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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 12 depend on claim 2 and recite the oxygen concentration in “ppm”, while claim 2 recites the oxygen concentration in “mol/m2”. Applicant does not disclose the sealed space has a combination of an oxygen concentrations of 100-3000ppm or 10-3000ppm and a value of 2.3x10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0x10-5 mol/m2 (or different ranges of concentration in terms of different units). On the contrary, Applicant discloses the sealed space a value under the unit of mol/m2 is an alternative expression from an oxygen concentration under the unit of ppm (see paragraph [0029] of Applicant’s own disclosure).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 3 and 12 depend on claim 2 and recite “an oxygen concentration … greater than or equal to 100ppm and less than or equal to 3000ppm in terms of volume fraction” and “an oxygen concentration … greater than or equal to 10ppm and less than or equal to 3000ppm in terms of volume fraction”, respectively; while claim 2 recites “a value obtained by dividing a molar amount of oxygen … greater than or equal to 2.3x10-7mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0x10-5mol/m2”, which is also an oxygen concentration being expressed under different unit.
As such, claims 3 and 12 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends and fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends by reciting two different ranges of oxygen concentration.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For the purpose of this office action, “an oxygen concentration” and “a value” are construed as being interchangeable or being the alternative forms of expressing the oxygen concentration according to Applicant’s disclosure (see [0029] of Applicant’s specification).
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) 2-4, 7, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2019/181330) in view of Hikmet et al. (US 2013/0187537).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12, Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a support (see substrate 1, figs. 1-2, 4-7, [0111-0119]);
a photoelectric conversion element (2-7, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111-0119]); and
a sealing member (8 and 9, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111-0119]);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element (2-7) is in a sealed space (or void part) defined by the support (1) and the sealing member (8-9, see figs. 1-2 and 4-7);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element comprises (2-7), in this order:
a first electrode (2, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111]),
a photoelectric conversion layer (4-6 or 3-6, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111-0119]), and
a second electrode (7, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111]),
wherein the photoelectric conversion layer (4-6 or 3-6, figs. 1-2 and 4-7) comprises a perovskite compound (see [0025] and [0032]), and
wherein an oxygen concentration in the sealed space (or void part) is not limited, and preferably 0 percent or greater but 21 percent or less to improve power generation capability and durability (see [0111]).
Tanaka et al. discloses an overlapping range of the oxygen concentration, and does not explicitly teach an oxygen concentration in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 10ppm (or 0.00001 or 0.001%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 12, or greater than or equal to 100ppm (or 0.0001 or 0.01%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 3; such that the oxygen concentration being expressed by a value that is obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space is greater than or equal to 2.3 × 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 × 10-5 mol/m2 as claimed in claim 2.
Hikmet et al. discloses the concentration of oxygen gas in a sealed space (or cavity) in the range of from 0.05 to 3% based on the total volume within the sealed space (or cavity), and preferably in a range of 0.05 to 0.6% to avoid deterioration of organic material (or phosphor) easier and less costly (see [0006-0012]), or improve durability of the electronic device. In other words, Hikmet et al. expresses the oxygen concentration in the sealed space in terms of volume fraction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 10ppm (or 0.001%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) or 100ppm (0.01%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) in the range of 0 to 21 percent disclosed Tanaka et al. in terms of volume fraction as taught by Hilkmet et al.; because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, and expressing the oxygen concentration (or a gas concentration) in terms of volume fraction would involve nothing more than use of known expression for its intended use of expression concentration of a gas in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expressed the concentration of the gas by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space is greater than or equal to 2.3 × 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 × 10-5 mol/m2, because such expression would involve nothing more than expressing the oxygen concentration of modified Tanaka et al. in a different/alternative concentration unit.
