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 the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-12 are examined below.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2018/0047922).
Regarding claim 1, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device, comprising:
a bottom cell (QD PV, 408-404),
an optical reflective layer (distributed Bragg reflector, DBR, 418)
a series connection layer (418), and
a top cell (410-414), (shown in fig. 1-4, inverted, para [0016-[0020])
wherein the series connection layer connects the bottom cell and the top cell (para [0019]);
the optical reflective layer is located between the bottom cell and the top cell (shown in fig. 1-4, para [0016]-[0029]).
Forrest does not specifically disclose that the color tandem photovoltaic device presents color. A solar cell will present “a color” within a realm of black to white and therefore this limitation is inherent to the device of Forrest. See MPEP § 2112.
Further, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device wherein a waveband and reflectivity of a reflection peak of the optical reflective layer are adjusted by adjusting a structure and a material of the optical reflective layer (specifically, Forrest discloses the DBR is designed based on the top cell band gap (see para [0006] and [0030]),
wherein the optical reflective layer has a reflection peak in a waveband of 450~800 nm and a color presented by the color tandem photovoltaic device is further controlled (see para [0006], [0030] and [0031], i.e., transmits greater than 700 nm, reflecting less than 700 nm, which overlaps the recited range).
The court has held where 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).
Forrest does not disclose a reflectivity of the reflection peak is greater than 30%, but reflection is a result effective variable, i.e., effectiveness of reflector.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device according to claim 1, wherein the top cell comprises a top cell absorption layer (shown in figs. 1-2; and
when the band gap of the top cell absorption layer is greater than or equal to energy of the a wavelength corresponding to the reflection peak (see para [0020], [0030], reflection is equal, i.e. both absorb and reflect visible).
Forrest does not disclose the optical reflective layer has a reflection peak at a waveband of 650~800 nm, the color tandem photovoltaic device has a reflection peak at a waveband of 650~800 nm. The visible spectrum overlaps the recited range of 650-800 nm.
The court has held where 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, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device according to claim 5, and the top cell absorption layer is made of a perovskite material (see para [0019], [0027]).
Perovskite photoactive layer wherein the band gap of 1.6~3.0 eV is a well-known expedient in the art. See MPEP 2143.
The Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Forrest does not disclose the color tandem photovoltaic device presents a red or brick red color. Forrest discloses a substantially identical device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device according to any one of claim 1, wherein the optical reflective layer comprises at least one low refractive index layer and at least one high refractive index layer that are stacked (see para [0030], i.e., composed of alternating materials with at least two different refractive indices).
Regarding claim 9, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device according to claim 8, wherein:
a refractive index of the at least one low refractive index layer is below 1.5; and a refractive index of the at least one high refractive index layer is above 2.1 (see para [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Forrest discloses the color tandem photovoltaic device according to claim 8, wherein: the optical reflective layer comprises a low refractive index layers and m high refractive index layers that are stacked, wherein n and m are integers greater than 1; and
the n low refractive index layers and the m high refractive index layers are alternatively stacked (see para [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device according to claim 9,wherein adjusting a structure and a material of the optical reflective layer comprises adjusting any one or two or more of a thickness of the at least one low refractive index layer, a thickness of the at least one high refractive index layer, a material of the at least one low refractive index layer, a material of the at least one high refractive index layer, and a stacking order of the at least one low refractive index layer and the at least one high refractive index layer (see para [0030]-[0031]).
Alternatively, applicant is merely describing how interference and/or Bragg filters are formed, which is a well-known expedient in the art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Regarding claim 12, Forrest discloses a color tandem photovoltaic device according to claim 11, wherein:
when a thickness and a band gap of the top cell are constant values, a waveband and a reflectivity of a reflection peak of the optical reflective layer are adjusted by adjusting the thickness of the at least one low refractive index layer, the thickness of the at least one high refractive index layer, the material of the at least one low refractive index layer, the material of the at least one high refractive index layer and the stacking order of the at least one low refractive index layer and the at least one high refractive index layer (see para [0030]-[0031]).
Alternatively, applicant is merely describing how interference and/or Bragg filters are formed, which is a well-known expedient in the art. See MPEP 2144.03.
The limitation that the color presented by the color tandem photovoltaic device depends on the thickness, material, and the stacking order of the one high refractive index layer and the at least one low refractive index layer layers is inherent. See MPEP § 2112.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose wherein: the top cell comprises a top cell absorption layer; when the thickness of the top cell absorption layer is 200~300 nm and the optical reflective layer has a reflection peak at a waveband of 450~650 nm, the color tandem photovoltaic device has a reflection peak at a waveband of 450~650 nm; and when the thickness of the top cell absorption layer is 300~800 nm and the optical reflective layer has a reflection peak at a waveband of 650~800 nm, the color tandem photovoltaic device has a reflection peak at a waveband of 650~800 nm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states Forrest does not disclose reflecting a peak between 450 to 800 nm. Forrest discloses reflecting wavelengths below 700 nm, which overlaps the recited range. Reflected are the wavelengths from the solar source, which has a peak around 500 nm, but is impacted by what is absorbed by the top cell. What reaches the reflected by the Bragg reflector mimics that which reaches the reflector and therefor will have the same peak. Whether 30% is reflected, according to fig. 6, it is definitely 30%. Regardless, it is a result effective variable. Applicant is reminded that comprising is open-ended and does not limit other wavelengths from being reflected back or modifying the color. Without more specific requirements, the reflector of Forrest meets the broadly stated limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2021/0126147).
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 JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721