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 .
Summary
This is the response to the communication filed on 04/05/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 9-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for the limitation “wherein the solar cell has a fill factor of equal to or greater than 64% at an illuminance of 100 lux to 10,000 lux”. The Applicants stated that the support for the limitation is found in paragraphs [0091 and 0095] of the PG-Pub, this is incorrect because paragraphs [0091 and 0095] do not explicitly, implicitly or inherently recite the limitation “wherein the solar cell has a fill factor of equal to or greater than 64% at an illuminance of 100 lux to 10,000 lux”. Additionally, fig. 4 of current application only shows illuminance up to 800 lux with illuminance of 300 and 200 lux result in a fill factors that fall outside of the claimed range of equal to or greater than 64%.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention according to the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2D 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998) for the following reasons:
The breath of the claim is a solar cell comprising a plurality of unit cells; wherein, the solar cell has a fill factor of equal to or greater than 64% at an illuminance of 100 lux to 10,000 lux.
The nature of the invention is a thin film solar cell comprising a plurality of interconnected unit cells.
Regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, the level of one of ordinary skill in the art is comparable to the applicants’ and those of the cited references.
Regarding the state of the prior art, Kiyama et al. (JPH07105511 with provided machine English translation) as the closest prior art discloses a solar cell comprising a plurality of unit cells 6a-6d that are formed on a substrate 1, each unit cell comprises a first electrode 3, an active layer 4 and a second electrode 5 and a connection electrode (5be, 5ce or 5de) that is disposed on the first short side of all of the plurality of unit cells. Kiyama further discloses the gap (ab, in fig. 6) with width W between 0.02 to 0.1 mm as the structural equivalence to the claimed insulating structure formed by scribing the active layer with a width ranging from 0.1 mm to 2 mm, thereby exposing at least some portions of a surface of the substrate. Kiyama does not explicitly disclose a fill factor of the solar cell associated with an illuminance of the claimed range.
Regarding the amount of direction and existence of working examples provided by the inventors, the inventors provided 7 examples illustrated in fig. 4 where the fill factors associated with the illuminance from 200 – 800 lux are calculated. It is noted that the illuminance between 200 – 800 lux falls within the claimed range of 100 lux to 10,000 lux; however, the fill factors of the illuminance of 200 and 300 lux fall outside of the claimed range of equal to or greater than 64%. Therefore, for the illuminance of from 100-300 and from 800 to 10,000 lux, the inventors do not provide any direction and working examples that demonstrate the associated fill factors that are equal to or greater than 64%.
Regarding the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention, it is believed that the quantity of experimentation would amount to undue experimentation due to the following reasons. Firstly, two examples provided by the inventors, illuminance of 200 and 300, result in fill factors that fall outside of the claimed range of equal to or greater than 64%. Therefore, it is unclear as to what structures associated with the solar cell disclosed by the inventors one would need to change in order to achieve fill factors that are greater than or equal to 64% at illuminance of 200 to 300. Secondly, one of ordinary skill in the art is required to produce numerous solar cells and measure the associated fill factors at a wide range of illuminance that is not disclosed by the inventors in order to deduce whether the solar cells would provide fill factors that are equal or greater than 64%. For instance, the maximum illuminance disclosed by the inventors is 800 lux, which is considerably less than the upper limit of the claimed range of 10,000 lux. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to measure the fill factors for illuminance between 800 and 10,000 lux in order to determine whether the fill factor associated with each illuminance would fall within the claimed range. Moreover, it is not guarantee that higher illuminance would produce higher fill factors because the inventors’ own work shows that at high illuminance, i.e. 1-sun, the fill factor is only 29%. In the situation where the solar cell is tested at high illuminance, such as 9000 or 10,000 lux and the resulting fill factors do not fall within the claimed range of equal to or greater than 64%, one of ordinary skill in the art would be required to perform numerous experimentations with the structures associated with the solar cell in order to deduce whether the result in solar cell would produce the fill factor of equal to or greater than 64% at the upper values of the claimed illuminance range. The quantity of experimentation needed with the structures of the solar cell would amount of undue experimentation.
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, 3, 7, 9-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiyama et al. (JPH07105511 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 1, Kiyama discloses in figs. 1-6 a solar cell comprising:
a substrate 1;
a plurality of unit cells (6a-6d) that are formed on the substrate, each of which includes a first electrode (3a-3d), an active layer (4a-4d), and a second electrode (5a-5d); and
a connection electrode (5be-5de) that connects the plurality of unit cells (fig. 4),
wherein each of the unit cells includes a first short side (the lower horizontal side of the unit cells), the first short side of all of the plurality of unit cells being aligned on a same side with respect to the unit cells (figs. 4 and 6), and the connection electrode is disposed on the first short side of all of the plurality of unit cells (figs. 4 and 6),
wherein an insulating structure (interval ab, bc and cd) is formed between adjacent unit cells of the plurality of unit cells, the insulating structure being formed by scribing the active layer with a width ranging from 0.1 mm to 2 mm (length of the interval L is between 0.3 to 1 mm, page 9 of the translation document), thereby exposing at least some portions of a surface of the substrate (fig. 5),
wherein the connection electrode extends from a unit cell among the plurality of unit cells, and is connected directly to the first electrode (3ae-3ce) of an adjacent unit cell among the plurality of unit cells (fig. 4),
wherein the second electrode and the connection electrode are integrated structure formed by a single patterning process (fig. 3 discloses the connection electrode and the second electrode are formed of a single layer, that corresponds to the claimed single patterning process; alternatively, fig. 4 shows the second electrode and connection electrode of each unit cell is formed via the same scribing process, that corresponds to the claimed single patterning process), and
wherein the solar cell has a fill factor of equal to or greater than 64% of an illuminance of 100 lux to 10,000 lux (the limitation is drawn to the property of the solar cell that depends on the structure of the solar cell, including the width of the gap or insulating structure between adjacent cell units; indeed, paragraph [0091] of current application states “in a case where the insulating structure is disposed between the unit cells according to the embodiment of the present invention, the solar cell may show excellent characteristics with an FF (fill factor) of 64% or higher at low illuminance (1,000 lux or less); in instant situation, Kiyama discloses the insulating structure, i.e. the intervals between adjacent unit cells, between adjacent unit cells has a width from 0.3 mm to 1 mm that fall well within the claimed range; furthermore, it appears that the solar cell of Kiyama is designed for indoor illuminance, as evidenced by the disclosure in paragraph [0001] that the solar cell device is used as power sources for consumer electrical devices such as calculators and watches; in other words, the solar cell of Kiyama is subjected to the same low illuminance environment as that of current application; therefore, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the solar cell of Kiyama has a fill factor equal to or greater than 64% of an illuminance in the range between 100 lux to 10,000 lux because the solar cell of Kiyama only needs to exhibit one fill factor equal to or above 64% at one single illuminance within the broad range of 100 lux to 10,000 lux).
Addressing claims 3 and 9, Kiyama discloses in page 7 that the first electrodes (3a-3d) are made of transparent material.
Addressing claims 7 and 10, Kiyama discloses in page 8 that the second electrode and the connection electrode are made of the same material, including the materials of claim 10.
Addressing claim 11, in pages 7-8, Kiyama discloses the active layer includes PIN junction or PN junction, which includes the claimed electron transport layer (the n type layer) or a hole transport layer (the p type layer).
Addressing claims 14-15, Kiyama discloses a method for forming a solar cell, comprising:
providing a substrate 1;
forming a first electrode (3a-3d) on the substrate (fig. 1);
forming an active layer 4 on the first electrode (fig. 2);
forming a plurality of unit cells by scribing the active layer (fig. 4) with a width ranging from 0.1 mm to 2 mm (length of the interval L is between 0.3 to 1 mm, page 9 of the translation document) such that the plurality of unit cells are spaced from one another (fig. 4), thereby exposing at least some portions of a surface of the substrate on which the plurality of unit cells are formed (fig. 6); and
forming a second electrode (5a-5d) and a connection electrode (5be-5de), wherein the connection electrode extends from the second electrode of a unit cell among the plurality of unit cells, and is connected directly to the first electrode of an adjacent unit among the plurality of unit cells (fig. 4),
wherein the plurality of unit cells are formed by a single scribing process (the transition from the structure in fig. 3 to fig. 4 indicates that the plurality of unit cells are formed by a single scribing process cutting through the second electrode and active layer),
wherein the second electrode and the connection electrode are an integrated structure formed by a single patterning process (fig. 3 discloses the connection electrode and the second electrode are formed of a single layer, that corresponds to the claimed single patterning process; alternatively, fig. 4 shows the second electrode and connection electrode of each unit cell is formed via the same scribing process, that corresponds to the claimed single patterning process), and
wherein each of the unit cells includes a pair of short sides and a pair of long sides (annotated figs. 4 and 6 below), and the connection electrode is disposed on only one of the pair of short sides.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama et al. (JPH07105511 with provided machine English translation) in view of KR20210144104 or ‘104 with provided machine English translation.
Addressing claim 12, Kiyama is silent regarding the active layer includes a perovskite light absorption layer.
KR ‘104 discloses a thin film solar cell similarly to that of Hong; wherein, the thin film solar cell includes subcells having an active layer includes a perovskite activating layer 130, an electron transport layer 120 and a hole transport layer 140 [0024-0026].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify solar cell of Kiyama by substituting the known silicon semiconductor material of the active layer with the known active layer having a perovskite activating layer 130, an electron transport layer 120 and a hole transport layer 140 disclosed by KR ‘104 in order to increase light absorption, generation electron-hole pairs at low energies due to low exciton binding energy and photoelectric conversion efficiency (KR ‘104, [0026]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama et al. (JPH07105511 with provided machine English translation) in view of Little (US 4,740,431).
Addressing claim 13, Hong is silent regarding a battery disposed in a spaced portion between adjacent unit cells.
Little discloses in fig. 6 a battery 148 (associated with the cell 136) disposed in a spaced portion between adjacent unit cells (134 and 138).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious the solar cell of Hong with the integrated thin film battery in the configuration disclosed by Little in order to store the electricity generated by the solar cell as portable electronic device (Little, col. 2 ln 36-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7 and 9-15 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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 04/21/2026
Prosecution Insights