DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-25 are has been entered.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 29, 2026, the objections to claims 2 and 12 previously presented in the Office Action sent October 29, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 29, 2026, the rejections of claims 4, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent October 29, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 29, 2026, the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent October 29, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22 and 24 recite, “the first nanocomposite layer comprising an ultraviolet (UV) blocking component”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including the first polymer nanocomposite layer comprising an ultraviolet (UV) blocking component.
The specification generally teaches the first nanocomposite layer blocks residual solar UV (see Abstract and [0016]) but does not describe or detail the first nanocomposite layer comprising an ultraviolet blocking component.
Claim 23 and 25 recite, “the first nanocomposite layer does not encapsulate the solar cell”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including the first nanocomposite layer does not encapsulate the solar cell.
The specification does not depict or describe the first nanocomposite layer as not encapsulating the solar cell. The specification depicts the first nanocomposite layer 104 encapsulating the top surface of the solar cell 105 (Fig. 1).
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 1-10 and 22-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first polymer nanocomposite coating" on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the colorless polymer" 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 22 recites the limitation "the first nanocomposite layer" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the first polymer layer" on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the first nanocomposite layer" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the first nanocomposite layer" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the first polymer layer" on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the first nanocomposite layer" on line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 14, and 22-25 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 (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/front 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 front 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 first and second polymer coatings are nanocomposite coatings.
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 first polymer coating at component 122 and 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 first and second polymer coatings are nanocomposite coatings 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 microns (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).
With regard to claim 22 and 24, 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 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);
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 first, second, and third polymer coatings are nanocomposite coatings.
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 inorganic 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 first polymer coating at component 122, the second polymer coating, and the third 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 first, second, and third polymer coatings are nanocomposite coatings because the inclusion of the cited inorganic phosphor nanoparticles.
Rule et al., as modified by Choi et al. above, teaches wherein,
the first nanocomposite layer comprises an ultraviolet (UV) blocking component blocking residual UV from reaching the solar cell (recall cited first nanocomposite layer 122/126, as modified by Choi et al. above to include the cited UV absorbing phosphors, cited to read on the claimed “comprises an ultraviolet (UV) blocking component blocking residual UV from reaching the solar cell” because the cited UV absorbing phosphors block and absorb residual UV from reaching the solar cell);
the second polymer nanocomposite coating spectrally converting into visible radiation before transmission to the first polymer layer (recall cited second polymer nanocomposite coating 124, as modified by Choi et al. above to include the cited UV absorbing phosphors, cited to read on the claimed “spectrally converting into visible radiation before transmission to the first polymer layer” because the cited UV absorbing phosphors spectrally convert UV radiation into visible radiation before transmission to the cited first polymer nanocomposite coating),
the third polymer nanocomposite coating comprising a colorless, clear, organic/inorganic nanocomposite that is resistant to radiation and atomic oxygen erosion (recall cited third polymer nanocomposite coating 130, as modified by Choi et al. above to include the cited UV absorbing phosphors, cited to read on the claimed “comprising a colorless, clear, organic/inorganic nanocomposite that is resistant to radiation and atomic oxygen erosion” because it comprises a colorless, clear, organic/inorganic nanocomposite of colorless and clear organic polymer and inorganic phosphor nanoparticles which necessarily have some degree of resistance to radiation and atomic oxygen erosion through its thickness).
With regard to claims 23 and 25, independent 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 wherein,
the first nanocomposite layer does not encapsulate the solar cell (as depicted in Fig. 5, the cited first polymer nanocomposite coating 122/126 does not encapsulate the cited solar cell).
Claim(s) 3 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).
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 claim 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) 8 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 Carr et al. (“LISA-T part three: The design and space environments testing of a thin-film power generation and communication array” Acta Astronautica 205 (2023) 267-280).
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, discloses wherein
the third polymer nanocomposite coating has a thickness between 1 and 5 microns (see [0060] teaching “5 to 150” microns which is cited to read on the claimed “between 1 and 5 microns” because it includes a value with the claimed range of between 1 and 5 microns).
Rule et al., as modified above, does not disclose further depositing the first polymer nanocomposite coating made of a two-part curable polymer.
However, Carr et al. discloses a method of making a protective coating for a solar cell (see page 271-279) and teaches a polymer coating can be made of a two-part curable polymer with advantageous humidity and neutral atomic oxygen properties (see pages 271-279 teaching “Optinox SR coatings”).
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 two-part curable polymer of Carr et al. for the polymer in the first polymer nanocomposite coating of Rule et al., as modified above, because it would have provided for advantageous humidity and neutral atomic oxygen properties.
Claim(s) 9 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 Carr et al. (“LISA-T part three: The design and space environments testing of a thin-film power generation and communication array” Acta Astronautica 205 (2023) 267-280), and in further view of Seto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0043210 A1).
With regard to claim 9, dependent claim 8 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al. and Carr 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 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), Carr et al. (“LISA-T part three: The design and space environments testing of a thin-film power generation and communication array” Acta Astronautica 205 (2023) 267-280), and Seto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0043210 A1), 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 claim 10, dependent claim 9 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al., Carr et al., and Seto 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).
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) 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), Datt et al. (“Downconversion Materials for Perovskite Solar Cells” Sol. RRL 2022, 6, 2200266), and Ko et al. (KR 10-2022-0093872), and in further view of Seto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0043210 A1).
With regard to claim 20, dependent claim 19 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, 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) 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), Datt et al. (“Downconversion Materials for Perovskite Solar Cells” Sol. RRL 2022, 6, 2200266), Ko et al. (KR 10-2022-0093872), and Seto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0043210 A1), 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 claim 21, dependent claim 20 is obvious over Rule et al. in view of Choi et al., Datt et al., Ko et al., and Seto 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 April 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly amended 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
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 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights