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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment to claims filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-9 are amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claims 11-20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous prior art rejection is maintained; since the above amendment is insufficient and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the description of Mapel is not clear and correct. Applicant then change the description of Mapel from “the exciton fission material is selected from the group consisting of the polyacenes, tetracene, pentacene, and rubrene” to a redundant and unclear description “selected from the group consisting of the polyacenes tetracene, pentacene, and rubrene”. Based on the change made by Applicant, Applicant argues Mapel does not teach and suggests a polyacene comprising at least six fused carbon rings as recited in claim 1 and Compos’ teachings of polyacenes including at least six fused carbon rings such as hexacene, heptacene, octacene… fails to overcome the shortcomings in Mapels, because Campos silient to solar cell semiconductor substrate and an adhesion as claimed.
It is noted that “polyacenes tetracene” is an unknown material and is redundant that it is not clear what is being preferred to as “polyacenes tetracene”.
The examiner replies that Mapel explicitly suggests using polyacenes, and the change in description of Mapel made by Applicant is not the teaching of Mapel.
Compos is not relied upon for teaching solar cell semiconductor substrate and adhesion. Mapel suggests using polyacenes, and Campos teaches polyacenes that are exciton fission materials including hexacene, heptacene … or polyacenes having at least six fused carbon rings. Using polyacenes that is suggested by Mapel, and using polyacenes, or equivalent materials for exciton fission is obvious to one skilled in the art. Using polyacenes having at least six fused carbon rings as the exciton fission material for the polyacenes being used as the exciton fission material would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Applicant argues Mapel disclose using an epoxy or adhesive whose index is matched to the substrate or waveguide, and DeGroot teaches photovoltaic devices with improved adhesion between a barrier layer and an adjacent layer but does not teach improving adhesion and resistance to delamination to attach a solar concentrator to a photovoltaic cell as Mapel and DeGroot is silent to reflective layers.
The examiner replies that Mapel teaches “high index epoxy OR adhesive” to attach the solar cell concentrator to a PV cell (see the first sentence of paragraph [0171]). Mapel also teaches “[t]here may be an index mismatch between the waveguide and the solar cell, but this mismatch need not introduce large reflections if the solar cell is covered by an antireflection coating” (see [0071]). As such, Mapel does not limit to high refractive index epoxy and other adhesive materials can be used. Furthermore, the base shown in figs. 14, 16-16 are not just photovoltaic cell but including substrate such as glass. DeGroot discloses using adhesion comprising transition metal such as chromium to improve adhesion and resistance to delamination, rupture; and the adhesion (26) of Degroot does not introduce large reflection (see fig. 2 as Degroot discloses the adhesion layer 26 allow light 16 to enter the solar cell). One skilled in the art would have find it obvious to use chromium to improve adhesion and resistance to delamination and rupture as taught by DeGroot to adhere the waveguide and the base comprising silicon-based material to obtain the benefits, e.g. improve adhesion and resistance to delamination and rupture, of the adhesive.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. The rejection is maintained. Below is the copy of the rejection.
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.
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mapel et al. (US 2010/0193011) in view of Campos et al. (US 2018/0258217), and further in view of DeGroot et al. (US 2011/0192453).
Regarding claim 1-4, Mapel et al. discloses a solar cell semiconductor substrate comprising a luminescent solar concentrator (LSC) comprising:
a first reflective layer (see bottom/second reflective mirror 730, fig. 7);
a second reflective layer (see top/first reflective mirror 720, fig. 7)
a solar cell material comprising one or more chromophore disposed in or on the substrate (710) which is disposed between the first reflective layer (730) and the second reflective layer (720, see fig. 7, [0113]);
wherein the one or more chromophore is selected to be polyacenes, tetracene, pentacene and rubrene (see [0091-0094], claims 15 and 19).
Mapel et al. discloses using exciton fission material consisting of polyacene (see [0094]). Mapel et al. does not disclose using six fused carbon rings, nor do they teach the thickness of the solar cell material to be from about 100nm to about 400nm.
Campos et al. discloses an exciton fission material of polyacene including pentacene, hexacene, heptacene, octacene, etc… (see [0019] and [0139]) and each particular polyacene provides different associated absorption peak (see fig. 13, [0174]). Campos et al. also teaches the thickness of the (exciton fission material) material to be less than about 1 micron for various electronic device applications ([0198]) and the multiexcitonic material is used in optoelectronic thin-film technologies ([0191-0193]) to allow high resolution layers and devices to be prepared (see [0191-0199]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell semiconductor substrate of Mapel et al. by using polyacene having at least six fused carbon rings such as hexacene, heptacene, octacene, etc… for as taught by Campos et al. for a desired absorption, because Mapel et al. explicitly suggests using polyacene. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have formed the solar cell material comprising polyacene of Mapel et al. to be thinner in thickness by selecting the overlapping thickness portion of about 100nm to about 400nm in the thickness range of less than 1 micron (or 1000nm) disclosed by Campos et al. for optoelectronic thin film technologies; because Campos et al. teaches using the multiexciton material in the optoelectronic thin-film technologies to allow high resolution layers and device to be prepared, and because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Mapel et al. discloses packaged solar concentrator by attaching the solar concentrator (LSC, or layer comprising chromophores/dye 1430 in fig. 14, 1630 in fig. 16 or 1730 in fig. 17) to a base (see bottom plate 1440 in fig. 14, and substrate1640/photovoltaic cell 1650/bottom layer 1660 in fig. 16, or substrate 1740/bottom layer 1760 in fig. 17) to form a [0201-0203]), wherein the base (or the bottom layer or the substrate) includes glass (see [0202]). In other words, Mapel et al. teaches the base comprises a silicon-based material of glass.
Mapel et al. also teaches using adhesive for the attachment (see [0171]).
Mapel et al. does not disclose a base and an adhesive layer disposed on the base in fig. 7 such that the first reflective layer (or the bottom mirror) is disposed on the adhesive layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the luminescent solar concentrator shown in fig. 7 to a base (bottom plate 1440, or 1640/1650/1660, 1640/1750/1760) to form a device (or packaged solar concentrator) shown in figs. 14 and 16-17 by using an adhesive, because Mapel et al. explicitly suggests doing so. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used an adhesive layer disposed on the base (or the photovoltaic cells and the bottom layers) to attached the luminescent solar concentrator in fig. 7 to the base (comprising a photovoltaic cell and a bottom layer) such that the first reflective layer (730) of the luminescent concentrator (LSC) is disposed on the adhesive layer, because Mapel et al. teaches using adhesive for attachment.
Mapel et al. does not teach the adhesion layer comprises a transition metal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transition metal is selected from the group consisting essentially of chromium, aluminum, copper, titanium, tungsten, gold, niobium, or a combination thereof as claimed in claim 3, or comprises chromium as claimed in claim 4.
DeGroot et al. discloses using adhesion layer (26) comprising a transition metal such as chromium (Cr) to improve adhesion and resistance to delamination, rupture (see abstract and [0011], [0052], [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the solar cell of modified Mapel et al. by using an adhesion layer comprising a transition metal such as chromium (Cr) as taught by DeGroot et al.; because Mapel et al. explicitly teaches using an adhesive layer and DeGroot et al. teaches using transition metal such as chromium (or Cr) as an adhesion layer would advantageously improve adhesion and resistance to delamination, rupture (see [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mapel discloses a solar cell semiconductor substrate as in claim 1 above, wherein Degroot et al. discloses the thickness of the adhesion layer to be most preferably less than 20nm and preferably more than about 2nm (see [0054]). Most preferably less than 20nm and preferably more than about 2nm is right within the claimed range of about 1nm to about 20nm.
Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mapel et al. (US 2010/0193011) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2014/0124801).
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Mapel et al. discloses a solar cell semiconductor substrate as in claim 1 above.
Modified Mapel et al. does not disclose the first reflective layer comprising a thickness that is about 100nm to about 500nm, nor do they teach the second reflective layer comprising a thickness that is about 1nm to about 50nm.
Lee discloses a reflective layer comprising silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), or platinum (Pt) having a thickness of about 1Å to 10,000Å (or 0.1nm to 1,000nm, see [0098] and [0106]). Lee also discloses such material would provide reflectivity of 70% or above (see [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell semiconductor substrate of modified Mapel et al. by using reflective metal layer such as silver, aluminum or platinum having a thickness of 0.1nm to 1,000nm as taught by Lee for the first reflective layer and the second reflective layer, because Lee discloses such material would provide a reflectivity of 70% or above. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portions of about 100nm to about 500nm for the first reflective layer and 1nm to about 20nm for the second reflective layer of the range 0.1 to 1,000nm disclosed by Lee, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 8-10, modified Mapel et al. discloses a solar cell semiconductor substrate as in claim 1 above.
Modified Mapel et al. does not disclose the first reflective layer (730) and the second reflective layer (720) comprising silver to have a reflectivity of greater 90% or solar light, nor do they teach the second reflective layer comprising a thickness that is about 1nm to about 50nm.
Lee discloses a reflective layer comprising silver (Ag) (see [0098] and [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell substrate of modified Mapel et al. by using reflective metal layer such as silver (Ag) as taught by Lee for the first reflective layer (730) and the second reflective layer (720), because modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07). In such modification, the first reflective layer comprising silver and the second reflective layer comprising silver of modified Mapel et al. each will display the property/characteristic of a reflectivity of greater than 90% of solar light as claimed. Same material will display the same property/characteristic. See MPEP 2112.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached on 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights