DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/590,297 filed February 28, 2024.
This application claims priority to provisional document 63/487,382, filed February 29, 2023.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 19, 20, and 22-26 are pending.
Claims 4, 8, 12, 17, 18, and 21 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 8, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-16, 19, 20, 22, and 23 are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5-7 refers to absorption peaks of “the plant” and its associated peaks but there is no antecedent basis for the term. Claim 9 refers to “a dominant plant absorption peak” but claims 5-7 depend only from claim 1, which does not discuss any plants. For this reason, these claims lack clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 13-16, 19, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PANDEY et al (US PG PUB 2021/0359237).
Regarding claim 1, PANDEY et al teaches transparent organic photovoltaic cell (paragraph [0120]), comprising:
first and second electrodes (120/122); and
an active layer (“photoactive layer”, 140) between the electrodes (see figure 1), comprising a combination of donor and acceptor molecules which are configured absorb light in one or more sub-spectral ranges within a total spectral range of 400 nm to 2000 nm (paragraph [0122], absorbs in either UV or NIR, wherein UV and/or NIR would be the sub-spectral range(s)) .
Regarding claim 2, PANDEY et al teaches the photovoltaic cell is configured to absorb more energy in the wavelength range from 750 nm to 2.0 micron than in the range from 400 nm to 750 nm (Figure 3, wherein absorption (320) is highest after 650 nm, fulfilling the claim. Also, figure 24B, with associated description in paragraph [0204] which shows curve 2460 to have a greater amount of area under the curve over 750 nm, than in the range of 400-750nm, fulfilling the claim).
Regarding claim 3, PANDEY et al teaches the photovoltaic cell is configured to absorb more energy in the wavelength range from 700 nm to 1.2 pm than in the range from 400 nm to 700 nm (Figure 3, wherein absorption (320) is highest after 650 nm, fulfilling the claim. Also, figure 24B, with associated description in paragraph [0204] which shows curve 2460 to have a greater amount of area under the curve over 700 nm, than in the range of 400-700nm, fulfilling the claim).
Regarding claim 13, PANDEY et al teaches the cell to further comprise a stack (figures 1 and 14A for example) comprising a plurality of optical coating layers (112/114 and 1495/1430), wherein a thickness of at least one of the optical coating layers is different than a thickness of at least one of the other optical coating layers (paragraphs [0179] and [0180] teaches layer 1495 to be 50nm thick and 1430 to be 10-30 nm thick, reading on different thicknesses. Figures 26a-d also read on this claim).
Regarding claim 14, PANDEY et al teaches the photovoltaic cell is configured to absorb more energy in the wavelength range from 700 nm to 1.0 micron than in the range from 500 nm to 600 nm (figure 24B shows absorbance via curve 2460 wherein absorbance is clearly higher in the range of 700 to 1000nm than 500 to 600 nm.).
Regarding claim 15, PANDEY et al teaches the organic photovoltaic cell is configured to transmit at least 30% of light in the wavelength range from 400 nm to 750 nm (figure 24B shows the transmission from 400nm to 750 nm to be above 30% for the entirety of the range in curve 2430).
Regarding claim 16, PANDEY et al teaches an absorption spectrum of the organic photovoltaic cell has a first absorption peak in the range of 660 nm +/- 50 nm and a second absorption peak in the range of 450 nm +/- 50 nm (figure 25C shows absorbance peaks in curve 2560 which correspond to the above ranges).
Regarding claim 19, PANDEY et al teaches the cell further comprising two or more sub-cells, wherein each of the two or more sub-cells are configured to absorb and transmit light of different spectral wavelength ranges (paragraph [0133]).
Regarding claim 22, PANDEY et al teaches a consumer product comprising the transparent organic photovoltaic cell of claim 1, the product selected from a solar cell, a light weight solar cell, or a window (paragraph [0004]).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PANDEY et al, as evidenced by YANG et al (WO2014/131027).
Regarding claim 9, PANDEY et al teaches the photovoltaic cell is configured to transmit over 30% of light within +/- 50nm of a dominant plant absorption peak (Figure 24B shows cell transmission over 30% in curve 2430 from about 350nm to about 1100nm. YANG et al teaches a dominant plant absorption peak to be about 440nm or 680nm, both shown to have transmission over 30% in PANDEY et al. For this reason, the cell of PANDEY et al teaches the claimed device).
Regarding claim 20, PANDEY et al teaches wherein absorption and transmittance characteristics of each of the two or more sub-cells is tuned based on a plant's peak photosynthetic spectrum for the plant receiving transmitted light from the corresponding sub-cell (The device of PANDEY et al is capable of selecting different ranges which correspond with a plant’s peak photosynthetic spectrum. The tuning or selection of these peaks is interpreted to read on a product by process limitation and outside the scope of a structure claim, as only the final structure or tuned sub-cells would be present in the final structure. In this case, PANDEY et al teaches the use of two or more sub-cells as discussed above and the presence of peaks in figure 24B which correspond to transmission above 40% for areas around 400 nm to about 750 nm on curve 2430, with higher absorbance elsewhere in curve 2460. YANG et al teaches a dominant plant absorption peak to be about 440nm or 680nm. For this reason, the cell of PANDEY et al teaches the claimed device).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PANDEY et al.
Regarding claim 10, PANDEY et al teaches the photovoltaic cell is configured such that over 50% of light in a spectral range from 400 nm to 480 nm is transmitted (figure 24B, transmission from 400-480 nm is shown to be greater than 50%), while at least 30% of light outside of the spectral range is reflected back into the cell (Paragraphs [0182] and [0183] detail the use of an NIR reflector present in the cell to “preferentially” reflect NIR light back to the cell for reabsorption. While PANDEY et al is silent to the amount of light which is reflected back, it would have been desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the light reflected to increase power output and cell efficiency. Moreover, not all of the light in the range outside the spectral range is available for reflection (for example figure 24B shows light absorbance of about 35% and transmission of 20% at 1200nm (outside the spectral range), leaving a remaining 45% of light at this wavelength available for reflection or scattering (paragraph [0088]). For this reason, it is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to choose materials which reflect as much light as possible of the 45% available, rendering reflection over at least 30% a reasonable amount. In a second analysis, while PANDEY et al teaches preferential reflection of non-visible light (specifically NIR) via a reflective layer is beneficial while maximizing transmission of light in the visible range, the reference does not explicitly disclose specific amount or proportion of light in the broad “outside of the spectral range” is reflected back into the cell. However, the routine experimental modification of PANDEY et al done in order to ascertain optimum output of the disclosed cell while maximizing visible light transmission fails to render applicant's claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and MPEP 2144.05. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize amount of light reflected back into the cell in the range absorbable by the cell in the cell of PANDEY et al and would have been motivated to do so in order to balance visible light transmission and increased light for cell reabsorption. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. See In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.)
Regarding claim 11, PANDEY et al teaches the photovoltaic cell is configured such that over 50% of light in a spectral range from 600 nm to 700 nm is transmitted (figure 24B, transmission from 600-700 nm is shown to be greater than 50%), while at least 30% of light outside of the spectral range is reflected back into the cell (Paragraphs [0182] and [0183] detail the use of an NIR reflector present in the cell to “preferentially” reflect NIR light back to the cell for reabsorption. While PANDEY et al is silent to the amount of light which is reflected back, it would have been desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art to maximize the light reflected to increase power output and cell efficiency. Moreover, not all of the light in the range outside the spectral range is available for reflection (for example figure 24B shows light absorbance of about 35% and transmission of 20% at 1200nm (outside the spectral range), leaving a remaining 45% of light at this wavelength available for reflection or scattering (paragraph [0088]). For this reason, it is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to choose materials which reflect as much light as possible of the 45% available, rendering reflection over at least 30% a reasonable amount. In a second analysis, while PANDEY et al teaches preferential reflection of non-visible light (specifically NIR) via a reflective layer is beneficial while maximizing transmission of light in the visible range, the reference does not explicitly disclose specific amount or proportion of light in the broad “outside of the spectral range” is reflected back into the cell. However, the routine experimental modification of PANDEY et al done in order to ascertain optimum output of the disclosed cell while maximizing visible light transmission fails to render applicant's claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and MPEP 2144.05. At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize amount of light reflected back into the cell in the range absorbable by the cell in the cell of PANDEY et al and would have been motivated to do so in order to balance visible light transmission and increased light for cell reabsorption. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. See In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PANDEY et al, in view of LIU et al (“A novel agricultural photovoltaic system based on solar spectrum separation”, as supplied by the Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 23, PANDEY et al teaches a photovoltaic device which transmits visible light and absorbs NIR light (abstract), but fails to teach a solar farm comprising one of the cells configured to generate electricity while providing light for plant growth below the at least one photovoltaic cell.
LIU et al is directed to photovoltaics with wherein selected light is transmitted based on the surrounding environment. LIU et al further teaches the use of photovoltaics arranged into a farm above crops (figure 1), wherein light which is helpful to plants is transmitted light and other light is reflected for power generation (figures 2 and 3 and section 3) and effective plant growth.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the photovoltaic devices in a solar farm and placed above crops so as to maximize power generation and plant growth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PANDEY et al may also be applicable to the subject matter of claims 5-7, depending on amendment, based on the disclosure of YANG et al as well.
BARR et al (US Patent 11,152,581) addresses the benefits and characteristics of different donors and acceptors relative to their absorption.
YANG et al also reads on claim 1 as written.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights