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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/2/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2023/037326A1 to Kehr (machine translation relied upon herein), and further in view of JPH10-3335683A (referred to as ‘683A, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Kehr teaches a tandem solar cell device 1 comprising
A heterojunction solar cell 2 (Fig. 1, absorber 21 is monocrystalline, layers 22, 23 are amorphous silicon, bottom of p. 6 of translation through p. 7), a perovskite solar cell 3 (p. 8 of translation), a transparent conductive oxide layer 24 disposed between the heterojunction solar cell and the perovskite solar cell, a first set of electrodes 27 disposed on the heterojunction solar cell, and a second set of electrodes 37, wherein each electrode of the second set of electrodes has a first surface (facing bottom of page in Fig. 1) disposed on the perovskite solar cell and a second surface (facing top of page) opposite the first surface
Wherein the heterojunction solar cell 2 comprises a stack of alternating semiconductor layers 23, 21, 22 disposed on a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer 25 (p. 6 of translation: “The lower backside wiring layer 25 is formed of electrically conductive, transparent material, such as indium tin oxide”)
Wherein the perovskite solar cell 3 comprises an electron transport layer (ETL) disposed on a perovskite layer 31 (one of 32, 33 is n-type)
A discrete encapsulation layer 4, disposed on an exterior upper surface of the perovskite solar cell 3 (portion 42 is formed on an upper surface, bottom p. 7 through top of p. 8 of translation) and in between a first electrode of the second set of electrodes and a second electrode of the second set of electrodes.
The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012). MPEP §2111.01.III. While Kehr does not explicitly teach that the transparent conductive oxide layer 24 is a recombination layer, it is equivalent to the recombination layer 404 described in the instant specification (paragraph [0042]), and the layer is therefore necessarily a recombination layer.
The discrete encapsulation layer 4 intrudes into the perovskite solar cell 3 and is formed along side surfaces of the tandem solar cell device 1 according to the patterns shown in Marked-up Fig. 5 below, which identifies some exemplary side surfaces that are formed closer to an exterior of the solar cell device. Therefore Kehr teaches that the discrete encapsulation layer is disposed on exterior side surfaces of the tandem solar cell device, within the broadest reasonable interpretation.
[AltContent: textbox (Exterior side surfaces)]
PNG
media_image1.png
242
278
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kehr does not explicitly show that a second surface of each electrode 37 of the second set of electrodes is exposed through the discrete encapsulation layer. However, as is illustrated in Fig. 10 of ‘683A, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to expose the second set of electrodes (analogous elements 10, middle p. 10 of translation) so that electricity can be extracted from the tandem solar cell device. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Kehr does not teach that a set of the tandem solar cell devices of that invention are formed as part of a device. ‘683A teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such a device comprising a set of analogous tandem solar cell devices in order to increase an output voltage (Fig. 10, bottom p. 3, middle p. 7 of translation).
Per claim 14, modified-Kehr teaches the limitations of claim 13. The discrete encapsulation layer comprises one of aluminum oxide or silicon oxynitride (middle p. 4 of translation of Kehr).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehr and ‘683A as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2019/0006547 to Watts.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified-Kehr teaches the limitations of claim 13. Kehr or ‘683A do not specifically teach that the set of tandem solar cell devices is a plurality of tandem solar cell devices comprised within a module, further comprising module-level encapsulation comprising an encapsulant disposed on the module and a pair of glass layers disposed on the encapsulant. Watts teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to comprise such a plurality of tandem solar cell devices (101 of Fig. 3a, ¶0074) within a module, comprising module-level encapsulation comprising an encapsulant (110, ¶0075, 0076) disposed on the module and a pair of glass layers (102, 103, ¶0066, 0068) disposed on the encapsulant, in order to further protect against moisture ingress and protect electrical wires (¶0010, 0073).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehr and ‘683A as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2012/0125437 to Okawara.
Regarding claim 22, modified-Kehr teaches the limitations of claim 13. Kehr teaches that the encapsulation layer has the function of being a barrier to water vapor transmission (bottom p. 4 of translation). The discrete encapsulation layer comprises one of aluminum oxide or silicon oxynitride (middle p. 4 of translation of Kehr). While Kehr does not specifically teach a particular water vapor transmission rate, Okawara teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to achieve rates in a range inclusive of values lower than 10-3 g/m2/day with similar materials to preserve the function of a solar cell (¶0118, 0124). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 21 allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13, 14, 19, 20, and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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 Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights