DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed July 15, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed July 15, 2025, the objections to claims 1, 6, 8-11, 18, 20, and 21 previously presented in the Office Action sent June 20, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed July 15, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent June 20, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed July 15, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent June 20, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 and 12 recites, “a thickness between 2 and 8 micron”. Appropriate correction is required.
Amending “a thickness between 2 and 8 micron” to “a thickness between 2 and 8 microns” would overcome the objections.
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.
Claims 4, 6, and 8-10 are 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.
Claims 8 recites, “space qualified polyurethane”.
It is unclear as to the scope of structures encompassed by the phrase “space qualified polyurethane” and what structures are specifically excluded by the phrase “space qualified polyurethane” because it is unclear as to what limitations the phrase “space qualified” definitely imparts on the claimed polyurethane. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the nanoparticles (NPs)" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the polymer" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the third coating" on line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claim is rejected for dependency.
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.
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, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023350 A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2009-0069894).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 11, and 14, Rule et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating (375/100, Fig. 5) for a solar cell and solar cell (380, Fig. 5), comprising:
depositing a first polymer coating directly on a surface of the solar cell (see, for example, Fig. 5 depicting depositing a first polymer coating 375/140/122/126, as it is a covering including polymer material, directly on a surface of the solar cell 380; see [0041]);
depositing a second polymer coating directly on a top of the first polymer nanocomposite coating (see Fig. 5 depicting depositing a second polymer coating 124 directly on a top of the cited first polymer coating 375/140/122/126; see [0041]);
depositing a third polymer nanocomposite coating on a top of the second coating (see Fig. 5 depicting depositing a third polymer coating 130 on the top of the cited second polymer coating 124; see [0085] teaching cited third polymer coating 130 can in include nanoparticles cited to provide for the claimed third polymer nanocomposite coating);
fabricating an optical anti-reflection coating on the third polymer nanocomposite coating (see [0102] teaching fabricating an optical anti-reflection coating on the cited third polymer nanocomposite coating).
Rule et al. does not disclose wherein the second polymer coating is a nanocomposite coating.
However, Choi et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a polymer coating (see 170, Fig. 4) can include nanoparticles of a spectrum converting compound absorbing solar UV radiation and re-emitting visible and near-infrared (NIR) radiation suitable for generating electricity by a solar cell by photovoltaic effect (see Abstract; see Choi et al. teaching diameter of cited phosphor particles of “10 µm or less” in a polymer coating of 10 nm or more and 10 µm or less in which it would have been an obvious selection of particles with a “nanoparticles” size because Choi et al. teaches the particles can be nanoparticles sizes).
Choi et al. teaches the inclusion of the phosphor in the polymer coatings provides for a solar cell module which operates in a high efficiency region (see Technical-Field).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second polymer coating of Rule et al. to include the cited phosphor nanoparticles suggested by Choi et al. because it would have provided for a solar cell module which operates in a high efficiency region.
Rule et al., as modified by Choi et al. above, teaches the second polymer coating is a nanocomposite coating because the inclusion of the cited phosphor nanoparticles.
With regard to claims 1, 4, 11, and 14, Rule et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating (120, Fig. 5) for a solar cell and solar cell (380/375/140 depicted in Fig. 5 as an encapsulated solar cell), comprising:
depositing a first polymer coating directly on a surface of the solar cell (see, for example, Fig. 5 depicting depositing a first polymer coating 122/126, as it is a covering including polymer material, directly on a surface of the solar cell at component 140; see [0041]);
depositing a second polymer coating directly on a top of the first polymer nanocomposite coating (see Fig. 5 depicting depositing a second polymer coating 124 directly on a top of the cited first polymer coating 122/126; see [0041]);
depositing a third polymer nanocomposite coating on a top of the second coating (see Fig. 5 depicting depositing a third polymer coating 130 on the top of the cited second polymer coating 124; see [0085] teaching cited third polymer coating 130 can in include nanoparticles cited to provide for the claimed third polymer nanocomposite coating);
fabricating an optical anti-reflection coating on the third polymer nanocomposite coating (see [0102] teaching fabricating an optical anti-reflection coating on the cited third polymer nanocomposite coating).
Rule et al. does not disclose wherein the second polymer coating is a nanocomposite coating.
However, Choi et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a polymer coating (see 170, Fig. 4) can include nanoparticles of a spectrum converting compound absorbing solar UV radiation and re-emitting visible and near-infrared (NIR) radiation suitable for generating electricity by a solar cell by photovoltaic effect (see Abstract; see Choi et al. teaching diameter of cited phosphor particles of “10 µm or less” in a polymer coating of 10 nm or more and 10 µm or less in which it would have been an obvious selection of particles with a “nanoparticles” size because Choi et al. teaches the particles can be nanoparticles sizes).
Choi et al. teaches the inclusion of the phosphor in the polymer coatings provides for a solar cell module which operates in a high efficiency region (see Technical-Field).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the second polymer coating of Rule et al. to include the cited phosphor nanoparticles suggested by Choi et al. because it would have provided for a solar cell module which operates in a high efficiency region.
Rule et al., as modified by Choi et al. above, teaches the second polymer coating is a nanocomposite coating because the inclusion of the cited phosphor nanoparticles.
With regard to claims 2 and 12, independent claims 1 and 11 are obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Rule et al. discloses further comprising
depositing the first polymer nanocomposite coating having a thickness between 2 and 8 (see [0049] teaching “about 5 micrometers or more” and [0051] teaching “about 3 nm to about 150 nm” which is cited to read on the claimed “between 2 and 8” because it includes values within the range of between 2 and 8).
With regard to claim 7, independent claim 1 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Rule et al. discloses further comprising
depositing the second polymer nanocomposite coating having a thickness between 10 and 20 microns (see [0049] teaching “about 5 micrometers or more” which is cited to read on the claimed “between 10 and 20 microns” because it includes values encompassing the range of between 10 and 20 microns).
Claim(s) 3, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023350 A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2009-0069894), and in further view of Ko et al. (KR 10-2022-0093872).
With regard to claims 3 and 13, independent claims 1 and 11 are obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the first polymer nanocomposite coating is made of a colorless polyimide.
However, Ko et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Abstract and Fig. 12) and teaches a polymer in a polymer coating containing phosphor nanoparticles can be a colorless polyimide.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the polyimide material of Ko et al. for the polymer material of Rule et al., as modified above, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a polymer for a polymer coating containing phosphor nanoparticles, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the first polymer nanocomposite coating is made of a space qualified polyurethane.
However, Ko et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Abstract and Fig. 12) and teaches a polymer in a polymer coating containing phosphor nanoparticles can be a polyurethane cited to read on the claimed “space qualified” because it includes polyurethane material.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the polyurethane material of Ko et al. for the polymer material of Rule et al., as modified above, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a polymer for a polymer coating containing phosphor nanoparticles, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023350 A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2009-0069894), and in further view of Datt et al. (“Downconversion Materials for Perovskite Solar Cells” Sol. RRL 2022, 6, 2200266).
With regard to claim 5 and 15, independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4 and 14 are obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the cited phosphor nanoparticles are made of NaEuF4.
However, Datt et al. discloses a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a phosphor can be made of NaEuF4 (see right column, page 8).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the NaEuF4 material disclosed by Datt et al. for the material of the phosphor nanoparticle of Rule et al., as modified above, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a phosphor material for down conversion in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claims 6 and 16, dependent claims 5 and 15 are obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. and Datt et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the NPs are mixed with the colorless polymer at a proportion of between 1.3 and 2.1 grams to between 100 and 120 grams of the colorless polymer.
However, the amount of the NPs is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of light absorbed and reemitted by the cited phosphor nanoparticles.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of NPs mixed in the colorless polymer of Rule et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of light absorbed and reemitted by the cited phosphor nanoparticles.
With regard to claim 17, dependent claim 16 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. and Datt et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Rule et al. discloses wherein
the second polymer nanocomposite coating has a thickness between 10 and 20 microns (see [0049] teaching “about 5 micrometers or more” which is cited to read on the claimed “between 10 and 20 microns” because it includes values encompassing the range of between 10 and 20 microns).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023350 A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2009-0069894) and Datt et al. (“Downconversion Materials for Perovskite Solar Cells” Sol. RRL 2022, 6, 2200266), and in further view of Ko et al. (KR 10-2022-0093872).
With regard to claim 18, dependent claim 17 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. and Datt et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the first polymer nanocomposite coating is made of a polyurethane.
However, Ko et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Abstract and Fig. 12) and teaches a polymer in a polymer coating containing phosphor nanoparticles can be a polyurethane.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the polyurethane material of Ko et al. for the polymer material of Rule et al., as modified above, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a polymer for a polymer coating containing phosphor nanoparticles, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 19, dependent claim 18 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al., Datt et al., and Ko et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Rule et al., as modified above, discloses wherein
the third polymer nanocomposite coating has a thickness of 1 to 5 microns (see [0060] teaching 5 to 150 which is cited to read on the claimed range of 1 to 5 microns because it includes a value within the range of 1 to 5 microns).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023350 A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2009-0069894), and in further view of Seto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0043210 A1).
With regard to claims 9 and 20, independent claim 1 and dependent claim 12 are obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the optical anti-reflection coating is fabricated by partial embedding of porous silica NPs into the surface of the third coating.
However, Seto et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches an anti-reflection coating is fabricated by partial embedding of porous silica NPs into a surface of a coating layer (see Fig. 1 depicting embedding porous silica NPs 1 into a surface of a coating layer 2).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the step of fabricating the anti-reflection coating of Rule et al., as modified above, for the anti-reflection fabrication step suggested by Seto et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case an anti-reflection coating fabrication step, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rule et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0023350 A1) in view of Choi et al. (KR 10-2009-0069894), and in further view of Lim et al. (“Nanopatterned Polymer Molds Using Anodized Aluminum Templates for Anti-Reflective Coatings” Polymers 2021, 13, 3333).
With regard to claims 10 and 21, independent claim 1 and dependent claim 12 are obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein the optical anti-reflection coating is fabricated by imprinting nanopores in the surface of third polymer nanocomposite coating by rolling a rod made of anodized aluminum.
However, Lim et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see Title and Introduction) and teaches an anti-reflection coating is fabricated by imprinting nanopores in the surface of polymer layer 102 by rolling a rod made of anodized aluminum (see Abstract and Results and Discussions, page 4-5).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the step of fabricating the anti-reflection coating of Rule et al., as modified above, for the anti-reflection fabrication step suggested by Lim et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case an anti-reflection coating fabrication step, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections of the claims above.
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 October 27, 2025