DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of February 26, 2026 is considered herein.
Claims 1, 2, 13-15 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 14-20 withdrawn to the non-elected group.
Claims 1-13 are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al (KR10-2013-0011598, wherein a English machine translation is supplied herein).
Regarding claim 1, LEE et al teaches a solar module (figures 4b and 5) for transforming solar energy into electrical energy (power generation, Background Art), the solar module comprising:
a substrate (10, substrate); and
a pair of solar cells (left cell 20 and right cell 20, figure 4b) formed on the substrate (10) next to each other and electrically connected in series (see circuit on figure 4b) to each other through a top common back electrode (60), the pair of solar cells sharing a continuous active layer (40, photoactive layer) extending across each cell (see figure 4b),
wherein a first solar cell of the pair (right side of figure 4b) has a pin configuration (p-type layer 30a/i-type absorber/n-type layer 50b), and a second solar cell of the pair (left side of figure 4b) has a nip configuration (n-type layer 30b/i-type absorber/p-type layer 50a), and
wherein the pin configuration and the nip configuration are defined by locations of has hole and electron transport layers (see figure 4b), of opposite polarities (wherein 30b/50b are n-type and 30a/50a are p-type), relative to the top common back electrode (60) and the active layer (40), such that the transport layers are located in a reverse order between the first and second solar cells (3rd paragraph from the end of page 5).
To be clear, the stacks of pin and nip and associated electrodes claimed are detailed to be “on” the substrate. The rejection detailed above and in regard to the dependent claims is detailed in accordance with structure of 4b, however, a second interpretation of LEE et al utilizing the structure of 4a also reads on the instant structure with electrode (20) being interpreted as the common back electrode and each stack or subcell reading on the pin or nip configuration.
Regarding claim 2, LEE et al teaches wherein the first solar cell (right cell of figure 4b) includes:
a first front electrode (20, right side) located on the substrate (10);
a first front charge transport layer (30a, p-type, hole transport/collection, 2nd paragraph from the bottom of page 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom of page 5) located on the first front electrode (20, right side);
the active layer (40) located on the first front charge transport layer (30a);
a first back charge transport layer (50b, n-type, electron transport, last paragraph of page 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom of page 5) located on the active layer (40); and
the top common back electrode (60), wherein the first front charge transport layer (30a, p-type) collects holes (inherent to the p-type material and also taught also taught in paragraph [0029] of the specification as filed as being indicative of a p-type layer) and the first back charge transport layer (50b, n-type) collects electrons (inherent to the n-type material and also taught in paragraph [0029] of the specification as filed as being indicative of a n-type layer) according to the pin configuration.
Regarding claim 3, LEE et al teaches the second solar cell (left module of figure 4b) includes:
a second front electrode (20, left side) located on the substrate (10);
a second front charge transport layer (30b, n-type, electron transport, last paragraph of page 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom of page 5) located on the second front electrode (20, left side);
the active layer (40) located on the second front charge transport layer (30b);
a second back charge transport layer (50a, p-type, hole transport/collection, 2nd paragraph from the bottom of page 4, 3rd paragraph from bottom of page 5) located on the active layer (40); and
the top common back electrode (60), wherein the second front charge transport layer (30b, n-type) collects electrons (inherent to the n-type material and also taught in paragraph [0029] of the specification as filed as being indicative of a n-type layer) and the second back charge transport layer (50a, p-type) collects holes (inherent to the p-type material and also taught also taught in paragraph [0029] of the specification as filed as being indicative of a p-type layer) according to the nip configuration.
Regarding claim 4, LEE et al teaches a via (opening in figure 4b between components 20) between the first and second front electrodes (right and left side 20 respectively).
Regarding claim 6, LEE et al teaches there is a via (see figure 5) between the first front charge transport layer (300a) and the second front charge transport layer (300b) (described in the first full paragraph of page 8).
Regarding claim 7, the substrate (10/100) in figure 5 is shown to extending beyond the cells to the left side. In the second interpretation identified in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the top common back electrode is component (20), figure 5 shows the back electrode (20) touching the portion of the substrate.
Regarding claim 8, LEE et al teaches there is no region where the first front (300a) and back charge transport layers (300b) are in direct contact with each other (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, LEE et al teaches there is no direct contact between the top common back electrode (60) and an active layer (40) (see figure 4b).
Regarding claim 11, LEE et al teaches the solar module of Claim 1, further comprising: another pair of solar cells (3rd and 4th stacks from the left) formed on the substrate (10), next to each other, and electrically connected in series to each other through another top common back electrode (see figure 5, wherein the 1st and 2nd or 3rd and 4th stacks mirror that of figure 4b), wherein a first solar cell of the another pair has the pin configuration, and a second solar cell of the another pair has the nip configuration (just as in figure 4b, shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, LEE et al teaches the second solar cell of the pair (2nd cell from the left) and the first solar cell of the another pair (3rd cell from the left) share a same front electrode (figure 5 connection shown).
Regarding claim 13, LEE et al teaches a solar module (figures 4b and 5) for transforming solar energy into electrical energy (power generation, background section), the solar module comprising:
a substrate (100); and
plural pairs of solar cells (1st/2nd, 3rd/4th, etc. from left of figure 5) formed on the substrate (100) next to each other (see figure 5), each pair of solar cells being electrically connected in series to each other through a top common back electrode (600), and solar cells from two adjacent pairs being electrically connected in series to each other through a bottom common front electrode (200), the plural pairs of solar cells sharing a continuous active layer (400) extending across each cell,
wherein each pair of solar cells has one solar cell with a pin configuration and another cell with a nip configuration, and
wherein the pin configuration (p-type layer 300a/i-type absorber/n-type layer 500b) and the nip configuration (n-type layer 30b/i-type absorber/p-type layer 50a) are defined by locations of hole and electron transport layers of opposite polarities (3rd paragraph from the bottom of page 5 and figure 4b), relative to the top common back electrode and the active layer (see figure 4b), such that the transport layers are in a reverse order between solar cells of each pair (3rd paragraph from the bottom of page 5,, paragraphs bridging pages 7 and 8, and figure 4b).
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al, in view of LIU et al (US Patent 7,307,278).
Regarding claim 5, LEE et al teaches the opening between the two electrodes, but shows an empty space between the two in figure 4b, failing to teach “the via is filled by the active material”.
LIU et al teaches a solar cell pair (2nd paragraph in Background, 1st paragraph in Brief Description) comprising an opening between adjacent electrodes (28/34) within the series in figure 2, just as in LEE et al. Moreover, LIU et al teaches the opening to be filled with electroactive material (analogous to the instant active material and the photoactive material of LEE et al) (see figure 2, the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7). Moreover, the Background details that by using large application of material and decreased pattering, ease of fabrication and the need for precise alignment is removed.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to fill the opening between the electrodes of LEE et al, with the active material, as shown in LIU et al, to enable less precise and easier manufacturing while allowing for the same continued operation of the device.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al, in view of ZHU et al (WO 2019/070977A1).
Regarding claim 10, while LEE et al teaches the use of a photoactive layer which absorbs light to form an electron-hole pair (tope of page 5), LEE fails to teach the active material is perovskite.
ZHU et al teaches a solar module comprising a stack with electron and hole transfer layers sandwiching an absorber layer therebetween, see abstract and figure 2b, just as in LEE et al. Moreover, ZHU et al teaches the use of a perovskite absorber layer (indicative of light absorption, pages 12-13), wherein page 1 teaches the perovskite absorber material to generate high performance and efficiency while minimizing cost.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a perovskite absorber for the photoactive layer of LEE et al, as shown in ZHU et al, so as to enable power generation through light absorption at high efficiency while minimizing cost. The use and substitution of a known photoabsorber (perovskite) for another photoabsorber is both well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill and reasonably correlates to a predictable result of light absorption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 3/23/2026