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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo et al. (US 2019/0372038) in view of Rand et al. (US Patent 10,468,615) as evidenced by Senthilarasu et al. (“Characterization of zinc phthalocyanine (ZnPc) for photovoltaic application”), and further in view of Bai et al. (US 2015/0162568).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 21, Baldo et al. discloses a composition comprising:
an inorganic semiconductor substrate (106, fig. 1, [0055]);
a singlet fission layer (102, fig. 1) configured to produce triplet excitons via singlet exciton fission ([0055]); and
a passivation interlayer of hafnium oxide (104, fig. 1, [0036-0039]) disposed between the inorganic semiconductor substrate (106) and the singlet fission layer (102, see fig. 1);
one or more other material interlayers between the passivation interlayer (104) and the singlet fission layer (102, see [0033]); and
an encapsulation (or encapsulant) to form a barrier between the composition (or the system shown in fig. 1) and an environment external to the system to prevent contact of air, water and other contaminants from the external environment into the composition (or system, [0053], last step in fig. 2, claims 13 and 29).
Baldo et al. also teach the inorganic semiconductor substrate (or silicon substrate) having a thickness of 500-675 mm (see fig. 3C). 500-675 mm is right within the claimed range of about 100mm to about 1000mm.
Baldo et al. discloses using materials having a band gap of at least 1.1eV and at most 2.5eV for an interlayer to be used as charge transfer, or exciton transfer (see [0041]).
Baldo et al. does not teach a charge transfer layer such as zinc phthalocyanine disposed between the inorganic semiconductor .
Rand et al. discloses including at least one additional layer to the donor layer to obtain better fill factor and lower loss in open circuit voltage Voc to enhance cell performance (see summary of Rand et al.), and teaches adding ZnPc to a singlet fission layer, e.g. pentacene (see pentacene/ZnPc in paragraph bridging cols. 10 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Baldo et al. by adding a ZnPc layer to the singlet fission layer (102) as taught by Rand et al. such that the ZnPc layer is between the singlet fission layer and the passivation interlayer (104); because Baldo et al. explicitly suggests including one or more other material interlayers between the passivation interlayer (104) and the singlet fission layer (102), and the band gap of an interlayer is between at least 1.1eV and at most 2.5eV; ZnPc has a band gap of 1.97eV (see first column of page 383 of evidentiary reference to Senthilarasu et al.) which is right within the range of at least 1.1eV and at most 2.5eV; and Rand et al. teaches adding additional layer such as ZnPc to the donor layer (or singlet fission layer) would obtain better fill factor and lower loss in open circuit voltage to enhance cell performance.
In such modification, the zinc phthalocyanine (ZnPc) layer corresponds to the claimed charge transfer layer as claimed in claims 1 and 10; and the hafnium oxide layer corresponds to the passivation layer as claimed in claims 1 and 21.
Baldo et al. shows the composite is encapsulated by transparent layer of quartz layer (414, fig. 8A) disposed on the singlet fission layer (406) and opposed to the inorganic semiconductor substrate (404, fig. 8A) and describes the transparent layer (414) is attached to the substrate (404) by the encapsulant which may be cross-linked polymer such as UV-cured epoxy, or an adhesive (see [0059]).
Modified Baldo et al. does not show the arrangement of the encapsulation layer (or the transparent layer with adhesive encapsulant) in contact with one or more of the charge transfer layer and the passivation layer.
Bai et al. discloses an arrangement of attaching a transparent layer (4, figs. 2-3) to a substrate (2, figs. 2-3) by an adhesive (6, figs. 2-3) such that the encapsulation layer (transparent layer 4 and adhesive encapsulant 6) is in contact with the side surfaces of the electronic structure (3, see figs. 2-3) to advantageously fully encapsulate and cover the electronic structure (3, figs. 2-3) and rule out exposure to any harmful permeates possibly included within the gas space (see [0044-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of modified Baldo et al. by arranging the encapsulation layer (transparent layer 414 and adhesive encapsulant) in contact with the side surfaces of the electronic structure (or singlet fission layer to passivation layer) to attach the transparent layer (414) to the substrate (404) as taught by Bai et al.; because Bai et al. teaches such arrangement would advantageously and fully encapsulate and cover the electronic structure (e.g. from the singlet fission layer to the passivation layer) and to rule out exposure to any harmful permeates possibly included within the gas space. In such modification, the encapsulation layer, e.g. more specifically the adhesive layer, is in contact with the side surfaces of the charge transfer layer and the passivation layer.
Regarding claims 3-7, modified Baldo et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed composition as in claim 1 above, wherein zinc phthalocyanine or the same material as claimed is used for the charge transfer layer. Baldo et al. also teaches using silicon as the inorganic substrate (or using the same material disclosed by Applicant). As such, the charge transfer layer of zinc phthalocyanine and the inorganic semiconductor substrate will display the same characteristics/properties as claimed in the instant claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 9, modified Baldo et al. discloses a composition as claim 1 above, and teaches including one or more other material layers locating between the interlayer (or the passivation interlayer of hafnium oxide) and substrate (see [0033]). Baldo et al. also teaches providing sufficient passivation to prevent rapid recombination of charge carrier at the inorganic semiconductor interface and using metaloid oxide material as an interlayer material layer ([0035-0036]).
Baldo et al. does not explicitly show a native oxide layer disposed on the inorganic semiconductor substrate such that the native oxide layer is between the inorganic semiconductor substrate and the charge transfer layer and a passivation layer is formed on the native oxide layer such that the passivation layer is disposed between the native oxide layer and the charge transfer layer in fig. 1.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition shown in fig. 1 of Baldo et al. by incorporating a silicon oxide layer of a native oxide between the inorganic semiconductor substrate (106) and the passivation layer such that the passivation layer is disposed between the native oxide layer and the charge transfer layer; because Baldo et al. explicitly suggests including one or more other material layers locating between the passivation layer (or the passivation interlayer of hafnium) and the inorganic substrate (see [0033]), and using metalloid oxide material as an interlayer material layer, and providing sufficient passivation to prevent rapid recombination of charge carrier at the inorganic semiconductor interface ([0035-0036]). It is noted that silicon is a metalloid.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Baldo et al. (US 2019/0372038) in view of Rand et al. (US Patent 10,468,615) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pichler et al. (US 2006/0049396).
Regarding claim 22, modified Baldo et al. discloses a composition as in claim 1 above, wherein Baldo et al. teaches the encapsulation layer including quartz and translucent polymer encapsulation (or epoxy, see [0053], [0059], [0063]).
Baldo et al. teaches using light-curing adhesive ([0053], [0059] and [0063]). Modified Baldo et al. does not teach the encapsulation layer having a thickness in approximately a range of about 0.5 millimeters to about 2 millimeters.
Pichler et al. teaches an encapsulation layer of quartz (121) having a preferred thickness of 0.1 millimeters to 1.0 millimeters to allow light entering to be absorbed to cure the light adhesive (see [0028-0029]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of modified Baldo et al. by using the encapsulation layer having a thickness of 0.1 millimeters to 1.0 millimeters as taught by Pichler et al., because Pichler et al. teaches such thickness is preferred to have light being absorbed for curing a light-cured adhesive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10 and 21-22 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.
Applicant argues previously cited references do not teach the encapsulant and the inorganic semiconductor substrate having a thickness as claimed.
The examiner replies that Baldo does teach the inorganic semiconductor substrate having a thickness as claimed, and also teach including an encapsulation layer, and Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights