claims. In view of the amendments, new references have been applied (Lindström et al, Stan et al). Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lindström further in view of Stan and further in view of Kirner. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lindström further in view of Stan and further in view of Moon. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lindström further in view of Stan and further in view of Cui. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lindström further in view of Stan and further in view of Zhang.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0181290 A1 Hsu et al (herein “Hsu”) in view of US 2021/0151259 A1 Lindström et al (herein “Lindström”) and further in view of US 2017/0170355 A1 Stan et al (herein “Stan”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hsu discloses:
A flexible photovoltaic thin film device (see generally Fig. 4, #400), the flexible photovoltaic thin film device (#400) comprising: a flexible photovoltaic thin film stack (#400), each flexible photovoltaic thin film stack (#400) comprising, in order,
an outer protective layer (#30),
an outer electrode layer (#106),
an electron transport layer (#108),
a semi-conductor perovskite layer (#102),
a hole transport layer (#110),
an inner electrode layer (#104) and
an adherent layer (#404).
Hsu does not explicitly disclose:
a support film;
wires, the support film retaining the wires, the wires terminating in at least one contact point; and
a plurality of flexible photovoltaic thin film stacks adhered on the support film and electrically connected to the wires.
However, in analogous art, Lindström teaches:
See generally Figs. 3 and 6, and paragraphs [0072] and [0089];
a support film (#9a, #9b);
a plurality of wires (not explicitly labelled, see [0089], openings #16a-b receive wires), the support film (#9a, #9b) retaining the plurality of wires (openings #16a-b receive wires);
flexible photovoltaic thin film stacks (see layers #3-6 in Fig. 3) adhered on the support film (#9a, #9b)
Additionally, in analogous art, Stan teaches:
See generally paragraph [0010].
each wire of the plurality of wires terminating in at least one contact point; and
each flexible photovoltaic thin stack independently electrically connected to the one wire of the plurality of wires.
See paragraph [0010]: “The individual solar cells or wafers are then disposed in horizontal arrays, with the individual solar cells connected together in an electrical series and/or parallel circuit”, under this description, when connected together, the wires would have to be connected in at least one contact point as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider combining the teachings of Lindström, specifically the flexible adhesive layers present in Lindström’s invention, in order to protect/prevent failure of the layers that make up the solar cell structure. Additionally, in the manner taught by Lindström, the adhesive protection layers would provide the benefit of protection/failure prevention, as well as the ability to secure the device layers to a substrate or other surface. See Lindström paragraph [0066], specifically, “…This feature contributes to provide a flexible, twistable, and impact resistant photovoltaic device. The top and bottom sheets 9a-b are sealed at the edges in order to protect the solar cell unit 2 against the surrounding atmosphere, and, according to some aspects, to prevent the evaporation or leakage of the electrolyte from the inside of the solar cell unit.” Additionally, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Stan to the device disclosed by Hsu in view of Lindström and form the solar cells in an array and further connect the cells together in a parallel circuit (one wire per one cell as presently claimed), which would allow the testing and operation of the solar cells on an individual basis which would decrease the risk of a single solar cell failure impacting the performance of neighboring cells, which would be the case if the cells were wired together in a series circuit.
Regarding Claim 2, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 1.
Lindström further teaches:
further comprising a second support film (#9a), the second support film (#9a) sandwiching the plurality of flexible photovoltaic thin film stack (under the combination previously disclosed, the film stack comprises elements disclosed by Hsu) between the second support film (#9a) and the support film (#9b).
Note, the support film was previously labelled #9a and #9b as they are interchangeable in the prior art, this has subsequently been relabeled to #9b to be consistent with the further definition provided by the claims with the presence of the second support film. Additionally, as can be seen in Figs 3, 4a, and 4vb, the support film sandwiches the photovoltaic device.
Regarding Claim 3, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 1.
Lindström further teaches:
The flexible photovoltaic thin film device of claim 1, wherein the support film (#9b) includes an adhesive backing (see paragraph [0072]).
Note: see paragraph [0072]: “The top sheet 9a and bottom sheet 9b are, for example, adhesive films that are put together over the solar cell unit 2.”
Regarding Claim 4, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 3.
Lindström further teaches:
wherein the support film (#9b) includes a printed grid (see Fig. 4a and 4b, see note below, grid is simply the lack of solar cell material from a top down direction) which divides the support film into zones, each zone supporting at least one flexible photovoltaic thin film stack (solar cell stack lies within the regions defined by the lack of solar cell material).
Note, as defined by the applicant in paragraph [0048] of the originally filed specification, the printed grid may “just be the lack of printed material within a specific layer.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Lindström teaches this limitation, as the support films #9a and #9b extends beyond the solar cell structure that may contain the printed material, see Figs. 4a and 4b, which in turn reads on the applicant’s definition of having a lack of printed material when viewed from a top-down direction.
Regarding Claim 5, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 4.
Stan further teaches:
wherein the support film (#124, see bond layer in Figs. 4-10) is polyimide, polyetheretherketone or transparent conductive polyester film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan with the polyimide, polyetheretherketone or transparent conductive polyester film as it would merely result in a simple substitution of one known element (bonding layer from Stan) for another (support layer from Lindström), which are both examples of transparent binding resins to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 5.
Hsu further discloses:
wherein the hole transport layer (#110) is 2,2',7,7'-Tetrakis[N,N-di(4-methoxyphenyl)amino]-9,9'-spiro-bifluorene (see paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 3.
Stan further discloses:
further comprising slave contact points which are in electrical communication with the contact point and the wires and are retained on the support film (see below).
Stan discloses in paragraph [0010] that individual solar cells are disposed in arrays and connected in parallel circuits which are positioned in part by desired output voltage and current. Doing so is an example of forming the wiring structure having slave contact points and a master contact point, as different arrays of devices with different desired output voltages would be connected together corresponding to various combinations of slave/master contact points. Stan therefore reads on the claimed invention, as a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the ability to connect together cells in an array structure wired in a parallel circuit to form to a different desired output voltages across different cells.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0181290 A1 Hsu et al in view of US 2021/0151259 A1 Lindström et al, further in view of US 2017/0170355 A1 Stan et al, and further in view of US 2020/0058819 A1 Kirner (herein “Kirner”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses:
The device of claim 5 comprising the inner electrode layer (#104) and the adherent layer (#404).
Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a sensor layer between the inner electrode layer and the adherent layer.
However, in analogous art, Kirner teaches:
further comprising a sensor layer (#120, see paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kirner to the device disclosed by Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan and include a sensor layer, like a photoactive silicon absorber, temperature sensor, or the like, to the thin film photovoltaic stack. Doing so would convert solar energy into usable electricity for attached electronic components or devices.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0181290 A1 Hsu et al in view of US 2021/0151259 A1 Lindström et al, further in view of US 2017/0170355 A1 Stan et al, and further in view of EP 4404712 A1 Moon et al (herein “Moon”).
Regarding Claim 8, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses:
The device of claim 5 comprising the inner electrode layer (#104) and the adherent layer (#404).
Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a light emitting layer between the inner electrode layer and the adherent layer.
However, in analogous art, Moon teaches:
further comprising a light emitting layer (#9, see paragraph [0058], “…a perovskite-based semiconductor layer 9 (which can be abbreviated to “perovskite layer 9” in the context of the present specification, and which is an absorber layer in the case in which the device 1 is a solar cell, photodetector, x-ray detector or similar, and is an emitter layer in the case in which the device 1 emits radiation such as light)”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Moon to the device disclosed by Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan and include a light emitting layer to the thin film photovoltaic stack. Doing so would convert solar energy into usable electricity for use in converting solar energy into visible light.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0181290 A1 Hsu et al in view of US 2021/0151259 A1 Lindström et al, further in view of US 2017/0170355 A1 Stan et al, and further in view of Color-Tuned Perovskite Films Prepared for Efficient Solar Cell Applications Cui et al - The Journal of Physical Chemistry C Volume 120, Issue 1 (herein referred to as “Cui”).
Regarding Claim 9, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 5.
Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the perovskite layer is orange.
However, in analogous art, Cui teaches:
“four representative perovskite films with defined halide ratios to tune them into different colors, including MAPbI3 (dark brown), MAPbBrI2 (dark red), MAPbBr2I (red), and MAPbBr3 (orange)”
“It is clear that their colors can be tuned from dark brown for MAPbI3, to dark red for MAPbBrI2, to red for MAPbBr2I, and to orange for MAPbBr3. In other words, their band gap can be tuned by controlling the lead halide film composition and MAI/MABr powder used in DCIP. It is envisioned that these colorful perovskite materials are promising for solar panels with controlled colors and for colorful displays.”
(excerpt from pages 42 and 44 respectively)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Cui to the device disclosed by Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan and use an orange-colored perovskite layer for use in efficient colorful solar panels or displays.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0181290 A1 Hsu et al in view of US 2021/0151259 A1 Lindström et al, further in view of US 2017/0170355 A1 Stan et al, and further in view of US 2024/0266453 A1 Zhang et al (herein “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 11, Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan discloses the device of claim 3.
Hsu further discloses:
In order, a second inner electrode layer (#408, see Fig. 4), a semi-conductor layer (#406), a hole an electrode layer (#410)
Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan does not explicitly disclose:
A second electron transport layer, a second hole transport layer, between the inner electrode layer and the adherent layer.
However, in analogous art, Zhang teaches:
A second electron transport layer (#203), a second hole transport layer (#205).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Zhang to the device disclosed by Hsu in view of Lindström and further in view of Stan and include a similar cell structure that includes second electron and hole transport layers to the second solar cell layer stack underneath the first layer stack. Doing so would allow better and more consistent electrical communication between the corresponding cell stacks by using similar methods of manufacturing and materials to form each cell structure.
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 Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812