Furthermore, as the power generation capability and durability of the solar cell are variables that can be modified (see [0111] of Tanaka et al.), among others, by adjusting amount of oxygen per surface of the photoelectric conversion element, the precise value (or amount of oxygen per surface of the photoelectric conversion element) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element to be greater than or equal to 2.3 x 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 x 10-5 mol/m2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the power generation capability and durability (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 4, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell with the same claimed oxygen concentration as in claim 2 above, the solar cell of Tanaka et al. or modified Tanaka et al. will have the characteristic/property of a partial pressure of oxygen (or weight of the oxygen in the given volume per unit area of the given volume) in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 1 × 10-5 atm and less than or equal to 3 × 10-3 atm as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Tanaka et al. discloses the photoelectric conversion element further comprises a hole transport layer (6, figs. 1-2 and 4-7) located between the photoelectric conversion layer (4-5) and the second electrode (7), and the hole transport layer comprises an organic semiconductor (see [0055-0066]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, wherein Tanaka et al. discloses the hole transport layer further comprises an additive (see [0067-0080]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Tanaka et al. teaches the support (or substrate 1) is a glass substrate (see [0015]).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi et al. (WO 2021/010425) in view of Hikmet et al. (US 2013/0187537).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12, Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a support (1, figs. 1-5, [0142-0147]);
a photoelectric conversion element (2-7, figs. 1-5, [0142-0147]); and
a sealing member (9 and 10, figs. 1-5, [0142-0147]);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element (2-7) is in a sealed space (or hollow part) defined by the support (1) and the sealing member (9-10, see figs. 1-5);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element comprises (2-7), in this order:
a first electrode (2, figs. 1-5, [0142]),
a photoelectric conversion layer (4-5, figs. 1-5, [0142]) comprising a perovskite compound ([0142] and [0046-0053]), and
a second electrode (7, figs. 1-5, [0142]), and
wherein an oxygen concentration in the sealed space (or hollow part) is not limited, and preferably 0% or more but 21% or less (see [0147]).
Horiuchi et al. discloses an overlapping range of the oxygen concentration, and does not explicitly teach an oxygen concentration in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 10ppm (or 0.00001 or 0.001%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 12, or greater than or equal to 100ppm (or 0.0001 or 0.01%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 3; such that the oxygen concentration being expressed by a value that is obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space is greater than or equal to 2.3 × 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 × 10-5 mol/m2 as claimed in claim 2.
Hikmet et al. discloses the concentration of oxygen gas in a sealed space (or cavity) in the range of from 0.05 to 3% based on the total volume within the sealed space (or cavity), and preferably in a range of 0.05 to 0.6% to avoid deterioration of organic material (or phosphor) easier and less costly (see [0006-0012]), or improve durability of the electronic device. In other words, Hikmet et al. expresses the oxygen concentration in the sealed space in terms of volume fraction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 10ppm (or 0.001%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) or 100ppm (0.01%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) in the range of 0 to 21 percent disclosed Horiuchi et al. in terms of volume fraction as taught by Hilkmet et al.; because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, and expressing the oxygen concentration (or a gas concentration) in terms of volume fraction would involve nothing more than use of known expression for its intended use of expression concentration of a gas in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have expressed the concentration of the gas by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space is greater than or equal to 2.3 × 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 × 10-5 mol/m2, because such expression would involve nothing more than expressing the oxygen concentration of modified Horiuchi et al. in a different/alternative concentration unit.
Furthermore, as the power generation capability and durability of the solar cell are variables that can be modified (see [0147] of Horiuchi et al.), among others, by adjusting amount of oxygen per surface of the photoelectric conversion element, the precise value (or amount of oxygen per surface of the photoelectric conversion element) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element to be greater than or equal to 2.3 x 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 x 10-5 mol/m2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element to obtain the desired balance between the power generation capability and durability (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 4, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell with the same claimed oxygen concentration as in claims 2-3 and 12 above, the solar cell of modified Horiuchi et al. will have the characteristic/property of a partial pressure of oxygen (or weight of the oxygen in the given volume per unit area of the given volume) in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 1 × 10-5 atm and less than or equal to 3 × 10-3 atm as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 6, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the perovskite compound comprises lead ([0048-0051]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the photoelectric conversion element further comprises a hole transport layer (6, figs. 1-5, [0142]) located between the photoelectric conversion layer (4-5) and the second electrode (7), and the hole transport layer comprises an organic semiconductor (see [0048-0114]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the organic semiconductor comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis-(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamine)9,9'-spirobifluorene ([0086]) and poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (see [0088-0096]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the hole transport layer further comprises an additive (see [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 9 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the additive comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of tert-butylpyridine (or 4-t-butylpyridine, see [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the support is a glass substrate (see [0014]).
