Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 15, 2026
Application No. 18/178,672

SOLAR CELL AND SOLAR CELL SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 06, 2023
Priority
Aug 02, 2020 — continuation of PCTJP2021028595 +1 more
Examiner
TRAN, UYEN M
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
4 (Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 30% of cases
30%
Career Allowance Rate
124 granted / 406 resolved
-34.5% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
445
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
95.1%
+55.1% vs TC avg
§102
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§112
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 406 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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, 4, 7-9 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended Claims 5-6 has withdrawn Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 03/26/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final. Status of Rejections Pending since The Office Action of 12/29/2025 The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gui et al (PG Pub 20060180197), and further in view of Bett et al (PG Pub 20150380591) Regarding claim 1, Gui et al teaches a tandem solar cell comprising: a top cell module configured to generate power by photoelectrically converting incident light and allow part of the incident light to pass through the top cell module [para 44-45 fig 4-5]; and a bottom cell module laminated to the top cell module, the bottom cell module being configured to generate power by photoelectrically converting light that has passed through the top cell module, wherein the top cell module includes a plurality of top cells that are connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel [para 39] the bottom cell module includes a plurality of bottom cells that are connected in series, in parallel, or in a combination of series and parallel, the number of the bottom cells being equal to the number of the top cells [para 39 fig 4-5] an electrode (124, 128) connecting the plurality of top cells is positioned such that the electrode does not overlap the bottom cells in plan view [fig 4-5 para 47] the plurality of top cells arranged in a first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in plan view [fig 3-7] the plurality of top cells and the plurality of bottom cells are arranged to face each other in a one-to-one correspondence in plan view [fig 3-7] the plurality of top cells aligned in the first direction are connected to each other in the first direction by a plurality of first electrodes (124, 128) (electrically conductive traces 128 are patterned on the surfaces of the substrates to provide electrical paths between each of the corresponding anodes and cathodes of each of the PV cells ) (In the instant application, para 50 shows an electrode includes the first electrode and second electrode) [para 48]; the plurality of first electrodes are connected to each other in the second direction by plurality of second electrodes arrange outside an arrangement of top cells in the first direction [fig 4 see drawing below] the plurality of first electrodes (124,128)are positioned such that the plurality of first electrodes do not overlap the plurality of bottom cells in plan view [fig 4-7] Each of the plurality of second electrodes connects end portions of respective first electrodes to each other [fig 4-7 see drawing below] PNG media_image1.png 650 892 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 632 924 media_image2.png Greyscale Gui et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Gui et al does not teach each top cell of the plurality of top cells having protruding portions, which extends beyond the outer edges of a respective bottom cell of the plurality of bottom cells in the second direction in plan view. Bett et al teaches a solar module comprising plurality of solar cells where the top cell being larger than that of the bottom cells where each top cell of the plurality of top cells has protruding portions, which extends beyond the outer edges of a respective bottom cell of the plurality of bottom cells in the second direction in plan view [fig 10a b c 11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape to top cells of Gui et al to be larger than the bottom cell such that each top cell of the plurality of top cells has protruding portions, which extends beyond the outer edges of a respective bottom cell of the plurality of bottom cells in the second direction in plan view since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). As for combination, the top cell module includes a plurality of first electrodes arranged on the protruding portions, the plurality of first electrodes is positioned outside the outer edges of the respective bottom cell, the plurality of top cells aligned in the first direction are connected to each other in the first direction by the plurality of first electrodes that are arranged on the protruding portions Regarding claim 4, modified Gui et al teaches a connection mode of the plurality of top cells and a connection mode of the plurality of bottom cells are set to match a current ratio between the top cells and the bottom cells [para 49] Regarding claim 7, Since the top cell and bottom are interconnected, thus it is considered that a positive terminal of the top cell module is a first positive terminal of the solar cell, a negative terminal of the top cell module is a first negative terminal of the solar cell, a positive terminal of the bottom cell module is a second positive terminal of the solar cell, a negative terminal of the bottom cell module is a second negative terminal of the solar cell [fig 4-5]. Regarding claim 8, modified Gui et al teaches a solar cell system comprising one or more solar cells of a first type in which the positive terminal of the top cell module is present at a first corner when viewed from a light incident side and one or more solar cells of a second type in which the positive terminal of the top cell module is present at a second corner adjacent to the first corner when viewed from a light incident side, the solar cells being a plurality of solar cells, wherein the solar cells of the first type and the solar cells of the second type are arranged alternately in an arrangement direction [para 36] (each solar cell is organic solar cell with different types of material], and at a connection point of a solar cell of the first type and a solar cell of the second type adjacent to each other, the first positive terminal of the solar cell of the first type and the first negative terminal of the solar cell of the second type are connected and the second positive terminal of the solar cell of the first type and the second negative terminal of the solar cell of the second type are connected [fig 8-9] (plurality of solar cell are connected in series [para 39]) Regarding claim 9, modified Gui et al teaches the plurality of first electrodes (124, 128) being positioned such that the plurality of first electrodes do not overlap the plurality of top cells in plan view, and wherein the plurality of bottom cells are positioned between the plurality of first electrodes (124, 128) in plan view [fig 6-7]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/26/2026 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration). 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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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. /UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 10 earlier events
Sep 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 01, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Mar 17, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 11, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12672359
THIN FILM-TYPE SOLAR CELL
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12672419
TANDEM SOLAR CELL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12660503
THERMOELECTRIC POWER GENERATION DEVICE, THERMOELECTRIC POWER GENERATION DEVICE COMPONENT, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Patent 12633571
ELECTROLYTE FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
3y 3m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12615851
PREFABRICATED CONDUCTORS ON A SUBSTRATE TO FACILITATE CORNER CONNECTIONS FOR A SOLAR CELL ARRAY
8y 9m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
30%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+40.2%)
3y 4m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 406 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month