DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 3/2/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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) 1-3, 8-9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 128, (2014),240–247) in view of Karani (ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 869−874) and Cheng (Energy Environ. Sci.,2014,7, 2005–2011)
Regarding Claim 1, Yeh et al. teaches a photovoltaic stack [Fig. 1, bottom of page 241] comprising a first electrode [Ag, Fig. 1, bottom of page 241] a second stack [[ZnO/PTB7:PC71BM/MoO3] and a third stack [ZnO/P3HT:ICBA/ PEDOT:PSS] and a second electrode [ITO, Fig. 1, bottom of page 241 ] sequentially stacked.
Yeh et al. is silent on a first stack comprising the active materials listed in claim 1 and a second stack comprising ICBA.
Karani et al. teaches a first stack comprising ZnO/CQD/MoOx where the CQD uses PbS quantum dots as part of a tandem solar cell [page 872, top of page in figure 3]. Figure 3b shows the EQE of the CQD [Fig. 3b, page 872] covering the wavelength of 800 to 1200 nm.
Since Yeh et al. is concerned about improving the efficiency [Abstract], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the first stack of Karani et al. between the first electrode and the second stack of Yeh et al. in order to provide a solar cell with higher efficiency and higher EQE [top of page 872, figure 3] as well as utilize a wider range of the light spectrum.
Cheng et al. teaches the incorporation of ICBA in PTB7:PC71BM used to provide increased open circuit voltage, and more routes for charge transfer between the D/A interface [Abstract on page 2005, and conclusion, top left of page 2009].
Since Yeh et al. teaches the use of PTB7:PC71BM, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the ICBA of Cheng et al. into the PTB7:PC71BM of Yeh et al. in order to provide increased open circuit voltage, and more routes for charge transfer between the D/A interface [conclusion, top left of page 2009].
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is teaches wherein the first active layer, the second active layer, or the first active layer and the second active layer comprises lead (II) sulfide (PbS) [See rejection of claim 1, PbS].
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is teaches wherein the first active layer, the second active layer, or the first active layer and the second active layer comprises poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5- diyl) (P3HT), (CBA), methylammonium lead iodide (MaPbI3), lead (ID) sulfide (PbS), or a combination thereof [See rejection of above].
Regarding Claim 8 within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches wherein the first electron transporting layer, the second electron transporting layer, or the first electron transporting layer and the second electron transporting layer comprises a metal oxide [Karani: MoOx/CQD/ZnO, Fig. 2a, top of page 871, first layer stack comprising at least ZnO, see rejection above].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches wherein the metal oxide is selected from the group consisting of ZnO [See rejection above].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches wherein the photovoltaic device comprises the fourth layer stack arranged between the third layer stack and the second electrode [See rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches wherein the first active layer, the second active layer, the third active layer, the fourth active layer, or any combination thereof comprises lead (II) sulfide (PbS) [See rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches wherein the first active layer, the second active layer, the third active layer, the fourth active layer, or any combination thereof comprises poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl) (P3HT), indene-Ceo bisadduct (ICBA), methylammonium lead iodide (MaPbIs), lead (II) sulfide (PbS), or a combination thereof [See rejection of claim 1].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 128,(2014),240–247) in view of Karani (ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 869−874) and Cheng (Energy Environ. Sci.,2014,7, 2005–2011) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Seike (US Pub No. 2012/0199201)
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on a second layer thickness of 300 nm to 1500 nm.
Seike et al. teaches a active layer with a thickness from 1 nm to 100 um [0076] overlapping the claimed thickness of 300 nm to 1500 nm.
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer for 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 second active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Seike et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches a second layer thickness of 380 nm to 500 nm.
Seike et al. teaches a active layer with a thickness from 1 nm to 100 um [0076] overlapping the claimed thickness of 380 nm to 1500 nm.
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer for 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 second active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Seike et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 128,(2014),240–247) in view of Karani (ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 869−874) and Cheng (Energy Environ. Sci.,2014,7, 2005–2011) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Crisp (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 1020−1027)
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on wherein the first active layer has a thickness of about 300 nm to about 1,500 nm.
Crisp et al. teaches a PbS QD layer thickness of 400 nm [Fig. 4c, page 1023].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches a active layer made of PbS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thickness of the PbS active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness taught by Crisp et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for PbS QD layers in the art 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 5, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on wherein the first active layer has a thickness of about 380 nm to about 500 nm
Crisp et al. teaches a PbS QD layer thickness of 400nm [Fig. 4c, page 1023].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches a active layer made of PbS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thickness of the PbS active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness taught by Crisp et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for PbS QD layers in the art 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) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 128,(2014),240–247) in view of Karani (ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 869−874) and Cheng (Energy Environ. Sci.,2014,7, 2005–2011)as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Venkataraman (US Pub No. 2017/0179391)
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on wherein the first electron transporting layer, the second electron transporting layer, or the first electron transporting layer and the second electron transporting layer comprises [6,6]-phenyl-Ce1-butyric acid methyl ester (PCBM).
Venkataraman et al. teaches the use of a PCBM electron transport layer used to reduce the leakage current [0010], and a hole transport layer made of PEDOT:PSS [0052].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches the use of electron transport layers, it would have been obvious to on one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the electron transport layers of Yeh et al. with the PCBM of Venkataraman et al. in order to reduce the leakage of current [0010].
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on wherein the first hole transporting layer, the second hole transporting layer, or the first hole transporting layer and the second hole transporting layer comprises (Spiro-OMeTAD), and poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS)
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches the use of hole transport layers, it would have been obvious to on one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the hole transport material of the of Yeh et al. with the PEDOT:PSS of Venkataraman et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional hole transporting materials in the art 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) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh (Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 128,(2014),240–247) in view of Karani (ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3, 869−874) and Cheng (Energy Environ. Sci.,2014,7, 2005–2011) as applied above in addressing claim 13, in further view of Crisp (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 1020−1027), Seike (US Pub No. 2012/0199201) and Kippelen (US Pub No. 2018/0175314)
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on wherein the first active layer, the second active layer, the third active layer, and the fourth active layer, independently, have a thickness of about 300 nm to about 1,500 nm.
Crisp et al. teaches a PbS QD layer thickness of 400 nm [Fig. 4c, page 1023].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches a active layer made of PbS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thickness of the PbS active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness taught by Crisp et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for PbS QD layers in the art 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.).
Seike et al. teaches a active layer with a thickness from 1 nm to 100 um [0076] overlapping the claimed thickness of 300 nm to 1500 nm.
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer for 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 second active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Seike et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
Kippelen et al. teaches a P3HT:ICBA layer with a thickness of 500 nm [Fig. 18, 0196, 0202].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer comprising P3HT:ICBA for 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 third active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Kippelen et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. is silent on wherein the first active layer, the second active layer, the third active layer, and the fourth active layer, independently, have a thickness of about 300 nm to about 1,500 nm.
Crisp et al. teaches a PbS QD layer thickness of 400 nm [Fig. 4c, page 1023].
Since Yeh et al. teaches a active layer made of PbS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the thickness of the PbS active layer of Yeh et al. with the thickness taught by Crisp et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for PbS QD layers in the art 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.).
Seike et al. teaches a active layer with a thickness from 1 nm to 100 um [0076] overlapping the claimed thickness of 380 nm to 1500 nm.
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer for 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 second active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Seike et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
Kippelen et al. teaches a P3HT:ICBA layer with a thickness of 500 nm [Fig. 18, 0196, 0202].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer comprising P3HT:ICBA for 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 third active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Kippelen et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Yeh et al. teaches wherein the third active layer comprises P3HT, and (ii) silent on has a thickness of about 300 nm to about 1,500 nm.
Kippelen et al. teaches a P3HT:ICBA layer with a thickness of 500 nm [Fig. 18, 0196, 0202].
Since modified Yeh et al. teaches an active layer comprising P3HT:ICBA for 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 third active layer of modified Yeh et al. with the thickness of Kippelen et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thicknesses for active layers in solar cells in the art 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.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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 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