Alternatively, claim(s) 2-4, 7, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (WO 2019/181330) in view of Hikmet et al. (US 2013/0187537), and further in view of Velusamy et al. (US 2007/0073052).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12, Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a support (see substrate 1, figs. 1-2, 4-7, [0111-0119]);
a photoelectric conversion element (2-7, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111-0119]); and
a sealing member (8 and 9, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111-0119]);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element (2-7) is in a sealed space (or void part) defined by the support (1) and the sealing member (8-9, see figs. 1-2 and 4-7);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element comprises (2-7), in this order:
a first electrode (2, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111]),
a photoelectric conversion layer (4-6 or 3-6, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111-0119]), and
a second electrode (7, figs. 1-2 and 4-7, [0111]),
wherein the photoelectric conversion layer (4-6 or 3-6, figs. 1-2 and 4-7) comprises a perovskite compound (see [0025] and [0032]), and
wherein an oxygen concentration in the sealed space (or void part) is not limited, and preferably 0 percent or greater but 21 percent or less to improve power generation capability and durability (see [0111]).
Tanaka et al. discloses an overlapping range of the oxygen concentration, and does not explicitly teach an oxygen concentration in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 10ppm (or 0.00001 or 0.001%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 12, or greater than or equal to 100ppm (or 0.0001 or 0.01%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 3; such that the oxygen concentration being expressed by a value that is obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space is greater than or equal to 2.3 × 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 × 10-5 mol/m2 as claimed in claim 2.
Hikmet et al. discloses the concentration of oxygen gas in a sealed space (or cavity) in the range of from 0.05 to 3% based on the total volume within the sealed space (or cavity), and preferably in a range of 0.05 to 0.6% to avoid deterioration of organic material (or phosphor) easier and less costly (see [0006-0012]), or improve durability of the electronic device. In other words, Hikmet et al. expresses the oxygen concentration in the sealed space in terms of volume fraction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 10ppm (or 0.001%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) or 100ppm (0.01%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) in the range of 0 to 21 percent disclosed Tanaka et al. in terms of volume fraction as taught by Hilkmet et al.; because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, and expressing the oxygen concentration (or a gas concentration) in terms of volume fraction would involve nothing more than use of known expression for its intended use of expression concentration of a gas in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Tanaka et al. does not explicitly disclose a surface area (or a dimension) of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space such that a value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area is greater than or equal to 2.3x10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0x10-5mol/m2.
Velusamy et al. discloses typical effective area of a solar cell is 0.25cm2 ([0037] and [0050]).
I would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used a photoelectric conversion element having a surface area of 0.25cm2 of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space (or the effective area) taught by Velusamy et al. in the solar cell of modified Tanaka et al., because Velusamy et al. discloses such area is typical. Such use would involve nothing more of a matter of design choice. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate size based on the desired properties of the photovoltaic solar cell. When a surface area of 0.25 cm2 is used, the value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by the surface area is found to be 1.116 x 10-9 mol/dm2 to 3.349x10-7 mol/dm2, or 1.116x10-7 mol/m2 to 3.349 x 10-5 mol/m2 (See calculation below).
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 portion of 2.3x10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 3.349x10-5mol/m2 of the range 1.116x10-7 mol/m2 to 3.349 x 10-5 mol/m2, 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 claim 4, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell with the same claimed oxygen concentration as in claim 2 above, the solar cell of Tanaka et al. or modified Tanaka et al. will have the characteristic/property of a partial pressure of oxygen (or weight of the oxygen in the given volume per unit area of the given volume) in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 1 × 10-5 atm and less than or equal to 3 × 10-3 atm as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Tanaka et al. discloses the photoelectric conversion element further comprises a hole transport layer (6, figs. 1-2 and 4-7) located between the photoelectric conversion layer (4-5) and the second electrode (7), and the hole transport layer comprises an organic semiconductor (see [0055-0066]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, wherein Tanaka et al. discloses the hole transport layer further comprises an additive (see [0067-0080]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tanaka et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Tanaka et al. teaches the support (or substrate 1) is a glass substrate (see [0015]).
Alternatively, claim(s) 2-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi et al. (WO 2021/010425) in view of Hikmet et al. (US 2013/0187537), and further in view of Velusamy et al. (US 2007/0073052).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 12, Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a support (1, figs. 1-5, [0142-0147]);
a photoelectric conversion element (2-7, figs. 1-5, [0142-0147]); and
a sealing member (9 and 10, figs. 1-5, [0142-0147]);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element (2-7) is in a sealed space (or hollow part) defined by the support (1) and the sealing member (9-10, see figs. 1-5);
wherein the photoelectric conversion element comprises (2-7), in this order:
a first electrode (2, figs. 1-5, [0142]),
a photoelectric conversion layer (4-5, figs. 1-5, [0142]), and
a second electrode (7, figs. 1-5, [0142]), and
wherein an oxygen concentration in the sealed space (or hollow part) is not limited, and preferably 0% or more but 21% or less (see [0147]).
Horiuchi et al. discloses an overlapping range of the oxygen concentration, and does not explicitly teach an oxygen concentration in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 10ppm (or 0.00001 or 0.001%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 12, or greater than or equal to 100ppm (or 0.0001 or 0.01%) and less than or equal to 3000ppm (or 0.003 or 0.3%) in terms of volume fraction as claimed in claim 3; such that the oxygen concentration being expressed by a value that is obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space is greater than or equal to 2.3 × 10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0 × 10-5 mol/m2 as claimed in claim 2.
Hikmet et al. discloses the concentration of oxygen gas in a sealed space (or cavity) in the range of from 0.05 to 3% based on the total volume within the sealed space (or cavity), and preferably in a range of 0.05 to 0.6% to avoid deterioration of organic material (or phosphor) easier and less costly (see [0006-0012]), or improve durability of the electronic device. In other words, Hikmet et al. expresses the oxygen concentration in the sealed space in terms of volume fraction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 10ppm (or 0.001%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) or 100ppm (0.01%) to 3000ppm (or 0.3%) in the range of 0 to 21 percent disclosed Horiuchi et al. in terms of volume fraction as taught by Hilkmet et al.; because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, and Hikmet et al. such concentration expressing the oxygen concentration (or a gas concentration) in terms of volume fraction would involve nothing more than use of known expression for its intended use of expression concentration of a gas in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Horiuchi et al. does not explicitly disclose a surface area (or a dimension) of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space such that a value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by a surface area is greater than or equal to 2.3x10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 7.0x10-5mol/m2.
Velusamy et al. discloses typical effective area of a solar cell is 0.25cm2 ([0037] and [0050]).
I would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used a photoelectric conversion element having a surface area of 0.25cm2 of a surface of the photoelectric conversion element that faces the sealed space (or the effective area) taught by Velusamy et al. in the solar cell of modified Horiuchi et al., because Velusamy et al. discloses such area is typical. Such use would involve nothing more of a matter of design choice. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate size based on the desired properties of the photovoltaic solar cell. When a surface area of 0.25 cm2 is used, the value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in the sealed space by the surface area is found to be 1.116 x 10-9 mol/dm2 to 3.349x10-7 mol/dm2, or 1.116x10-7 mol/m2 to 3.349 x 10-5 mol/m2 (See calculation below).
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 portion of 2.3x10-7 mol/m2 and less than or equal to 3.349x10-5mol/m2 of the range 1.116x10-7 mol/m2 to 3.349 x 10-5 mol/m2, 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 claim 4, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell with the same claimed oxygen concentration as in claims 2-3 and 12 above, the solar cell of modified Horiuchi et al. will have the characteristic/property of a partial pressure of oxygen (or weight of the oxygen in the given volume per unit area of the given volume) in the sealed space is greater than or equal to 1 × 10-5 atm and less than or equal to 3 × 10-3 atm as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 6, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the perovskite compound comprises lead ([0048-0051]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the photoelectric conversion element further comprises a hole transport layer (6, figs. 1-5, [0142]) located between the photoelectric conversion layer (4-5) and the second electrode (7), and the hole transport layer comprises an organic semiconductor (see [0048-0114]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the organic semiconductor comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis-(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamine)9,9'-spirobifluorene ([0086]) and poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (see [0088-0096]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the hole transport layer further comprises an additive (see [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 9 above, wherein Horiuchi et al. discloses the additive comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of tert-butylpyridine (or 4-t-butylpyridine, see [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Horiuchi et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim
Calculation of a value obtained by dividing an oxygen amount in moles in the sealed space by a surface area in m2 of the surface of the photoelectric conversion element, or the value has a unit of mol/m2, or the concentration of oxygen amount of in the sealed space of surface area of 0.25cm2 or 0.0025dm2 expressed in mol per m2.
