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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment on 01/09/2026. Currently, claims 1-12 are pending in the application. Claims 6 and 10-12 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over SUZUKA et al (US 20150340167 A1) in view of KAWATA et al (US 20180309063 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 1 of SUZUKA discloses a photoelectric conversion element material comprising:
a base material (12); and
a light-receiving layer (15) comprising a semiconductor film (16) formed on the base material, wherein the semiconductor film comprises Ag.sub.2−xBi.sub.xS.sub.x+1 (x is an integer of 0 or 1) ([0034], Ag2S).
SUZUKA does not teach that the semiconductor film has a crystallite diameter of 10 nm or more and 40 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the particle diameter of the semiconductor particles be in the range of 5 to 1000 nm, more desirably 10 to 100 nm ([0031]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
SUZUKA does not teach that the semiconductor film comprising AgBiS-2.
However, KAWATA is a pertinent art which teaches a optoelectronic device containing a light absorber which is at least in part inorganic, preferably a perovskite, and polymers (including homopolymers and co-polymers), oligomers or small molecules that are based on benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′] dithiophene bearing electron withdrawing groups, especially solar cells comprising perovskites, wherein the light absorber includes Ag2S or AgBiS-2 ([0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AgBiS-2 instead of Ag2S in the semiconductor film (16, Figure 1) of SUZUKA according to the teaching of KAWATA in order to have an efficient power conversion ([0002], KAWATA), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as AgBiS-2 instead of Ag2S on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, SUZUKA does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element material according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor film has a crystallite diameter of 10 nm or more and 25 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the particle diameter of the semiconductor particles be in the range of 5 to 1000 nm, more desirably 10 to 100 nm ([0031]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, SUZUKA does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element material according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor film has a surface roughness of 2 nm or more and 15 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teach that thickness of the semiconductor layer 16 can be, for example, 0.01 μm or more and 100 μm or less. The thickness of the semiconductor layer 16 may be changed as necessary for the intended photoelectric conversion efficiency, but it is desirable that it be 0.5 μm or more and 50 μm or less, more desirably 1 μm or more and 20 μm or less. The larger the surface roughness of the semiconductor layer 16 is the better, and it is desirable that the surface roughness factor, given as the effective area divided by the projected area, be 10 or more, more desirably 100 or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for higher conversion efficiency, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, SUZUKA does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element material according to claim 1, wherein the photoelectric conversion element material has responsiveness to light having wavelengths of 700 nm or more and 1200 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the semiconductor layer is advantageously capable of absorbing light with a wavelength of approximately 350 nm to 1300 nm ([0034]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Figure 1 of SUZUKA discloses an ink comprising semiconductor nanoparticles dispersed in a dispersion medium ([0037]), wherein the semiconductor nanoparticles comprise Ag.sub.2−xBi.sub.xS.sub.x+1 (x is an integer of 0 or 1) ([0034], Ag2S) and, the semiconductor nanoparticles are protected by a protective agent comprising at least any one of a long-chain alkylamine, a long-chain carboxylic acid and a thiol, and the dispersion medium is an organic solvent with a low polarity ([0034] and [0036]).
SUZUKA does not teach that the semiconductor nanoparticles has a crystallite diameter of 5 nm or more and 20 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the particle diameter of the semiconductor particles be in the range of 5 to 1000 nm, more desirably 10 to 100 nm ([0031]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
SUZUKA does not teach that the semiconductor film comprising AgBiS-2.
However, KAWATA is a pertinent art which teaches a optoelectronic device containing a light absorber which is at least in part inorganic, preferably a perovskite, and polymers (including homopolymers and co-polymers), oligomers or small molecules that are based on benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′] dithiophene bearing electron withdrawing groups, especially solar cells comprising perovskites, wherein the light absorber includes Ag2S or AgBiS-2 ([0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AgBiS-2 instead of Ag2S in the semiconductor film (16, Figure 1) of SUZUKA according to the teaching of KAWATA in order to have an efficient power conversion ([0002], KAWATA), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as AgBiS-2 instead of Ag2S on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, SUZUKA does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element material according to claim 2, wherein the semiconductor film has a surface roughness of 2 nm or more and 15 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the particle diameter of the semiconductor particles be in the range of 5 to 1000 nm, more desirably 10 to 100 nm ([0031]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, SUZUKA does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element material according to claim 2, wherein the photoelectric conversion element material has responsiveness to light having wavelengths of 700 nm or more and 1200 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the semiconductor layer is advantageously capable of absorbing light with a wavelength of approximately 350 nm to 1300 nm ([0034]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, SUZUKA does not teach that the photoelectric conversion element material according to claim 3, wherein the photoelectric conversion element material has responsiveness to light having wavelengths of 700 nm or more and 1200 nm or less.
However, SUZUKA teaches that the semiconductor layer is advantageously capable of absorbing light with a wavelength of approximately 350 nm to 1300 nm ([0034]).
Thus, the claimed range lies within the range as taught by SZUKA and in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges for high efficiency since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments regarding the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-9, filed on 01/09/2026, have been fully considered but arguments are moot because newly added limitation to the claim (s) requires a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813