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 .
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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 contains the limitation “wherein a size of the micro phosphor particles is 1 pm to 5 µm”. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 which requires “wherein a textured surface of a three-dimensional (3D) structure has a micro pyramid texture shape and is comprised on at least one side and the 3D structure contains the transparent polymer, micro phosphor particles, and oxide nanoparticles and wherein the micro pyramid texture shape has a width and a height of 1 to 5 µm”. It is unclear how the micro phosphor particles can have the same size range as the micro pyramid texture shape when the micro pyramid texture shape is required to contain the micro phosphor particles, transparent polymer and oxide nanoparticles. For example: If the width and height of the micro pyramid texture shape is 1 µm, which is within the claimed range, how can a micro phosphor particle which has a size of 1µm fit as well as having space for the transparent polymer and the oxide nanoparticles? Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2012/0132930) in view of He (CN 203932070 U, see English machine translation provided for mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses a polymeric antireflective coating film in Figures 1-2 ([123]-[124] and [79]), comprising:
a transparent polymer (host material/encapsulant polymer, [93] and [120]); and
micro phosphor particles ([62], [67] and [74]) and oxide nanoparticles ([104]-[106]) mixed within the transparent polymer (the additives are at least partially embedded in the host material which reads on “mixed within” the transparent polymer, Figures 1 and 2 and [98]-[103]).
Young does not explicitly disclose a textured surface of a three-dimensional (3D) structure that has a micro pyramid texture shape and is comprised on at least one side and the 3D structure contains the transparent polymer, micro phosphor particles, and oxide nanoparticles and wherein the micro pyramid texture shape has a width and a height of 1 to 5 µm.
He discloses a polymeric antireflective coating film (5) in Figure 2 and [25] comprising a textured surface of a three-dimensional (3D) structure that has a micro pyramid texture shape ([26]) on at least one side and the 3D structure contains a transparent polymer ([25]) and wherein the micro pyramid texture shape has a width and a height of 1 to 5 µm ([26] and claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a textured surface of a three-dimensional (3D) structure that has a micro pyramid texture shape and is comprised on at least one side and the 3D structure contains the transparent polymer, micro phosphor particles, and oxide nanoparticles and wherein the micro pyramid texture shape has a width and a height of 1 to 5 µm, as taught by He, because the textured surface increases light transmission, decreases reflection losses and improves light trapping in the film which improves the anti-reflection performance of the film (He, abstract, [13] and [27]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the transparent polymer comprises at least one of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polydiphenylsiloxane (PDPhS), polymethylphenylsiloxane (PMPS), ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA), poly olefin elastomer (POE), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), cellulose triacetate (TAC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), poly(ether ketone) (PEK), polymer glass, polycarbonate (PC), and polyolefin, or a combination thereof ([47] and [120]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. He additionally discloses a protrusion, a recess, or both by the 3D structure on the at least one side of the polymeric antireflective coating film (He, Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the micro phosphor particles and the oxide nanoparticles are 0.1% to 99.9% by volume of the polymeric antireflective film ([100]) which would be an overlapping weight range of the claimed weight range. Young does not explicitly disclose that the micro phosphor particles and the oxide nanoparticles are collectively up to 6% by weight of the polymeric antireflective coating film; however, 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).
Regarding claim 6, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that by providing a high uniformity of additive distribution within an embedding region, the disclosed embodiments allow improved reliability across devices ([108]). Young does not explicitly disclose that a mass ratio of the micro phosphor particles to the oxide nanoparticles is 1: 10 to 1: 1; however, based on the disclosure of Young ([108]), a mass ratio of 1:1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in order to allow improved reliability across devices.
Regarding claim 7, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the size of the micro phosphor particles is 1µm to 10µm ([32]). Young does not disclose the specifically claimed range for the size of the micro phosphor particles of 1µm to 5 µm; however, 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).
Regarding claim 8, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the micro phosphor particles comprise at least one of a red phosphor, a green phosphor, and a blue phosphor, or a combination thereof ([89]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses the micro phosphor particles comprise at least one of a silicon-based phosphor, a nitride-based phosphor, and an oxide-based phosphor, or a combination thereof ([89] and Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses a size of the oxide nanoparticles is 20 nanometers (nm) to 100 nm ([67]). Young does not disclose the specifically claimed range for the size of the oxide nanoparticles of 30-400nm; however, 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).
Regarding claim 11, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the oxide nanoparticles comprise an oxide particle having a light-scattering function, and the oxide nanoparticles comprise a light-scattering particle comprising at least one of silica, titanium oxide, magnesium oxide, barium oxide, aluminum oxide, bismuth oxide, zirconium oxide, tin oxide, tungsten oxide, strontium oxide, niobium oxide, and zinc oxide, or a combination thereof ([90] and [104]-[106]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses a light transmittance of 90% or greater ([114]-[115]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the thickness of the antireflective coating film is 250 µm to 2.5 mm ([212]). Young does not disclose the specifically claimed range for the thickness of 50 µm to 300 µm; however, 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).
Regarding claim 14, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses a photoelectric device comprising the polymeric antireflective coating film as set forth above ([117]-[119] and Figure 6).
Regarding claim 15, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the photoelectric device comprises a silicon solar cell ([118]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2012/0132930) in view of He (CN 203932070 U, see English machine translation provided for mapping), as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Hardin et al. (US 2015/0053259).
Regarding claim 16, modified Young discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Young additionally discloses that the solar cell can be a tandem cell comprising a silicon photoactive layer and other photoactive materials ([118]-[119]), wherein the wherein the polymeric antireflective coating film is comprised on the photoactive solar cell layer (Figure 6 and [118]-[120]). Young does not explicitly disclose that the solar cell comprises a monolithic perovskite solar cell layer in combination with the silicon tandem solar cell layer.
Hardin discloses a tandem solar cell in Figure 7 comprising a monolithic perovskite solar cell layer subcell (806) in combination with a silicon tandem solar cell layer subcell (800b) and an antireflective coating film (809) ([55]-[58]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a perovskite solar cell layer to the tandem silicon solar cell of Young, as taught by Hardin, because it would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot as a result of the new grounds of rejection and the addition of the He reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728