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 16-20, 22-31 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 27-29 have withdrawn
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/1712026 has been entered.
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) 16-18, 20-25, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bett et al (“Two-terminal perovskite silicon tandem solar cells with a s high bandgap perovskite absorber enabling voltages over 1.8V”, 2019), and further in view of Kim et al (“Synthesis and photocatalytic activity of mesoporous TiO2 wit surface area, crystalline size, and pore size”, 2007) and Ko et al (PG Pub 20170288159).
Regarding claim 16 and 21-22, Bett et al teaches a tandem solar cell comprising in superimposition order:
• a silicon-based sub-cell A comprising at least:
- a substrate made of crystalline silicon [fig 1]; and
- at least one layer, distinct from said substrate, made of N- or P-doped amorphous or polycrystalline silicon [fig 1]; and
• a perovskite-based sub-cell B [fig 1], comprising at least:
- an N-type conductive or semiconductor layer (TiO2 layer);
- a P-type conductive or semiconductor layer (Sprio-OMeTAD); and
- a perovskite-type layer that is active from a photovoltaic point of view, interposed between said N-type and P-type conductive or semiconductor layers (fig 1 section 2.1),
-said N-type conductive or semiconductor layer is consisted of nanoparticles of N-type metal oxide(s), and has an atomic carbon content lower than or equal to 20% [fig 1 section 2.1] (a mesoporous TIO2 which has 0% of Carbon content which is within the claimed range) (section 2.1)
-the active layer being in contact with the N-type metal oxide nanoparticles [fig 1].
Bett et al teaches the mesoporous TiO2 as set forth above, but Bett et al does not teach the metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle size between 5nm and 20 nm.
Kim et al teaches mesoporous TiO2 being used in solar cell where the size of the TiO2 being within the claimed range [ introduction table 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the size of the TiO2 of Bett et al to be the same of Kim et al for exhibiting outstanding photodegradation properties (introduction section).
The instant application show the n-type metal oxide being formed under low temperature (less than 150C) , and non-sintered process with spin coat and UV thermal [para 9-11 198 199 263-280]. Modified Bett teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Bett does not teach less than 10% of the oxide nanoparticles are merged together and remain individualized with their respective contours distinguishable by electron microscopy. It is noted that less than 10% means the value can be 0%.
Ko et al teaches a solar cell comprising an ELT being formed by so-gel derived TiO2 nanoparticles at very low temperature and non-sintered (the temperature range is overlapped the instant application’s temperature) [para 152-153].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have N-type layer with TiO2 nanoparticles being formed the same method of Ko et al for high performance and higher transmittance [para 152 153].
Since modified Bett et al teaches the claimed structure and using the same the method as the instant application, it is considered that less than 10% of the oxide nanoparticles are merged together and remain individualized with their respective contours distinguishable by electron microscopy.
The recitation “a non-sintered” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 17, modified Bett et al teaches the subcell A is silicon heterojunction subcell [fig 1 abstract]
Regarding claim 18, modified Bett et al teaches sub-cell A is a silicon heterojunction sub-cell, comprising, in this stacking order [fig 1]:
• A first electrode Ag [fig 1]
• a layer made of N-doped or P-doped amorphous silicon a-Si (n) (fig 1);
• said substrate made of crystalline silicon (c-Si)
• a layer made of P-doped or N-doped amorphous silicon a-Si (p) (fig 1)
• a conductive ITO layer [fig 1].
Regarding claim 20, modified Bett et al teaches said N-type metal oxide nanoparticles is made of TiO2 (fig 1)
Regarding claim 24, modified Bett et al teaches a subcell B comprise in this stacking order [fig 1]:
• optionally a first electrode ITO:
• said lower conductive or semiconductor layer of the N type TiO2;
• - said perovskite-type active layer:
• a P-type conductive or semiconductor layer (Sprio-OMeTAD),
• said N-type conductive or semiconductor layer is based on individualised nanoparticles of N-type metal oxide(s), and has an atomic carbon content lower than or equal to 20% [fig 1] (a mesoporous TIO2 which has 0% of Carbon content which is within the claimed range) (section 2.1)
• - a transparent second electrode ITO, and more particularly formed of a layer made of metallised transparent conductive oxide.
Regarding claim 25, modified Bett et al teaches the HET/perovskite type with a 2T structure, comprising, in this superimposition order, at least [fig 1]:
a sub-cell A, wherein sub-cell A is a silicon heterojunction sub-cell comprising, in this superimposition order:
• . a first electrode denoted Ag;
• . a layer made of N-doped or P-doped amorphous silicon;
• . a substrate made of crystalline silicon;
• . a layer made of P-doped or N-doped amorphous silicon;
• an electronically conductive or semiconductor intermediate layer, ITO
a perovskite-based sub-cell B, comprising in this superimposition order [fig 1]:
• . said conductive or semiconductor layer of the N type TiO2;
• . said perovskite-type active layer:
• . a P-type conductive or semiconductor layer (Sprio-OMeTAD), and
• . said second electrode, called the upper electrode Au
Regarding claim 23, modified Bett et al teaches the perovskite material FA0.83Cs0.17(I0.73Br0.27)3 (table 1).
While modified Bett et al does not explicitly disclose the value for x is x < 0.17, the reference does disclose that the perovskite material FA0.83Cs0.17(I0.73Br0.27)3 where x is equal 0.17 would read upon less 0.17 since slightly equal 0.17 would nearly equal or less than 0.17 (a small amount of x would make it less than 0.17. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), where the court held the prior art disclosure of “about l-5%” teaches the claim limitation of “more than 5%" because “about l-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly about 5% thus the ranges overlapped. Further, it is the Office’s position that the disclosed value for x is close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have expected the same properties between the claimed values of x being “less than 0.17” and the value of "equal" as taught by Bett et al. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 30, the recitation “said N-type conductive…eliminating carbon” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 31, the recitation “the treatment… by plasma” is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, ITT F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bett et al (“Two-terminal perovskite silicon tandem solar cells with a s high bandgap perovskite absorber enabling voltages over 1.8V”, 2019) and Kim et al (“Synthesis and photocatalytic activity of mesoporous TiO2 wit surface area, crystalline size, and pore size”, 2007) and Ko et al (PG Pub 20170288159) and further in view of Bush et al (PG pub 20180309077).
Regarding claim 26, modified Bett et al teaches the mesoporous being made of TiO2, but modified Bett et all does not teach the nanoparticles being SnO.
Bush et al teaches a solar cell comprising nanoparticles layer being made of TiO2 or SnO [para 44].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have TiO2 layer of modified Bett et al to be made of SnO as taught by Bush et al SnO and TiO2 would be used as alternative material for nanoparticles layer in solar cell and it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. A substitution of known equivalent structures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/1712026 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
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