Oxygen density is 1.429 g/L (or dm3).
Oxygen molecular weight is 32g/mol.
Oxygen density in mol/L(or dm3) is 1.429/32 (mol/L or mol/dm3), or 0.0447 mol/L (or mol/dm3).
Amount of oxygen in a volume fraction of 10ppm (or 10 x 10-6) in a volume of 1L (or 1dm3) is 0.0447 x 10x 10-6 or 4.447 x 10-7 mol/L (or mol/dm3).
Amount of oxygen in a volume fraction of 3000ppm (or 3x 10-3) in a volume of 1L (or 1dm3) is 0.0447 x 3 x 10-3 or 1.340 x 10-4 mol/L (or mol/dm3 or mol/(1dm2 surface area x height)).
Surface area of 0.0025 dm2 is equivalent to a fraction of 0.0025x height of 1L (or 1dm2 x height). As such, the amount of oxygen 10ppm in the volume of surface area 0.0025dm2 (or a fraction of 1dm2 x height), or a value of oxygen amount in mols in the sealed space divided by the surface area, is 4.447x10-7 (mol/1dm2x height) x 0.0025 x height = 1.116 x 10-9 mol/(dm2) or 1.116 x10-7 mol/m2 since 1m2 = 100dm2.
Similarly, the value of oxygen amount in the sealed space (or 10ppm to 3000ppm) divided by a surface area is found to be 1.340x10-4mol/(1dm2 x height) x 0.0025xheight = 3.349x10-7 mol/dm2 or 3.349 x 10-5 mol/m2 since 1m2=100dm2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Applicant describes the characteristics of perovskite solar cell could be deteriorated by the reaction product that inhibits the movement of photogenerated carriers, and the inventors of the present application were able to discover a molar amount of oxygen under the unit of “mol/m2” showing a remarkable effect in perovskite solar cell at least in [0010] of the originally filed disclosure.
The examiner replies that [0010] of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure describes a prior art, NPL 1 or Sun and eight others cited in paragraph [0003], discovers the perovskite compound reacts with oxygen to form the reaction product that inhibits the movement of the photogenerated, and the perovskite solar cells are generally used in an atmosphere that has very little oxygen to avoid the problem.
Applicant then describes the oxygen concentration in sealed space in “ppm” (see [0015] of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure), and discloses the value of mol/m2 is an alternative oxygen concentration in the seal space (see [0029] of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure). In other words, Applicant’s explicitly discloses the oxygen concentration “ppm” in terms of volume fraction and the value in mol/m2 (or a different concentration unit) are interchangeable, or alternative “oxygen concentration” values.
Applicant uses “ppm” in the examples, and none of the examples use the unit “mol/m2” to show a remarkable effect of the perovskite when using the value having a concentration unit of “mol/m2”.
Applicant then provides two drawings of two solar cells having the photoelectric conversion element of different sizes, and alleges that the oxygen in “ppm” for both solar cells are the same and the value of “mol/m2” is larger for the solar cell having smaller size on the left. Based on this allegation, Applicant argues none of the prior art disclose the value of oxygen in the unit “mol/m2”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees to Applicant’s allegation. The claimed “ppm” is in terms of volume fractions (See claims 3 and 12). Using different sizes of photoelectric conversion elements will change the volume of the sealed space, e.g. larger photoelectric conversion element reduces the size of the sealed volume occupied by the gases and smaller photoelectric conversion element increases the size of the sealed volume occupied by the gases. As such, the oxygen concentrations in ppm in terms of volume fraction are not the same as alleged by Applicant, but also changed as the value mol/m2. However, as shown in the calculation, the amount of oxygen (in term of moles) will stay the same regardless if the volume or the surface area change, and once the surface area is known, the value in mol/m2 can be calculated by dividing the moles of oxygen provided in the ppm oxygen concentration over the surface area as explicitly claimed by Applicant. Furthermore, Applicant explicitly discloses the oxygen concentration under unit ppm and the value in different concentration unit of mol/m2 are interchangeable or alternative numbers (see [0029] of Applicant’s disclosure).
Conclusion
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