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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The title of the invention appears to be “INDOOR CHARGER EQUIPMENT CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS”. It is suggested that, if this is not what applicant intended, to provide a corrected application data sheet.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: INDOOR PHOTOELECTRIC CHARGER EQUIPMENT.
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.
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, 2, 6, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rouda (US 2008/0289678 A1) in view of Snaith et al (US 2022/0037407 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rouda teaches (see Figs. 1, 3, 8A-8C) an indoor charger equipment, applied to an indoor space (house 100) that has an artificial light source (light source 10) emitting light and an electric appliance (appliance 80), the indoor charger equipment comprising: a photoelectric conversion module (photovoltaic cell array 20), including a plurality of photovoltaic cells (photovoltaic cells 22); the photoelectric conversion module is disposed in the indoor space and faced to the artificial light source to receive the light (see Figs. 1 and 8A-8C); after the light is received by the photoelectric conversion module and converted into electric energy by the photoelectric conversion module (the photoelectric cell array 20 receives light from light 10 and converts the received light into electric energy); and an electric energy storage device (battery 60), electrically connected with the photoelectric conversion module and the electric appliance (appliance 80), storing the electric energy (the battery 60 stores electric energy created by the photovoltaic cell array 20), and outputting the electric energy to the electric appliance for operation (see paras. 0025-0030, 0033 and 0036).
Rouda does not teach what type of photoelectric cells (22) are used, and thus, does not specifically teach that the photoelectric conversion modules includes a plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells, wherein the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells is stacked to form a multilayer structure; the multilayer structure is disposed in the indoor space and faced to the artificial light source to receive the light; after the light penetrates the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells in sequence, the light is received by the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells and converted into electric energy by the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells.
Snaith et al teaches (see Figs. 1, 2A, 8) a photoelectric conversion module including a plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells (see the wide bandgap and narrow bandgap perovskite cells in Fig. 2A and the top absorber and bottom absorber in Fig. 8), wherein the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells is stacked to form a multilayer structure (as shown in Figs. 2A, 8); the multilayer structure is disposed to face a light source to receive the light; after the light penetrates the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells in sequence (see Fig. 2A), the light is received by the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells and converted into electric energy by the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells (see the abstract and paras. 0003, 0016, 0026, 0027, 0033, 0039, 0289, 0323).
In view of the teachings of Snaith et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include with the system of Rouda, the photoelectric conversion modules includes a plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells, wherein the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells is stacked to form a multilayer structure; the multilayer structure is disposed in the indoor space and faced to the artificial light source to receive the light; after the light penetrates the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells in sequence, the light is received by the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells and converted into electric energy by the plurality of perovskite-based photovoltaic cells; in order to utilize perovskite photovoltaic cells with improved power-conversion efficiency (see para. 0377 of Snaith et al).
Regarding claim 2, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al teaches the indoor charger equipment according to claim 1, wherein the perovskite-based photovoltaic cells are penetration-type perovskite-based photovoltaic cells (for example, certain wavelengths of light are able to penetrate the wide bandgap perovskite and narrow bandgap perovskite cells, see Fig. 2A of Snaith et al).
Regarding claim 6, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al teaches the indoor charger equipment according to claim 1, wherein the perovskite-based photovoltaic cell far away from the artificial light source has a lowest light transmittance (see Fig. 2A of Snaith et al, the narrow bandgap perovskite cell has the lowest light transmittance (compared to the wide bandgap perovskite cell) and is the farthest from the light source indicated by the downward arrows).
Regarding claim 13, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al teaches the indoor charger equipment according to claim 1, wherein the photoelectric conversion module (20) is disposed on an inner surface of a lampshade (see Figs. 8A, 8B and 8D of Rouda).
Regarding claim 14, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al teaches the indoor charger equipment according to claim 1, comprising a plurality of photoelectric conversion modules arranged planarly (see Fig. 3 of Rouda, where the photovoltaic cell array 20 is arranged in a plane and may be duplicated for additional lights 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Snaith et al teaches the perovskite photovoltaic cell including transparent layers, however, they are conductive transparent layers (see para. 0289, discussing transparent conductive oxides). Thus, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al does not teach wherein the photoelectric conversion module further includes a transparent insulating layer; the transparent insulating layer is at least disposed between the perovskite-based photovoltaic cells.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and would be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, the perovskite photovoltaic cells of Snaith et al appear to be the same size. Thus, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al does not teach areas of the perovskite-based photovoltaic cells gradually increase from a side near the artificial light source to a side far away from the artificial light source.
Regarding claim 7, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al does not teach wherein except the perovskite-based photovoltaic cell far away from the artificial light source, others of the perovskite-based photovoltaic cells respectively have openings allowing the light to pass.
Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7 and would be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Rouda as modified by Snaith et al does not teach wherein each of the perovskite-based photovoltaic cells has an insulating layer on a side thereof, which is far away from the artificial light source.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 10 and would be allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Irwin et al (US 2023/0167326 A1) and Irwin et al (US 2020/0157125 A1) both teach perovskite-based photovoltaic cells with multiple layers of perovskite material (see para. 0019 of the ‘326 publication and para. 0107 of the ‘125 publication).
Kelly (US 2010/0163094 A1) teaches a method and system using photovoltaic panels to harvest artificial light.
Waterbury (US 4,918,357) teaches a light bult (10) including photovoltaic cells (20) mounted around the light bulb (see Fig. 1).
Agostinelli (CN 102484367 A) teaches a system using photovoltaic cells (12) to capture light from artificial light sources (14) (see Fig. 1).
Lin (WO 2013/091309 A1) teaches an energy saving light fitting, including a photovoltaic cell (21) mounted on a lamp shade (2) to capture light from a light source (3) (see the abstract).
Uchida et al (WO 2017/221535 A1) teaches a perovskite-based solar cell system (see the abstract).
Please see the additional references cited on the attached PTO-892, which are directed to photovoltaic cell structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared Fureman whose telephone number is (571)272-2391. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/JARED FUREMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights