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 claims
The amendment to the claims filed on 8/11/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10 and 12 are amended. Currently, claims 1-15 are pending in the application with claims 12-15 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous 102 rejection is maintained since the above amendment is insufficient to overcome the rejection and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Previous 103 rejection under Zhao in view of Wu is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1-11 are rejected. See the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Roscheisen et al. (US Patent 7,594,982).
Regarding claim 1, Roscheisen et al. discloses thin film solar cell (col. 17, line 21; col. 24, lines 22-23), comprising:
a first electrode layer (see second electrode 1010, figs. 10 and 11A-C) disposed on a substrate (1011 in fig. 10 or 1118 in fig. 11A-C) to have a preset pattern of a plurality of layers being spaced apart from each other on the substrate (see figs. 10 and 11A-C, also see figs. 1B-1C);
a lower end layer (see first charge transport film 1005/1002/1011 in fig. 10 or 1104/1102/1118 in figs. 11A-C) disposed under the first electrode (1010, see figs. 10 and 11A-C) layer;
an upper end layer (hole transporting grid network 1008 in fig. 10 or 1106 in figs. 11A-C) having the same preset pattern, e.g. a plurality of layers are spaced apart from each other, and being disposed between the first electrode layer (1010) and the lower end layer (1104/1102/1011 in fig. 10, or 1104/1102/1118 in figs. 11A-C) and formed on an upper surface of the lower end layer (or the first charge transport film 1005 in fig. 10 or 1104 in figs. 11A-C); and
a barrier layer (1006 in fig. 10 or 1108 in figs. 11A-C) disposed an area of the upper surface of the lower end layer (or upper surface of layer 1005 in fig. 10 or 1104 in figs. 11A-C) except for an area in which the upper end layer (1008 in fig. 10 or 1106 in figs. 11A-C).
Roscheisen et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed solar cell, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Roscheisen et al. uses materials with transparency for the solar cell such as transparent electrodes and transparent photoactive layer (see col. 17, line 36 through col. 20, line 14). Therefore, the solar cell disclosed by Roscheisen et al. is considered transparency.
Recitation regarding how the upper layer being formed “by a dry etching process using the first electrode layer as a mask” is directed toward a process limitation that does further define the structure of the solar cell. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. Regardless how the upper end layer being formed, by dry etching process or by wet etching process or by sputtering using a pattern, the upper end layer of Roscheisen et al. is still an upper layer disposed being the first electrode layer and the lower end layer and formed on an upper surface of the lower end layer as claimed. In addition, Roscheisen et al. discloses the barrier layer, e.g. 1106, is formed by etching (see col. 20, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 2, Roscheisen discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches including a passivation layer (or the optional interface layer 1003 and 1009 in fig. 10, or 1103 and 1109 in fig. 11A-C) being disposed to cover the upper end layer (1008 or 1106) and the barrier (1006 or 1108) to improve charge injection into the electrodes (see col. 17, lines 36-57). Therefore, the passivation layer (or interface layer 1003 and 1009) of Roscheisen et al. is configured to protect the upper end layer and the barrier layer from an external environment by covering the upper end layer and the barrier layer, and block a leakage current by improving the charge injection.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Dutta (US 2009/0165844).
Regarding claim 1, Dutta discloses a thin film solar cell ([0092]) considering transparency as the first and second conducting layers are transparent (see claims 1 and 3, 13 and 15), comprising:
a first electrode layer (’06) disposed on a substrate (’01) having a preset pattern as a plurality of first electrode layers are spaced apart from each other on the substrate (’01, see figs. 3A-C, 4, 10-11);
a lower end layer (’01-’03) disposed under the first electrode (’06, see figs. 3A-C, 4 and 10-11);
an upper end layer (’04 and ’05) having the same preset pattern as the first electrode, e.g. a plurality of layers are spaced apart from each other, being disposed between the first electrode ’06) and the lower end layer (’01-’03, see figs. 3-4 and 10-11); and
a barrier layer (or structure ’10) disposed on an area of the upper surface of the lower end layer (’03) except for an area in which the upper end layer (’04 and ’05) is formed (see figs. 3-4 and 10-11).
Dutta discloses all the structural limitations of the solar cell, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Recitation regarding how the upper layer being formed “by a dry etching process using the first electrode layer as a mask” is directed toward a process limitation that does further define the structure of the solar cell. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. Regardless how the upper end layer being formed, by dry etching process or by wet etching process or by sputtering using a pattern, the upper end layer of Dutta is still an upper layer disposed being the first electrode layer and the lower end layer and formed on an upper surface of the lower end layer as claimed. Furthermore, Dutta teaches using etching with mask is among many other methods (see [0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Dutta discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the preset pattern includes a first pattern having a structure in which the plurality of first electrode layers (’06) having a length longer than a width are spaced a constant distance from each other (see figs. 3A-B, 10f and 11f).
Regarding claim 7, Dutta discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the upper end layer (’04 and ’05) is formed to have an inclined surface (of V groove 317), wherein the angle of inclined surface is greater than -90o and smaller than 90o (see fig. 3C).
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) 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“Double-Side-Passivated Perovskite Solar Cells with Ultra-low Potential Loss”) in view of Dutta (US 2009/0165844).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a first electrode layer (Au, figs. 1, 3a and 4a) disposed on a substrate (see glass of glass/ITO described in fig. 2 and Experimental Section);
a lower end layer (see ITO/TiO2 in fig. 4a, or glass/ITO/TiO2 described in Experimental Section) disposed under the first electrode layer (Au, see fig. 4a);
an upper end layer (see Spiro-OMeTAD (HTL) and perovskite layer shown in fig. 4a) disposed between the first electrode layer (Au) and the lower end layer (ITO/TiO2) and formed on the upper surface of the lower end layer (ITO/TiO2, see fig. 4a);
a barrier layer (see lower PbI2 passivation layer) disposed an area of the upper surface of the lower end layer (ITO/TiO2) except for an area in which the upper layer (perovskite and spiro-OMeTAD) is formed (see fig. 4a).
Zhao et al. teaches a perovskite solar cell of a first layer of TiO2, a second layer of perovskite, and a third layer of hole transporting material (or Spiro-OMeTAD) to form a planar p-i-n junction (see the concept in paragraph [0005] of evidentiary reference to Marks et al., US 2016/0343965), wherein the upper end layer includes the second and third layers (or the perovskite and the hole transporting layer). Zhao et al. does not teach the first electrode (or metal electrode Au) have a preset pattern as a plurality of first electrode layers are spaced apart from each other, nor do they teach the upper end layer (or the hole transport layer/and perovskite layer) having the same preset pattern as the first electrode (or the top electrode).
Dutta discloses a solar cell having a configuration that the first electrode (or top metal electrode ’06, figs. 3B, 4, 10f, 11f) having a preset pattern as a plurality of first electrode layers (or segments of ’06) are spaced apart from each other and the upper end layer (or the second layer ‘04 and the third layer ’05) having the same preset pattern as the first electrode (’06, see figs. 3B, 4, 10f, 11f) such that the structure (’10) is on an area of the upper surface of the lower end layer (or the first layer ’03) except for an area in which the end layer is formed (see figs. 3-4, 10f and 11f). Dutta also discloses using transparent conductive material for the electrodes (or the first and second conductive layers, see claims 1 and 3, 13 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the solar cell of Zhao et al. by forming the first (or upper) electrode and the upper end layer (or the second layer of perovskite and the third layer of hole transporting layer) having the same preset pattern as a plurality of first electrode layers spaced apart from each other with the barrier layer (or PbI2) being formed on the upper surface of the lower end layer except for an area in which the upper end layer is formed as taught by Dutta, because Dutta teaches such configuration of design would be advantageous in providing large affective surface area and improve collection of sunlight (see [0020]).
The layers of the solar cell of Zhao et al. have thicknesses in nanometers (see Experimental Section). Therefore, the solar cell of Zhao et al. is a thin solar cell.
In such modification, the solar cell is considered transparency since all the materials of the solar cell of modified Zhao et al. are considered transparency.
Recitation regarding how the upper layer being formed “by a dry etching process using the first electrode layer as a mask” is directed toward a process limitation that does further define the structure of the solar cell. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. Regardless how the upper end layer being formed, by dry etching process or by wet etching process or by sputtering using a pattern, the upper end layer of modified Zhao et al. is still an upper layer disposed being the first electrode layer and the lower end layer and formed on an upper surface of the lower end layer as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses a passivation layer (see top PbI2 passivation layer) which is configured to project the upper end layer and the barrier from an external environment and block a leakage current, e.g. functioning as a passivation layer.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses the upper end layer (spiro-OMeTAD and perovskite) includes a hole transport layer (or spiro-OMeTAD) and a light absorbing layer (or perovskite, see fig. 4a), and the lower end layer includes the substrate (or the glass of glass/ITO), a second electrode layer (ITO) and an electron transport layer (TiO2, see fig. 4a, and Experimental Section), wherein the absorbing layer (or perovskite) includes a perovskite of Cs0.10FA0.78MA0.12PbI2.55Br0.45 or (Cs0.02FA0.98PbI3)0.97(MAPbBr3)0.03 (see Fabrication and Optical Characterization of Perovskite Film in col. 1 of page 2, or Experimental Section), which has the formula ABX3 as claimed with A representing methylammonium CH3NH3+ (or MA), formamidinium NH2CHNH2+ (or FA) and Cs; B representing Pb, and X representing I and Br.
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 3 above; wherein Zhao et al. discloses the first electrode layer (Au) including electrode material of Au (see fig. 4a of Zhao et al.), and Dutta teaches using indium tin oxide, gold (Au), silver (Ag) for the electrode material (see [0091]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 5 above, wherein Dutta teaches the preset pattern includes a first pattern having a structure in which the plurality of first electrode layers (’06) having a length longer than a width are spaced a constant distance from each other (see figs. 3A-B, 10f and 11f).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 6 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses the upper end layer having an inclined surface having an angle of inclined surface greater than -90o and smaller than 90o (see the inclined interfacial surface of the perovskite layer and the PbI2 passivation in the cross-section SEM image in fig. 4a). Dutta also teaches teaches the upper end layer (’04 and ’05) is formed to have an inclined surface (of V groove 317), wherein the angle of inclined surface is greater than -90o and smaller than 90o (see fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses the barrier layer (or lower PbI2 passivation layer) including inorganic material of PbI2 which is the decomposition products of the light absorbing layer (or the perovskite, see the first column of page 2) to function as passivation; therefore, the barrier layer will have the properties of suppressing the leakage current by preventing formation of a shunt path due to contact between the hole transport layer and the electron transport layer. See MPEP 2112.
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roscheisen et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444).
Regarding claim 3, Roscheisen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 2 above, and teaches the upper end layer (1008 or 1106) includes a hole transport and a dye/pigment, or a combination of two or more compounds (see col. 19, lines 26-51; col. 20, lines 49-62), wherein the upper end layer fills in the space or pores between the barrier layer (1006 or 1108). Roscheisen et al. also discloses the lower end layer (1005/1002/1011 in fig. 10 or 1104/1102/1118 in figs. 11A-C) includes the substrate (1011 in fig. 10, or 1118 in fig. 11C), a second electrode layer (1002 in fig. 10, col. 17 line 40; or 1102 in fig. 11A-C, col. 20 lines 25-44), and a charge transport layer of optional first charge transport layer (1005 in fig. 10, col. 19 line 11; 1104 in figs. 11A-C, col. 20 lines 40-41), wherein the charge transport material being described first to be an electron transport layer (see col. 19, lines 18-51; and col. 20 lines 45-51).
Roscheisen et al. does not explicitly the optional first charge transport layer (1005 or 1104) disposed on the substrate (1011 or 1118) to be an electron transport layer; nor do they teach the upper end layer comprising a combination of hole transport layer (or hole accepting material) and the light absorbing layer (or dye) including a perovskite material having a chemical formula of ABX3 (wherein A represents methylammonium (CH3NH3+), formamidinium (NH2CHNH2+) or cesium (Cs), B represents Pb or Sn, and X represents I, Br or Cl).
Irwin et al. discloses a solar cell having the lower end layer including a substrate (see glass in figs. 5 and 8), a second electrode layer (see FTO in figs. 5 and 8) and a charge transport layer (or TiO2 layer on the surface of the FTO in fig. 5, or TiO2 interfacial layer 4103 in fig. 8). It is noted TiO2 (or titania is an electron transport material or electron acceptor – see col. 20 line 48 of Roscheisen et al.); and an upper end layer including a hole accepting material (2810, fig. 5) and dye (see dye coating) filling in the pores of mesoporous material (see fig. 5, also see fig. 8), wherein perovskite functions as dye ([0073-0075], [0082], [0092], [0094], [0096], [0098]); and the perovskite having a formula ABX3 (see CMX3 described in [0061], claims 1-2, and 17), where A (or C) comprises one or more ammonium such as methylammonium ([0019], [0021], [0062-0063], [0044][0072], [0115], claims 18-19) or formamidinium ([0058], [0062], [0064], claims 20-21) , a group 1 metal, a group 2 metal ([0062]), B represent Pb or Sn ([0019], [0021], [0062]), and X represent I, Br, or Cl (see [0072]). It is noted that group 1 metal includes cesium (Cs). Irwin et al. also provides an example of perovskite of CsSnI3, which has the formula as claimed. In other words, Irwin et al. discloses the upper end layer includes a hole transport layer and a perovskite light absorbing layer functioning as a dye; wherein the perovskite has a chemical formula ABX3 (or CMX3) as claimed, and the hole transport layer and the perovskite (or dye) filling in the pores (see fig. 5).
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 of Roscheisen et al. by having the charge transport layer (1005 or 1104) of the lower end layer (1005/1002/1011 or 1104/1102/1118) to be the electron transport layer and the upper end layer including a hole transport layer and a light absorbing layer having a formula of ABX3 (or CMX3) functioning as a dye as taught by Irwin et al.; because Roscheisen et al. explicitly describes electron transport layer firstly and the upper end layer (1008 or 1106) includes a hole transport and a dye/pigment, or a combination of two or more compounds, and Irwin et al. teaches improving active material by including one or more perovskite materials ([0021]). 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).
Regarding claim 4, modified Roscheisen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 3 above, wherein Roscheisen et al. discloses the first electrode layer (or the nanostructured transparent conductive electrode 1010) includes any one electrode material selected from the group consisting of a fluorine- doped tin oxide (FTO), an indium tin oxide (ITO), an aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO), ZnO, SiO2, TiO2, copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au) (see col. 8, lines 1-29; cols 9-10, col. 14, claims 6-8).
Regarding claim 5, modified Roscheisen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 4 above, wherein Roscheisen et al. discloses the electrode material (or nanostructured transparent conductive electrode 1010) has any one structure selected from the group consisting of a nano rod and a nano wire having a length greater than a width (see figs. 1B-C, 10, 11A-C, and col. 7 line 62 through col. 8 line 66).
Regarding claim 6, modified Roscheisen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 5 above, wherein Roscheisen et al. discloses the preset pattern includes a first pattern having a structure in which the plurality of first electrode layers having a length longer than a width are spaced a constant distance from each other (see figs. 10, 11A-C: also see figs. 1B-C); a second pattern having a structure in which the first electrode layer is disposed on the barrier layer to have a mesh network form (see figs. 1B-C, 10, 11A-C; also see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Roscheisen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 6 above, wherein Roscheisen et al. discloses the upper end layer (1008) is a network filling in fig. 10 (see col. 18, lines 47-50), the upper end layer (1106) is nanoscale grid network (see col. 20, lines 35-36). Roscheisen et al. discloses the upper end layer is formed by using a template (see fabrication devices described in col. 20, lines 18-65), wherein the template has an inclined surface having an angle of the inclined surface greater than -90o and smaller than 90o (see fig. 5). As such, the upper end layer has an inclined surface with an angle of greater than -90o and smaller than 90o as the template. Recitation of how to form the inclined surface by adjusting an angle formed between the lower layer and a ground during the dry etching process is directed toward a process limitation. Regardless how the upper end layer being formed, by dry etching process or by wet etching process or by using template, the upper end layer of Roscheisen et al. still has an inclined surface having an angle of greater than -90o and smaller than 90o.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Zhao et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Luchinger et al. (US 2016/0351808).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 4 above, wherein Dutta teaches using silver (or Ag, see [0091] of Dutta).
Modified Zhao et al. does not disclose using the electrode material has any one structure selected from the group consisting of a micro rod, a nano rod, a micro wire, and a nano wire having a length greater than a width.
Luchinger et al. discloses using the electrode metal of Ag-, Cu or Ni-nano wire to provide transparent device ([0063-0064]). A wire inherently has a length greater than a width.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the solar cell of modified Zhao et al. by using electrode material of nano wire to provide transparent device as taught by Luchinger et al.
Claim 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Roscheisen et al. or modified Zhao et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view Sim (WO 2020/135739 which has an equivalent English translation of Shao, US 2022/0044878)
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 8 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses using halide based material PbI2 that includes I to passivate the perovskite (see fig. 4a).
Modified Zhao et al. does not disclose the barrier comprises a mixture of I and Br.
Sim/Shao discloses the barrier layer (700) is preferred to be bromide (Br) or iodide (I) to passivate the edge of the perovskite to a certain extent, thereby improving the stability of the photoactive layer (see [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to forgo the use of separate halide and to combine Br taught by Sim/Shao to the PbI2 of Zhao et al. such that the barrier comprises a mixture of I and Br, because Sim/Shao teaches Br and I would passivate the edge of the perovskite to a certain extent, thereby improving the stability of the photoactive layer. Furthermore, combining elements along with their function and benefit is technically feasible and provides combined benefit. See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 9 above, wherein Zhao et al. shows the passivation layer (or the upper/top PbI2 layer) including large sized particles (see fig. 2, and have scattering effect (see second column of page 2). As such, Zhao et al. discloses the passivation layer (or the upper/top PbI2 layer) further includes a plurality of light scattering particles (see fig. 2 and second column of page 2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Roscheisen et al. or modified Zhao et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Gui et al. (US 2006/0130894).
Regarding claim 11, modified Roscheisen et al. or modified Zhao et al. discloses a film solar cell as in claim 10 above.
Modified Roscheisen et al. or modified Zhao et al. does not disclose including a light emitting diode (LED) light emitter is disposed on an outer surface of a lower side of the substrate.
Gui et al. discloses a self-powered illumination device (10, fig. 1, [0018]) including a light emitting diode (or light emitting device 14, fig. 1) on the outer surface of a lower side of a solar cell (or photovoltaic device 12, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a light emitting diode on the outer surface of the lower side of the substrate (or the lower side of the solar cell of modified Roscheisen et al. or Zhao et al.) to form a self-powered illumination device as taught by Gui et al.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-11 are rejected. See the rejection below.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under Roscheisen (US Patent 7,594,982)
Applicant copies fig. 10 of Roscheisen and fig. 1C of Applicant’s disclosure, and argues that Roscheisen does not teach the upper end layer having the same pattern as the first electrode, or the pattern of a plurality of first electrode layers are spaced apart from each other.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First of all, the pattern in fig. 1C is not explicitly claimed.
Secondly, Applicant explicitly claims the electrode having a preset pattern as a plurality of first electrode layers are spaced apart from each other (see lines 2-3 of claim 1).
Thirdly, the recitation an upper end layer having the same pattern as the first electrode layer is understood as “a plurality of upper end layers are spaced apart from each other”.
Fourthly, as shown in annotated fig. 11A, Rocheisen does teach the upper end layer having the same pattern as the first electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rejection under Zhao in view of Wu:
Applicant argues Zhao in view of Wu does not teach the upper end layer having the same preset pattern as the first electrode as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
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 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 at 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