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 .
Status of claims
No amendment is made. Currently, claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12, and 14-20 are pending in the application.
Previous prior art rejection is maintained since Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. See responses to arguments below.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12 and 14-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fu appears to use metal cathode and appears to discloses the organic solar cell having power conversion efficiencies of 19.10%, 19.31% and 18.93%, but the efficiencies are done without the transparency greater than 30%. Applicant than conclude that one skilled in the art would not combine Barr with Fu.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First of all, the rejection is a 103 rejection based on Barr in view Fu, not a 102 rejection solely based on Fu.
Secondly, Fu is not relied upon for using the entire solar cell including the metal cathode nor the transparency of the solar cell, but only for using the photoactive layer achieving an efficiency of greater than 18% in place of the photoactive layer disclosed and exemplified by Barr (see the last paragraph of page 3 of the office action mailed 12/2/2025).
Thirdly, Fu explicitly shows the metal cathode are grid structure occupied only less than 40% surface area (see fig. 2(a)), which inherently allows more than 60% light passing through. In other words, the metal electrode of Fu is highly transparent. Regardless, Fu is not relied upon for teaching transparency.
Fourthly, the crux of Barr’s disclosure is a transparent electrode, ITO/Ag/ITO or ITO/Ag/ITO/Ag; which not only provide a transparency for an organic solar cell to be greater than 40% (see stacks #2, 3, 4, 5 in tables 13 and 19B), but also increasing the efficiency of the organic solar cell (see fig. 17) compared to conventional electrode (see stack #1 in figs. 13, 17 and 19B).
Barr does not explicitly disclose the photoactive layer (or OPV) that contributes to the efficiency of greater than 18% in tables 13, 17, 19B.
Fu discloses a photoactive layer providing an efficiency over 18% (see abstract and table 3). It is noted that a photoactive layer is the layer between two electrodes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barr et al. by using the photoactive layer achieving an efficiency of greater than 18% as taught by Fu, because Fu et al. teaches such efficiency is a record binary organic solar cell efficiency with very low non-radiative recombination loss (see abstract of Fu). In such modification, when the photoactive layer of Fu, which is capable of generating an efficiency of greater than 18%, is used between two electrodes disclosed by Barr, the solar cell of modified Barr is expected to provide a transparency as taught by Barr and the efficiency of greater than 18% as taught by Fu, because Barr explicitly disclose the electrodes would provide transparency above 40% and increasing the efficiency.
Sixthly, Applicant does not even disclose any structure of an organic solar cell achieving the claimed efficiency and transparency. Applicant does not provide any logical reason why skilled would not use the photoactive layer providing high efficiency (or record binary organic solar cell efficiency with very low non-radiative recombination loss) of Fu in the organic solar cell with electrodes providing transparency of greater than 40% and increasing the efficiency taught by Barr. Applicant also does not provide any factually supported objective evidence that the solar cell of modified Barr, or the photoactive layer achieving an efficiency greater than 18% as taught by Fu between two electrodes providing both a transparency of greater than 40% and increased efficiency, does not achieve an transparency of greater than 40% as taught by Barr and efficiency of greater than 18% as taught by Fu. It is well settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12 and 14-20 is maintained since Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
A copy of the previous rejection is below.
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) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr et al. (US 2020/0091355) in view of Fu et al. (“19.31% binary organic solar cell and low non-radiative recombination enabled by non-monotonic intermediate state transition”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 18, Barr et al. discloses a device (or insulated glass unit) comprising:
a first substrate (see glazing 1 or glass, fig. 19A);
a first photovoltaic cell (see PV coating, fig. 19A) on the first substrate (glazing 1); and
a second substrate (see glazing 2, or the same material as the first substrate, fig. 19A) adjacent to the first PV (or PV coating, see figs.19A);
wherein the first OPV (or PV coating) has a first transparency greater than 40% (see figs. 13, 19B).
Bar et al. does not disclose a first efficiency greater than or equal to 18% under AM1.5 illumination.
Fu et al. discloses an OPV with a photoactive layer having an efficiency of greater than 18% under AM1.5 illumination (see abstract, table 3, and “Device fabrication and testing”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barr et al. by using the photoactive layer achieving an efficiency of greater than 18% under AM1.5 illumination as taught by Fu et al., because Fu et al. teaches such efficiency is a record binary organic solar cell efficiency with very low non-radiative recombination loss. (see abstract of Fu et al.).
The first organic photovoltaic cell inherently absorbs a first portion of light based on the first efficiency to generate electricity, and a second portion of light passes through the first OPV based on the first transparency and passed through the second substrate, e.g. or the solar cell cannot absorb all the light). Barr et al. discloses light is incident from the left (see [0125]). As such, the first OPV (or the PV coating) of Barr et al. will absorb a first portion of light based on the first efficiency to generate electricity, and a second portion of light (or transmitted light or unabsorbed light) passes through the first PV based on the first transparency and passes through the second substrate.
Furthermore, Bar et al. discloses all the structural limitation of the claimed device, especially using the same material for substrates, e.g. glass, and highly transparent electrodes. Therefore, the device of modified Barr et al. will display the characteristic/property of having a first portion of light being absorbed by the first OPV based on the first efficiency to generate electricity and a second portion of light passes through the first OPV based on the first transparency and passes through the second substrate as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, modified Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above, wherein Barr et al. teaches the second substrate (or glazing 2) has a second transparency and is on an opposite side of the first PV (or PV coating) from the first substrate (or glazing 1, see fig. 19A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 3 above, wherein Barr et al. shows the first substrate (or glazing 1) or the second substrate (or glazing 2) is a protective barrier (e.g. or the outermost layer, see fig. 19A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Barr et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed device as in claim 1 above, the device of modified Barr et al. will display the characteristic “the electricity generated by the first portion of light absorbed by the first OPV exceeds the heat flow caused by the second portion of light under ambient solar irradiation” as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 7, modified Barr et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed device as in claim 1 above, recitation of having the first PV is closer to the ambient light than the first substrate in the instant claim is directed to the intended use of the device. Said recitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The device of modified Barr et al. is fully capable of being used to have the first PV closer to the ambient light than the first substrate by having the second substrate (glazing 2) facing the ambient light (see figs. 1 and 3 of the evidentiary reference to Huang et al., US 2012/0140310).
Regarding claim 12, modified Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above; wherein Barr et al. shows the first transparency is greater than 60% (see figs. 13 and 19B).
Regarding claim 14, modified Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above, wherein the first transparency that is greater than 40% (see claim 1 above) and Barr et al. and the first substrate (or glazing 1) is glass. As such the first substrate (or glazing 1) of Barr et al. must have a second transparency greater than 40% in order for the photovoltaic cell has the first transparency greater than 40% and glass is known to have a transparency greater than 40%.
Regarding claim 15, modified Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above, wherein Barr et al. discloses the first substrate (glazing 1) is glass. Therefore, the first substrate (glazing 1), which has a second transparency that is greater than 60% particularly in view of Applicant’s disclosure (see [0023], fig. 6 and [0029], and [0081] of Applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 16, modified Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above, wherein Barr et al. teaches the first PV has a first transparency that is greater than 60% (see figs. 13, 14C, 17 and 19B) and the first substrate (glazing 1) is glass. As such, the first substrate (glazing 1) must have a second transparency greater than 20% in order for the first transparency greater than 60% and glass is known to have a transparency greater than 20%.
Regarding claim 19, modified Bar et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the device is transparent (or transparent photovoltaic devices, see the title, figs. 13, 17 and 19B) and the second substrate (or glazing 2) is glass. Therefore, the second portion of light passes through the second substrate (or glazing 2) must be based on the second transparency.
Regarding claim 20, Barr et al. discloses a device (or insulated glass unit) comprising:
a first substrate (see glazing 1, fig. 19A);
a first photovoltaic cell (see PV coating, fig. 19A) on the first substrate (glazing 1); and
a second substrate (see glazing 2, fig. 19A) adjacent to the first PV (or PV coating, see figs.19A);
wherein the first OPV (or PV coating) has a first transparency greater than 30% (see figs. 13 and 19B).
Bar et al. does not disclose a first efficiency greater than or equal to 18% under AM1.5 illumination.
Fu et al. discloses an OPV with a photoactive layer having an efficiency of greater than 18% under AM1.5 illumination (see abstract, table 3, and “Device fabrication and testing”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barr et al. by using the photoactive layer achieving an efficiency of greater than 18% under AM1.5 illumination as taught by Fu et al., because Fu et al. teaches such efficiency is a record binary organic solar cell efficiency with very low non-radiative recombination loss. (see abstract of Fu et al.).
The first organic photovoltaic cell inherently absorbs a first portion of light based on the first efficiency to generate electricity, and a second portion of light passes through the first OPV based on the first transparency and passed through the second substrate, e.g. or the solar cell cannot absorb all the light). Barr et al. discloses light is incident from the left (see [0125]). As such, the first OPV (or the PV coating) of Barr et al. will absorb a first portion of light based on the first efficiency to generate electricity, and a second portion of light (or transmitted light or unabsorbed light) passes through the first PV based on the first transparency and passes through the second substrate.
Furthermore, Bar et al. discloses all the structural limitation of the claimed device, especially using the same material for substrates, e.g. glass, and highly transparent electrodes. Therefore, the device of modified Barr et al. will display the characteristic/property of having a first portion of light being absorbed by the first OPV based on the first efficiency to generate electricity and a second portion of light passes through the first OPV based on the first transparency and passes through the second substrate as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Alternatively, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Barr et al. (US 2020/0091355) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Huang et al. (US 2012/0140310) or Rozbicki (WO 2017/075472).
Regarding claim 7, Barr et al. discloses a device claim 1 above, and teaches the light is incident from the left in the description of fig. 19A (see [0125]), or the light is incident on the first having first photovoltaic cell.
Barr et al. does not explicitly disclose the first PV is closer to the ambient light than the first substrate, or light is incident on the second substrate that does not have the photovoltaic cell.
Huang et al. discloses a device having a photovoltaic device (or photovoltaic electrochromic device) is being used to have the light (101) incident on the substrate (100) carrying the photovoltaic cell (or thin film solar cell 102, see fig. 1), or the light (301) incident on the opposite side to the substrate (100) such that the photovoltaic cell (102) is closer to the ambient light (or light 301) than the substrate (100, see fig. 3).
Rozbiki also teaches using a device (photovoltaic-electrochromic window) having the photovoltaic cell (107 on the left) closer to the ambient light (or the sun) than a substrate (or glass on the right side, see figs. 3-10, 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the device Barr et al. by having the photovoltaic cell closer to the ambient light than the first a first substrate as taught by Huang et al. or Rozbiki, because such use would involve nothing more than an intended use of the solar cell or rearrangement of the device. Modified Kern disclosed all the structural limitations as described above. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115, Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Barr et al. (US 2020/0091355) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rozbicki (WO 2017/075472).
Regarding claim 17, Barr et al. discloses a device as in claim 1 above.
Barr et al. does not teach the first substrate having a second transparency less than 50%.
Rozbiki teaches using electrochromic layer (EC film 105) to a substrate (or glass, see figs. 1-14) to provide tint state having 10% T (or transmission) or higher (see [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barr et al. by tinting the first glass substrate (glazing 1) using electrochromic layer that provides tint state of 10% transmission or higher as taught by Rozbicki, because Rozbicki teaches incorporating electrochromic layer would control the amount of light that passes through and present an opportunity for the device to be used as energy-saving device (see [0004] of Rozbicki).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have controlled the (second) transparency of the first substrate in the range of 10% or more to less than 50% in the range of 10% or more taught by Rozbicki, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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