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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on 26 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that no substantial burden exists between Invention I and Invention II as the Applicant states examining the process of making the composite electrode structure alongside the product itself does not impose a “serious search and examination burden”. Furthermore, the Applicant traverses the election between Species A and Species B on the grounds of nexus of technical features, stating that a search for one of the species would not be unlikely to yield results for the other. With respect to the traversal between Invention I and Invention II, this is not found persuasive because as disclosed in the restriction requirement, the method for manufacturing a composite electrode structure is drawn to at least CPC H10K 71/60 and the device comprising a composite electrode structure is drawn to at least CPC H10K 30/81. Therefore, separate searches for the method for manufacturing a composite electrode structure and the device comprising a composite electrode structure require at least separate classification searches resulting in a substantial burden when searching between the two statutory categories.
The restriction requirement between Invention I and Invention II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
With respect to the traversal for the election between Species A and Species B, the Examiner notices that upon conducting a search for Species A, the Examiner was able to find prior art related to Species B and has therefore withdrawn the restriction requirement with respect to the election of species between Species A and Species B.
Therefore, the restriction requirement between Species A and Species B has been withdrawn.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention (II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 26 February 2026.
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 January 2024 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bao Tu et al. (CN 116583123 A; using US 2024/0389369 A1 for English Translation; hereinafter “Tu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tu teaches a composite electrode structure, which is used as a back electrode of a perovskite solar cell (1, Fig. 1, para [0053] describes a thin-film composite electrode 1 of a perovskite solar cell), the composite electrode structure comprising:
a first conductive layer (12, Fig. 1, para [0053] describes a conductive oxide layer 12) used to connect with a hole transporting layer (2, Fig. 1, para [0053] describes a second charge transport layer 2 which may be a hole transport layer wherein the first conductive layer 12 is connected (electrically connected) to the hole transport layer 2), wherein a material of the first conductive layer is a first light transmitting conductive oxide (12, Fig. 1, para [0059] describes wherein the first conductive layer 12 may be comprised of a transparent conductive oxide material and para [0021] describes wherein the composite electrode comprises a transparent conductive oxide layer); and
a second conductive layer disposed on the first conductive layer (13, Fig. 1, para [0053] describes a second metal layer 13 provided on the first conductive layer 12), wherein a material of the second conductive layer is a second light transmitting conductive oxide or a conductive metal (13, Fig. 1, para [0059] describes wherein the second conductive layer 13 may be comprised of a conductive metal such as copper).
Regarding Claim 2, Tu teaches the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein the first conductive layer is connected with the hole transporting layer (2, Fig. 1, para [0053] describes a second charge transport layer 2 which may be a hole transport layer wherein the first conductive layer 12 is connected (electrically connected) to the hole transport layer 2), a band gap between the energy level of the first conductive layer and a valence band of the hole transporting layer ranges from 0.1 eV to 0.85 eV (2 and 12, Fig. 1, para [0101] describes wherein the second charge transport layer 2 which is a hole transport layer has a work function of -4.40 eV and para [0102] describes wherein a work function of the tin-doped indium oxide film 12 has a work function of -4.85 eV wherein a band gap between the two work function energy levels is approximately 0.45 eV which is between 0.1 eV and 0.85 eV, further wherein the hole transport layer 2 is described as a similar hole transport layer as the hole transport layer of the instant application and the first conductive layer 12 may be a same tin-doped indium oxide layer as the first conductive layer of the instant application, please see MPEP 2112.01 (I) wherein the structure of the hole transport layer and first conductive layer as recited by Tu is substantially identical to that of the claims therefore claimed properties, such as a band gap between two work function energy levels, or functions are presumed to be present).
Regarding Claim 3, Tu teaches the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein an energy level of the first conductive layer ranges from -4.35 eV to -5.10 eV (12, Fig. 1, para [0068] describes wherein a work function of the first conductive oxide layer 12 may be in a range from -5.10 eV to -4.10 eV and para [0102] further describes wherein a work function of the fist conductive oxide film 12 is -4.85 eV which is in the range from -4.35 eV to -5.10 eV further wherein the first conductive layer 12 may be a same tin-doped indium oxide layer as the first conductive layer of the instant application, please see MPEP 2112.01 (I) wherein the structure of the first conductive layer as recited by Tu is substantially identical to that of the claims therefore claimed properties, such as work function energy levels, or functions are presumed to be present).
Regarding Claim 4, Tu teaches the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein the first light transmitting conductive oxide is selected from the group consisting of indium oxide doped with molybdenum or tungsten, indium oxide doped with tin, zinc oxide doped with aluminum, and zinc oxide doped with indium (12, Fig. 1, para [0059] describes wherein the first conductive layer 12 may be comprised of a transparent conductive oxide material such as tin-doped indium oxide).
Regarding Claim 5, Tu teaches the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first conductive layer ranges from 5 nm to 50 nm (12, Fig. 1, para [0060] describes wherein the first conductive layer may have a thickness of 50-200 nm wherein a thickness of 50 nm falls within the range of 5 nm to 50 nm).
Regarding Claim 7, Tu teaches the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein the second light transmitting conductive oxide is selected from the group consisting of indium oxide doped with molybdenum or tungsten, indium oxide doped with tin, zinc oxide doped with aluminum, and zinc oxide doped with indium; wherein the conductive metal is selected from the group consisting of copper, silver, gold, and aluminum (13, Fig. 1, para [0059] describes wherein the second conductive layer 13 may be comprised of a conductive metal such as copper).
Regarding Claim 8, Tu teaches the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein an energy level of the first conductive layer is lower than an energy level of the second conductive layer (12 and 13, Fig. 1, para [0068] describes wherein a work function value of the first conductive layer 12 describes as the conductive oxide layer and the second conductive layer 13 described as the second metal layer, are in ascending order resulting in an energy level of the first conductive layer 12 being lower than an energy level of the second conductive layer 13), and a resistance of the first conductive layer is higher than a resistance of the second conductive layer (12 and 13, Fig. 1, para [0059] describes wherein the first conductive layer 12 may be a tin-doped indium oxide and the second conductive layer 13 may be a copper layer wherein copper is known to have a lower resistance than tin-doped indium oxide and further wherein the first conductive layer 12 may be a same tin-doped indium oxide layer as the first conductive layer of the instant application and the second conductive layer 13 may be a same copper metal conductive layer as the second conductive layer of the instant application, please see MPEP 2112.01 (I) wherein the structure of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer as recited by Tu is substantially identical to that of the claims therefore claimed properties, such as work function energy levels and conductive layer resistances, or functions are presumed to be present).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao Tu et al. (CN 116583123 A; using US 2024/0389369 A1 for English Translation; hereinafter “Tu”) in view of Michio Suzuka et al. (US 2014/0048786 A1; hereinafter “Suzuka”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Tu fails to explicitly disclose the composite electrode structure according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the second conductive layer ranges from 50 nm to 200 nm.
However, Suzuka teaches a similar composite electrode structure, wherein a thickness of the second conductive layer ranges from 50 nm to 200 nm (4, Fig. 3, para [0042] describes a first electrode 4 comprising a metal such as copper disposed on a transparent conductive metal oxide layer 20 that may have a thickness ranging from 0.1 μm to 10 μm wherein a thickness of 0.1 μm is 100 nm which falls within the range of 50 nm to 200 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tu with Suzuka to further disclose a composite electrode structure wherein a second conductive layer ranges from 50 nm to 200 nm in order to provide the advantage of suppressing the reduction in the light transmittance of the second conductive layer allowing sufficient light to enter an optical device through a second conductive layer or to exit form an optical device through a second conductive layer further improving functionality of a device comprising a composite electrode (Suzuka, para [0042]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571(272)-1864. 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.
/ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights