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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed 01/21/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/19/2023 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Objections
PNG
media_image1.png
775
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
The drawing Fig 3is objected to, as there are several incorrect words in that flow chart, and the meanings of some sections are unclear.
The following words are incorrect (“past”, missing open parentheses in the fifth box, “wrap one piece of the glass” should be “wrap the piece of glass”, etc.)
In Fig 3, it is not clear what is meant to “wrap one piece of glass”
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is
requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the
specifications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 2, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is indefinite, because it is unclear if “the anodic paste” is actually spread on the surface or only that it could be spread but is not actively being spread. Because this is a method step, it is recommended to either be deleted or actively stated as being spread, so that the scope of the claim is clear.
Claim 5 is indefinite, because it is unclear how someone applies a “sandwich” method to the anodic paste, and what is on the other side of the ”sandwich” -- the “transparent conductive substrate”, or something else?
Claim 6 is indefinite, because claim 1 includes the step of “applying an anodic paste to a transparent conductive substrate.” It is unclear what is meant by “depositing spacers along the anodic paste”, as it is unclear if the paste is applied in a line, or is applied across an area.
Furthermore, the instant application does not define “along”.
Claim 7 is indefinite, as the definition of how to “urge” an anodic paste is unclear. The meaning of “urge” is unclear, and does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 and 3 are duplicates, and the examiner advises canceling claim 2. For the purpose of the instant examination, the Examiner interprets claim 2 as cancelled, and will examine claim 3 and its dependents 4-6 as if 2 did not exist. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20140235011 A1; Brown; Thomas Meredith; 2012-08-28; ("Brown");.
Regarding Claim 1
Brown teaches, 1 A method of manufacturing a photovoltaic ([0059] … laser photon absorption via thermalization and electron-phonon collisions.) (photovoltaic is a phenomenon that is characterized by photon absorption either by thermalization or/and electron phonon collisions.)
absorber layer ( [0059] … particles of metals, oxides, ceramics etc. showing a strong absorption for particular wavelengths range or even single wavelength.) (this is photovoltaic absorption on a layer)
wherein the method comprises applying an anodic paste to a transparent conductive substrate. ( [0065] … TiO.sub.2 … colloidal paste (200) is deposited onto a transparent and conductive substrate (201)) (instant application defines anodic paste as comprising a mixture including titanium dioxide (TiO2))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 - 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown and US 20140137945 A1; Shibayama; Naoyuki; 20120727; ("Shibayama").
Shibayama chosen because invention relates to a dye-sensitized solar cell.
Regarding Claim 3
Brown teaches, the method of claim 1
And Brown teaches, wherein the anodic paste comprises a mixture of titanium dioxide (TiO2),
so that the anodic paste is spreadable along a surface of the transparent conductive substrate. ([0065] … TiO.sub.2 … paste … is deposited onto a transparent and conductive substrate)
Brown is silent with respect to silent with regard to a mixture of titanium dioxide (TiO2), acid, dyes, and electrolytes
However, Shibayama teaches a mixture ([0123]…mixture…)
of titanium dioxide (TiO2), acid, dyes, ([[0121] … TiO.sub.2 … Dye … acid …). (this mixture creates paste-form dispersion fluid) and electrolytes ([0126] Meanwhile, sodium iodide Nat (0.030 g), 1-propyl-2,3-dimethylimidazolium iodide (1.0 g), iodium I.sub.2 (0.10 g) and TBP (0.054 g) were dissolved in methoxypropionitrile (2.0 g), thereby preparing an electrolytic solution.) (Listed above are electrolytes, this is the last method of making in the solar cell)
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Shibayama, to create an electronic device by utilizing known methods to produce known products. Applying a known technique selectively creating anodic paste to include TiO2 acid, dyes, and electrolytes to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency [0055].
Regarding Claim 4
Brown, Shibayama teaches the method of claim 3
And Brown teaches, wherein the TiO2 is in the form of a nanoparticle powder. ([0013] … TiO.sub.2 nanoparticle …)
Regarding Claim 5.
Brown, Shibayama teach, the method of claim 4,
Brown, is silent with respect to, further comprising sandwiching the anodic paste against a cathodic element.
However Shibayama teaches, further comprising sandwiching the anodic paste against a cathodic element. (Fig. 1, Shibayama ; #2 - transparent electrode. #6 – counter electrode; [0108] …cathodic flow plate 29…) (negative electrode is another name for cathodic element, and positive electrode is another name for anodic)
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Shibayama, to create an electronic device by utilizing known methods to produce known products. Applying a known technique selectively creating anodic paste to include TiO2 acid, dyes, and electrolytes to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency [0055].
Regarding Claim 7
Brown teaches A method of manufacturing a photovoltaic ([0059] … laser photon absorption via thermalization and electron-phonon collisions.) (photovoltaic is a phenomenon that is characterized by photon absorption either by thermalization or/and electron phonon collisions.)
absorber layer ( [0059] … particles of metals, oxides, ceramics etc. showing a strong absorption for particular wavelengths range or even single wavelength.) (this is photovoltaic absorption on a layer)
Brown is silent with respect to, wherein the method comprises urging an anodic paste between a transparent conductive substrate and a cathodic element.
PNG
media_image2.png
194
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1, Shibayama; annotated by examiner
However Shibayama teaches, urging an anodic paste .( [0065] … TiO.sub.2 … colloidal paste (200) is deposited onto a transparent and conductive substrate (201)) (instant application defines anodic paste as comprising a mixture including titanium dioxide (TiO2)) (urging is interpreted as depositing onto a substrate)
between a transparent conductive substrate and a cathodic element. (Fig. 1, Shibayama ; #1 - transparent substrate, #2 - transparent electrode; [0108] …cathodic flow plate 29…) (negative electrode is another name for cathodic element)
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Shibayama, to create an electronic device by utilizing known methods to produce known products. Applying a known technique selectively creating anodic paste to include TiO2 acid, dyes, and electrolytes to improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency [0055].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Shibayama, and US 20130153027 A1; Youngbull; Tricia A.; 20111219; ("Youngbull")
Youngbull was chosen due to relates to forming photovoltaic (PV) panels.
Regarding Claim 6.
Brown, Shibayama teach, the method of claim 5,
Brown teaches. along the anodic paste ([0065] … TiO.sub.2 colloidal paste)
prior to interfacing with the. ([0034] … precursor paste … the precursors of said layer.) (during parallel events different combinations can be administered at different sequences)
PNG
media_image3.png
333
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13, Youngbull; annotated by examiner
Brown is silent with respect to, further comprising depositing spacers and, cathodic element
Shibayama; teaches, cathodic (Fig. 1, Shibayama ; #1 - transparent substrate, #2 - transparent electrode; [0108] …cathodic flow plate 29…) (negative electrode is another name for cathodic element)
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Brown in view of Shibayama to create an electronic device by utilizing known methods to produce known products. Applying a known technique selectively creating an arrangement in stacked structure for more effective heat management [0158].
Youngbull teaches, further comprising depositing spacers (Fig. 13, Youngbull; #60 – glass beads; [0087] ... dielectric is a dispersion of polymer microbeads that, when cured, form a continuous insulating layer.) (In the instant application the spacers are round and in Youngbull these glass beads are around)
It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify Brown, in view of Shibayama, in view of Youngbull, to create an electronic device by utilizing known methods to produce known products. Applying a known technique selectively creating a past by depositing spacers for lower resistance of the conductor and improved reliability [0091].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8906711 B2; Mohammadi; Mohammad-Reza; 2012-07-01;
US 20190228915 A1; Furukawa; Takeshi; 2016-10-06
US 20100248418 A1; Morooka; Masahiro et al.; 2010-06-15;
US 20090032104 A1; Lee; Seung-Yup et al.; 2008-05-09;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K M SCHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-6533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am to 5 PM ET.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 4089187532. 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.
/TIMOTHY K SCHOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899