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
Election/Restriction
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/23/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-15 in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, claims 1-15 are pending.
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) 1-2, 4-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US Pub No. 2013/0137210) in view of Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040)
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng et al. teaches a device comprising a solar cell [Entire structure, Fig. 1A, 0026] comprising:
a substrate (11, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) made of a transparent material intended to be exposed to light radiation [0047],
a first electrode (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) formed on the substrate (11, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048), and
a unit solar cell (each of 13a, Fig. 1A-1B) arranged between this first electrode (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) and a second electrode (14a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048),
the first and second electrodes (Fig. 1A-1B) are made of a transparent electrically conductive material [0047, ZnO and doped ZnO], the unit solar cell (13a, Fig. 1A-1B) being adapted to absorb light radiation and to generate an electric current therefrom of said first and second electrodes (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048, 14a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048), the second electrode (14a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048)
and the unit solar cell (13a, Fig. 1A-1B) being perforated by cavities (12b and 13b, Fig. 1A-1B, 0047-0048) of said solar cell (Entire structure, Fig. 1A, 0026), so as to allow light radiation to pass through said solar cell (Entire structure, Fig. 1A, 0026), and
wherein the electronic device further comprises a reflecting element
(the back electrode comprises a portion of silver, resulting in a reflective element, 0044) configured to reflect at least part of said light radiation and being arranged so that the
unit solar cell (Entire structure, Fig. 1A, 0026) is exposed to the reflected part of the light radiation [Fig. 1A, 0044-0045].
Cheng et al. is silent on terminals.
Yuya et al. teaches the use of first and second terminals [42 and 44, Fig. 1, 0150] for connecting photoelectric elements.
Since Cheng et al. teaches the use solar cells, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solar cell of Chen et al. by connecting the first and second terminals of Yuya et al. to the first and second electrodes of Chen et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for connecting solar cells, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the first electrode (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) is perforated by the cavities (see the area of 12b, Fig. 1B, 0048).
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the substrate (11, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) is made of glass, sapphire or polymer [0032].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the first and second electrodes (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048, 14a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) are made of transparent conductive oxides [0044-0045].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the first and second electrodes (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048, 14a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) are made of zinc oxide or indium tin oxide [0044-0045].
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. is silent on wherein the cavities have a hexagonal cross-section.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the cavities , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the cavities are changed, the precise the parameters of the cavities would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the cavities (140) have a hexagonal cross-section.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the cavities to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the unit solar cell (each of 13a, Fig. 1A-1B) has a through-hole (in the layer of 13a, there is a area which 15 goes through, that is the through hole, in figure 1B) so as to bring the first electrode (12a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) to the second electrode (14a, Fig. 1A-1B, 0048) so as to allow connectivity between the two terminals (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US Pub No. 2013/0137210) in view of Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Takeuchi (US Pat No. 6307146)
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. is silent on wherein the unit solar cell consists of three superimposed layers made of amorphous silicon and forming a PIN diode.
Takeuchi et al. teaches the use of a PIN amorphous silicon photoelectric layer [Abstract].
Since modified Cheng et al. teaches the use of a amorphous silicon photoelectric layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the amorphous silicon layer of modified Cheng et al. with the PIN layer structure of Takeuchi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US Pub No. 2013/0137210) in view of Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Kato (US Pub No. 2012/0211061)
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. is silent on comprising a coating made of a transparent material and covering the first and second electrodes (110, 120) and the unit solar cell (130).
Kato et al. teaches a coating that covers the first and second electrodes that is made of silicon oxide [0092-0093] that prevent degradation due to oxygen and moisture [0092-0093]
Since modified Cheng et al. teaches a solar cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the coating of Kato et al. on the cell of modified Cheng et al. in order to prevent degradation due to oxygen and moisture [0092-0093].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. is silent on wherein the coating is made of parylene, polyimide, nitride or oxide [see rejection of claim 8].
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US Pub No. 2013/0137210) in view of Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Fleury (US Pub No. 2014/0293758)
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. is silent on a timepiece comprising the device according to claim 1, and a case comprising a middle,
a crystal and a back defining an internal volume in which is housed a horological movement
supplied with electrical energy by the solar cell (10), the reflecting element (150) being formed
by a dial or by said horological movement.
Fleury et al. teaches a watch with a watch crystal housed in a watch case ]0002] and watch crystal 4 has a top surface 8 facing the user of watch 1 and a bottom surface 10 facing the watch case 6 [Fig. 1-4, 0017] with a horological movement [0017]. The electronic device attached to the crystal can be a solar cell [0023].
Since modified Cheng et al. teaches the use of a solar cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solar cell of Fleury et al. with the solar cell of modified Cheng et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and on of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the
solar cell is fastened to the crystal so that the substrate bears thereagainst, with the
second electrode facing the internal volume of the case [see combination in claim 11, which provides the solar cell of modified Cheng et al. in place of the solar cell within the watch of Fleury et al.].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the
crystal is formed by the substrate, with the solar cell being arranged so that the
second electrode faces the internal volume [see combination in claim 11, which provides the solar cell of modified Cheng et al. in place of the solar cell within the watch of Fleury et al.].
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches wherein the
solar cell is fastened to a dial or to the horological movement, so that the substrate
bears thereagainst, with the second electrode facing the crystal [see combination in claim 11, which provides the solar cell of modified Cheng et al. in place of the solar cell within the watch of Fleury et al.].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Cheng et al. teaches comprising
a dial formed by the substrate, with the solar cell being arranged so that the second
electrode faces the crystal [see combination in claim 11, which provides the solar cell of modified Cheng et al. in place of the solar cell within the watch of Fleury et al.].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights