DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/523,000, filed 11/29/2023, which claims priority to provisional application 63/428,487, filed 11/29/2022, after the request for continued examination filed 9/5/2025.
Claims 1-15 and 21-26 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 2/3/2026, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0180134 A1: This reference teaches a multilayered encapsulant material for a scribed solar cell.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0221639 A1: This reference teaches a multilayered encapsulant material for a solar cell, wherein the multilayered encapsulant comprises an organic material and an inorganic material (Table 1, Example 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 13-15, 22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (WO2022/255804A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0098395 A1), in view of Chang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0127529 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Kim teaches a photovoltaic device (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0042]-[0069]).
The device comprises a first contact layer 301 having a first thickness (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
The device comprises a first charge transport layer (CTL) 302 having a second thickness positioned over a surface of the first contact layer (Fig. 1, paragraph [0050]).
The device comprises an absorber layer 303 having a third thickness positioned over a surface of the first CTL 302 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0051]).
The device comprises a second CTL 304 having a fourth thickness positioned over a surface of the absorber layer 303 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0052]).
The device comprises a second contact layer 305 having fifth thickness positioned over a surface of the second CTL 304 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0056]).
The device comprises a barrier layer 410/421 having a sixth thickness, wherein the barrier layer comprises a first layer 421 that comprises a first inorganic material (Fig. 1, paragraph [0066]) and a second layer 410 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0064]).
The device comprises an encapsulation layer 422/500 (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
The device comprises a first scribe line P3 defined by at least one surface (i.e. the vertical surface of the scribe line P3).
Fig. 1 teaches that at least a portion of the barrier layer 410/421 is positioned between the encapsulation layer 422/500 and the second CTL 304.
Fig. 1 teaches that the at least one surface of the scribe line P3 comprises at least a portion of the third thickness (i.e. the thickness of the absorber layer 303), fourth thickness (i.e. the thickness of the CTL 304), fifth thickness (i.e. the thickness of the second contact layer 305), and at least a portion of the second thickness (i.e. the thickness of the first charge transport layer 302).
Fig. 1 teaches that a portion of the barrier layer 410/421 and a portion 422 of the encapsulation layer 422/500 are disposed within the first scribe line, because Fig. 1 teaches that layers 410 and 420 are disposed within the scribe line P3.
Kim does not teach that the second layer 410 comprises a first organic material. Instead, he teaches that the second layer 410 comprises silicon oxide (paragraph [0064]).
To solve the same problem of providing an encapsulated photoelectric device comprising a perovskite active material, Chang teaches that suitable encapsulating materials for encapsulating a perovskite device include silicon oxide (as in Kim), or an organic resin including polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polycarbonate, polyimide, polyethylene sulfonate, polyoxymethylene, polyarylate, a hexamethyldisiloxane, an acrylic resin (for example, a polymethyl methacrylate or a polyacrylic acid), or an epoxy-based resin (for example, an aliphatic glycidyl ether (AGE)) (paragraph [0281]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the silicon oxide layer 410 of Kim from any of the resins taught by Chang, based on Chang’s disclosure.
Forming the silicon oxide layer 410 of Kim from any of the resins taught by Chang teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the second layer 410 comprises a first organic material.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In reference to Claim 2, Fig. 1 of Kim teaches that the device comprises a second scribe line (i.e. another one of scribe lines P3) defined by at least one surface.
Fig. 1 of Kim teaches that the at least one surface of the second scribe line comprises at least a portion of the second thickness (i.e. the thickness of first charge transport layer (CTL) 302), the third thickness (i.e. the thickness of the absorber layer 303), the fourth thickness (i.e. the thickness of the CTL 304), and fifth thickness (i.e. the thickness of the second contact layer 305).
Fig. 1 teaches that the barrier layer 410/421 is disposed over at least a portion of the at least one surface of the second scribe line P3.
In reference to Claim 3, Fig. 1 teaches that at least one surface of the first scribe line P3 comprises a portion of the first contact layer 301, the first CTL layer 302, the absorber layer 303, the second CTL layer 304, and second contact layer 305.
In reference to Claim 7, modified Kim teaches that the first inorganic material comprises a metal oxide (Kim, paragraph [0066]), and the first organic material comprises a polymer or a resin (Huang, paragraph [0281]).
In reference to Claim 8, Kim teaches that the first inorganic material comprises tin oxide (paragraph [0066]).
In reference to Claim 13, Kim teaches that the second charge transport layer 304 (i.e. an electron transport layer) comprises fullerenes (i.e. C60 or PCBM, paragraph [0054]).
In reference to Claim 14, Kim teaches that the absorber layer comprises a perovskite (paragraph [0051]).
In reference to Claim 15, modified Kim teaches that the barrier layer is insoluble in water, because the materials of the barrier layer are water-insoluble insoluble materials (described in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
In reference to Claim 21, modified Kim teaches that the encapsulation layer 422/500 has a seventh thickness (Kim, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]).
Modified Kim does not teach that the encapsulation layer 422/500 necessarily comprises a second organic material, wherein the second organic material is different from the first organic material.
However, he teaches that the material of layer 500 may suitably be plastic (paragraph [0069]). He is silent regarding the material of the “plastic” layer.
As described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, modified Kim further teaches that the “first organic material” includes polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polycarbonate, polyimide, polyethylene sulfonate, polyoxymethylene, polyarylate, a hexamethyldisiloxane, an acrylic resin (for example, a polymethyl methacrylate or a polyacrylic acid), or an epoxy-based resin (for example, an aliphatic glycidyl ether (AGE)) (Chang, paragraph [0281]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first and second organic materials of any of the polymer materials taught by modified Kim to be suitable for use as polymeric encapsulant materials for a photovoltaic device, including combinations in which the first and second organic materials are the same or different.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine selection of suitable materials from a finite list would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 21, without undue experimentation.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
In reference to Claim 22, Fig. 1 of Kim teaches that the sixth thickness (i.e. the thickness of layers 410/421) is less than the seventh thickness (i.e. the thickness of layers 422/500), because layer 500 is taught to encapsulate the entire side thickness of all layers of the device.
In reference to Claims 24-25, modified Kim does not teach that the first organic material necessarily comprises a polyacrylate.
However, as described above, one of several materials of the first organic material of modified Kim includes polymethyl methacrylate (Chang, paragraph [0281]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first organic material of modified Kim from polymethyl methacrylate, based on the disclosure of Chang.
Forming the first organic material of modified Kim from polymethyl methacrylate teaches the limitations of Claims 24-25, wherein the first organic material comprises a polyacrylate.
In reference to Claim 26, Fig. 1 of Kim teaches that the first layer 421 and the second layer 410 are conformally deposited over the at least one surface of the scribe line.
Kim teaches that the first inorganic material comprises a metal oxide (Kim, paragraph [0066])
Modified Kim does not teach that the first organic material necessarily comprises a polyacrylate.
However, as described above, one of several materials of the first organic material of modified Kim includes polymethyl methacrylate (Chang, paragraph [0281]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first organic material of modified Kim from polymethyl methacrylate, based on the disclosure of Chang.
Forming the first organic material of modified Kim from polymethyl methacrylate teaches the limitations of Claim 26, wherein the first organic material comprises a polyacrylate.
Claims 4-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (WO2022/255804A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0098395 A1), in view of Chang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0127529 A1), and further in view of Huang (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0108847 A1).
In reference to Claim 4, modified Kim is silent regarding the specific composition of the perovskite material of his invention.
Therefore, he does not teach that the absorber layer comprises ABX3, as required by Claim 4.
However, he teaches that the perovskite is a “compound known to those skilled in the art” (paragraph [0051]).
To solve the same problem of providing photovoltaic devices, Huang teaches that particularly effective perovskite solar cells incorporate MaPbI3 (paragraph [0057]) passivated with an oxysalt layer to improve the stability of the perovskite (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have replaced used a layer of MAPbI3 passivated with an oxysalt, based on Huang’s disclosure that particularly effective perovskite solar cells incorporate MaPbI3 (paragraph [0057]) passivated with an oxysalt layer to improve the stability of the perovskite (paragraph [0006]).
Using a layer of MAPbI3 passivated with an oxysalt, as taught by Huang, as the perovskite material of the device of modified Kim teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the absorber layer comprises ABX3, wherein A is a first cation (MA), B is a second cation (Pb), and X is a halide (i.e. I).
Using a layer of MAPbI3 passivated with an oxysalt, as taught by Huang, as the perovskite material of the device of modified Kim teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the second cation comprises Pb.
Using a layer of MAPbI3 passivated with an oxysalt, as taught by Huang, as the perovskite material of the device of modified Kim teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the first cation comprises MA.
In reference to Claim 12, modified Kim does not teach that the device comprises a buffer layer between the absorber layer and the second contact layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises an oxysalt, as required by Claim 12.
To solve the same problem of providing photovoltaic devices, Huang teaches that particularly effective perovskite solar cells incorporate MaPbI3 (paragraph [0057]) passivated with an oxysalt layer to improve the stability of the perovskite (paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have replaced used a layer of MAPbI3 passivated with an oxysalt, based on Huang’s disclosure that particularly effective perovskite solar cells incorporate MAPbI3 (paragraph [0057]) passivated with an oxysalt layer to improve the stability of the perovskite (paragraph [0006]).
Using a layer of MAPbI3 passivated with an oxysalt, as taught by Huang, as the perovskite material of the device of modified Kim teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the device further comprises a buffer layer positioned between the absorber layer and the first contact layer, wherein the buffer layer comprises an oxysalt.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (WO2022/255804A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0098395 A1), in view of Chang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0127529 A1), and further in view of Akin, et al. (Adv. Sci., 2021, 8, 2004593).
In reference to Claim 9, modified Kim does not teach that the first organic material comprises any of the materials recited in Claim 9.
To solve the same problem of providing a perovskite solar cell, Akin teaches that treating a perovskite layer with PEY results in improved humidity resistance of the perovskite material (paragraph 2, column 2, page 14).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed at least part of the first organic material to comprise PEY, based on the teachings of Akin.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the first organic material comprises PEY.
Claims 10-11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, et al. (WO2022/255804A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0098395 A1), in view of Chang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0127529 A1), and further in view of Lee, et al. (U.S. Patent 9,166,094 B2).
In reference to Claim 10, modified Kim is silent regarding the thickness of the barrier layer.
Therefore, he does not teach that the barrier layer has a thickness of 20-1500 nm.
To solve the same problem of providing a perovskite solar cell with a conformal moisture barrier, Lee teaches that a suitable thickness range for such a conformal moisture barrier is 10-150 nm (column 5, lines 53-59).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the barrier layer of modified Kim to have a thickness of 10-150 nm, based on the teachings of Lee.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the barrier layer has a thickness between 20 nm and 1500 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of 20-1500 nm overlaps with the taught range of 10-150 nm.
In reference to Claim 11, modified Kim teaches that the barrier layer comprises tin oxide as the first inorganic material layer (Kim, paragraph [0066]) and a polymer or resin as the first organic material comprises a polymer or a resin (Huang, paragraph [0281]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that modified Kim teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the barrier layer has a transmittance of greater than 80% at wavelengths greater than 700 nm as measured through the thickness of the barrier layer, because the barrier layer comprises materials that are recognized as suitable barrier material in the instant invention (see Claims 7-8).
In reference to Claim 23, modified Kim is silent regarding the sixth thickness (i.e. the thickness of barrier layers 410/421).
Therefore, he does not teach that the barrier layer has a thickness of 20-1500 nm.
To solve the same problem of providing a perovskite solar cell with a conformal moisture barrier, Lee teaches that a suitable thickness range for such a conformal moisture barrier is 10-150 nm (column 5, lines 53-59).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the barrier layer of modified Kim to have a thickness of 10-150 nm, based on the teachings of Lee.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 23, wherein the barrier layer has a thickness between about 1nm to about 5 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights