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 claims filed on 9/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is amended. Currently, claims 1-5 pending in the application.
Previous prior rejection is modified to address the above amendment.
Claims 1-5 are rejected. See the rejection below.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2014/0158991) in view of Sato et al. (US 2016/0141111).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. discloses a device (fig. 5) comprising:
a support body (see first barrier layer 501, fig. 5);
an opto-electronic device (503, fig. 5) provided on one surface (or upper surface) of the support body (or first barrier layer 501);
an adhesive layer (see overcoating/insulating layer 507, fig. 5, [0040]) covering the opto-electronic device (503) and an outside region from end of the opto-electronic device (see annotated fig. 5 below);
a sealant layer (or second barrier layer 502, fig. 5) covering the adhesive layer (507) and the opto-electronic device (503), wherein an end region of the sealant layer (502) extends over outside periphery of the adhesive layer (507) to the one surface of the support body (or the upper surface the first barrier layer 501) to forms a contact point between the end region of the sealant layer (502) and the one surface of the support body (or the upper surface of the first barrier 501, see fig. 5); and
a sealing part coating (see third barrier layer 506, fig. 5) coating/being layered circumferentially directly onto the contact point (or the join between the first and second barrier layers 501 and 502 at the end region) where the sealing part (506) covers the end region of the sealant layer (502) and a portion of the one surface of the support body (or the upper surface of the first barrier layer 501, see fig. 5);
wherein the opto-electronic device includes an electrode (or a second/top electrode electrode), at least one organic layer and a back electrode (or the first electrode, see [0013]) and the opto-electronic device is a photovoltaic device (see [0017]).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose the photovoltaic device is a solar cell element including a photoelectric conversion layer containing a perovskite compound.
Sato et al. discloses a solar cell having a photoconversion layer containing a perovskite compound (or photosensitive layer 13A-C, figs. 1-3, [0063], [0111-0201], [0044]).
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 Liu et al. by using a photovoltaic device of a solar cell element including a photoelectric conversion layer containing a perovskite compound as taught by Sato et al., because Sato et al. teaches solar cell element containing perovskite compound would achieve a relatively high photoelectric conversion efficiency (see [0006], [0010], [0012-0013]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Liu et al. (US 2014/0158991) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oizumi et al. (US 2012/0125431).
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above.
Liu et al. does not explicitly disclose a distance between an end portion of the solar cell element and an end portion of the adhesive layer (or the thickness of the adhesive layer in the horizontal direction) is 0.5 mm or more and 2 cm or less.
Oizumi et al. teaches a solar cell element (or semiconductor element of solar cell (B) 20, fig. 1, [0038]) is covered by layers (see anticorrosion layer (E) 5 and scavenger layer (C) 6, fig. 1, also see figs. 3-7 ) having adhesive function (see [0100] and [0171]), wherein the layer (E) has a thickness of generally 20mm or more and an upper limit of 500mm (see [0186]) and the layer (C) has the thickness of generally 5mm or more and not more than 500mm (see [0096]). Oizumi et al. teaches increasing the thickness tends to increase mechanical strength and decreasing the thickness tends to enhance flexibility, and it is desirable to set up a range where the both advantages are revealed to the foregoing ranges (see [0096]). The total thickness of the layers is found to be 25-1000mm, or 0.025mm to 1mm. Oizumi et al. also discloses including a resin layer (F) between the solar cell (or the semiconductor element of solar cell) and the layer (C) (see [0191]). In other words, Oizumi et al. discloses the solar cell element is encapsulated by adhesive layer (or layers having adhesive function) having a thickness of more than 0.025-1mm.
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 modified Liu et al. by using the adhesive layer (or layers with adhesive function) having a thickness of more than 0.025-1mm as taught by Oizumi et al. so that the distance between an end portion of the solar cell element and an end portion of the adhesive layer (or the thickness of the adhesive layer in the horizontal direction) is 0.025-1mm ; because Oizumi et al. teaches using such adhesive layer (e.g. layers E and C) would suppress the deterioration of the solar cell element (or semiconductor element) caused by moisture and oxygen and further to prevent the diffusion of a reaction product of a scavenger containing component into the solar cell element (or the semiconductor element) and realize a long life of the solar cell (or the electronic device, see [0029]). 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 0.5mm to 1mm in the range of more than 0.025-1mm to achieve the desired properties of mechanical strength, flexibility or both as taught by Oizumi et al., and 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 3, modified Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Liu et al. does not disclose a distance between an end portion of the adhesive layer and an end portion of the sealant layer (or the thickness of the sealant layer in horizontal direction) is 0.2 mm or more and 1 cm or less, the portion covering the adhesive layer.
Oizumi et al. discloses the thickness of the encapsulant layer is generally 100 mm or more and generally not more than 1000mm (or 0.1-1mm) wherein increasing the thickness tends to increase strength and decreasing the thickness tends to increase flexibility and transparent (see [0214]).
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 modified Liu et al. by using the sealant layer (or the encapsulant layer) having a thickness of 10 mm or more and not more than 1000mm (or 0.1-1mm) as taught by Oizumi et al. such that the distance between an end portion of the adhesive layer and an end portion of the sealant layer, or the thickness of the sealant layer in horizontal direction, is 0.1-1mm, because Oizumi et al. teaches such thickness of the sealant layer (or the encapsulant layer) would provide strength, flexibility of transparent of the whole semiconductor device ([0214]). 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 0.1mm to 1mm in the range of more than 0.1-1mm to achieve the desired properties of mechanical strength, flexibility or both as taught by Oizumi et al., and 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 Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Liu et al. does not teach the distance between an end portion of the sealant layer (140 or 140/170) and an end portion of the sealing part (150), or the thickness of the sealing part in the horizontal direction, is 0.5 mm or more and 1.5 cm or less.
Oizumi et al. teaches the thickness of the sealant layer (or sealing layer for edge sealing) generally 5mm to 1mm would sufficiently protect the inside from water vapor or oxygen (see [0198] and [0204]).
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 Lee or modified Lee by forming the sealing part having a thickness of 5mm to 1mm as taught by Oizumi et al. such that the distance between an end portion of the sealant layer (140) and the end portion of the sealing part (150), or the thickness of the sealing part in the horizontal direction, to be 5mm to 1mm, because Oizumi et al. teaches such thickness would sufficiently protect the inside from water vapor or oxygen. 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 0.5 to 1mm of the range 5mm to 1mm disclosed by Oizumi 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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Liu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Calwer et al. (US 2009/0090412).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu et al. discloses solar cell according to claim 1 above.
Modified Liu et al. does not disclose the sealing part is opaque.
Calwer et al. discloses opaque cover along the edges (or edge seal) can block light and in particularly UV irradiation to the polymer, so that the degradation underneath the opaque area is retarded or prevented (see [0012-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Liu et al. by using opaque sealing part, because Calwer et al. teaches opaque sealing part cover along the edges (or edge seal) can block light and in particularly UV irradiation to the polymer so that the degradation underneath the area is retarded or prevented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Liu does not disclose an adhesive layer covers the solar cell element and outside region from end of the solar cell element, because Liu shows the adhesive layer (overcoating/insulating layer 507) is a discrete sheet like structure position only over the central portion of the optoelectronic device (503) and does not extend laterally to cover any portion of the support body surface (501) beyond the device edges. The examiner replies that Liu explicitly shows the adhesive layer (or overcoating/insulating layer 507 made of adhesive material – or the layer in white shading below the sealant layer/second barrier layer 502) in fig. 5, also see the similar layer - overcoating/insulating layer 205 in fig. 2) extending laterally to cover an outside region from end of the optoelectronic device (503, see fig. 5, also see fig. 2).
Applicant argues Liu does not teach the sealing part is formed by coating deposition process as claimed. The examiner replies that the claimed invention is a solar cell, and not a process. Coating by definition is meant providing with a layer or covering. As such, the recitation “a sealing part coating circumferentially directly onto the contact point” in lines 10-11 is construed as the sealing part in the solar cell is layering circumferentially directly onto the contact point, and is not construed as a process step. Liu describes the sealing part being a layer and disposed circumferentially directly onto the contact point (see fig. 5), or the sealing part coating (or providing with a layer) circumferentially directly onto the contact point as claimed.
Applicant then argues Applicant’s claimed invention provides enhanced moisture barrier performance, while Liu’s structure with its discrete barrier layers and gaps at the device edges cannot achieve equivalent sealing performance against lateral moisture intrusion. The examiner replies that Liu explicitly teaches the discrete barriers/encapsulants that have the same arrangement as claimed is for providing hermetically sealing the package to protect the organic electronic device from environmental elements such as moisture (see abstract, background and summary of Liu), which is critical for organic devices. Applicant’s arguments appear to be arguments of counsel. It is well settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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