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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 41-53 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group 1, claims 33-43 in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 33-36 and 41-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (Nano Energy, ISSN: 2211-2855, Vol: 65, Page: 104044) in view of Conklin (US Pub No. 2015/0047697)
Regarding Claim 33, Choi et al. teaches a transferrable photovoltaic device arrangement for transferring a thin-film photovoltaic device to a bottom photovoltaic sub-cell to produce a tandem photovoltaic cell, the transferrable photovoltaic device arrangement [Fig. 1, bottom of page 3] comprising:
a substrate [glass substrate, top left of page 5, glass substrate/FTO/bl-TiO2/mp-TiO2/MAPbI3/PTAA/MoO3/IZO]; and
a thin-film photovoltaic device comprising (i) a first transparent conductive layer [IZO, NOA, IZO, Fig. 1, bottom of page 3]
located over the substrate [glass substrate, top left of page 5, glass substrate/FTO/bl-TiO2/mp-TiO2/MAPbI3/PTAA/MoO3/IZO, see top of FTO for the glass substrate in figure 1 on bottom of page 3] and (ii) a photoactive layer [mp-TiO2/MAPbI3/PTAA, Fig. 1, bottom of page 3] located over the first transparent conductive layer [IZO, NOA, IZO, Fig. 1, bottom of page 3]
wherein the first transparent conductive layer is a solution-processed layer comprising
at least one selected from a conductive polymer or polymer composite
[PMMA, middle right of page 2 section 2.3], and
Choi et al. is silent on a flexible release substate and wherein the flexible release substrate is separable from the thin-film photovoltaic device after the thin-film photovoltaic device is adhered to the bottom photovoltaic sub-cell with a transparent conductive adhesive, thereby exposing the first transparent conductive layer at an outer conductive surface of the thin-film photovoltaic device.
Conklin et al. teaches a transferrable photovoltaic device arrangement (a flexible OPV device in para ([0021]-[0026], Figure 1-3) the transferrable photovoltaic device arrangement comprising:
a flexible release substrate (a transfer release layer 302 is part of flexible OPV device, Fig. 3, 0024-0025); and
a thin-film photovoltaic device comprising (i) a first transparent conductive layer [TC material 304 is the transparent conductive layer directly contacting 308, Fig. 3, 0024-0025] located over the flexible release substrate (a transfer release layer 302, Fig. 3, 0024-0025) and (ii) a photoactive layer [two CCLs 305 and sandwiching the BHJ 306, Fig. 3, 0024-0025] located over the first transparent conductive layer [TC material 304 is the transparent conductive layer directly contacting 308, Fig. 3, 0024-0025).
The flexible release substrate [transfer release layer 302, Fig. 3, 0025] allows for easy removal of the support layer and transfer layer from the thin flexible substrate 303 [Fig. 3, 0025].
Since Choi et al. teaches the use of a substrate similar to the flexible substrate 303 of Conklin et al. and the formation of a tandem solar cell by the means of transferring the top cell of Choi et al. to the bottom cell of Choi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the flexible release substrate of Conklin et al. with the thin-film photovoltaic device of Choi et al. by attaching the flexible release substrate of Conklin et al. to the substrate of Choi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional method for transferring pv components during the manufacturing of a tandem solar cell.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches a flexible release substate and wherein the flexible release substrate is separable from the thin-film photovoltaic device after the thin-film photovoltaic device is adhered to the bottom photovoltaic sub-cell with a transparent conductive adhesive [The NOA of Choi et al. is a transparent conductive adhesive and in Conklin: 0025, the flexible release substrate is removed after formation of the cell], thereby exposing the first transparent conductive layer at an outer conductive surface of the thin-film photovoltaic device [Choi: Fig. 1, bottom of page 3].
Regarding Claim 34, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches wherein the first transparent conductive layer comprises a first activatable adhesive [NOA, section 2.3 middle right of page, page 2], wherein the flexible release substrate is separable from the thin-film photovoltaic device when the first activatable adhesive is activated [see rejection of claim 33].
Regarding Claim 35, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches wherein the first activatable adhesive is a heat-activatable adhesive polymer [NOA, section 2.3 middle right of page, page 2]
Regarding Claim 36, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches wherein the
flexible release substrate comprises a non-stick surface [Since 302 of Conklin et al. allow for easy removal, it would be expected to have a non-stick surface, 0025]. The limitation of “wherein the flexible release substrate is separable from the thin-film photovoltaic device by delaminating the first transparent conductive layer from the non-stick surface.” is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 41, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches wherein the photoactive layer is a photoactive perovskite layer [see rejection of claim 33].
Regarding Claim 42, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. The limitation of “configured as a roll for a roll lamination process in which the thin-film photovoltaic device is pressed onto the bottom photovoltaic sub-cell and the flexible release substrate is separated from the thin-film photovoltaic device.” is/are considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (Nano Energy, ISSN: 2211-2855, Vol: 65, Page: 104044) in view of Conklin (US Pub No. 2015/0047697) as applied above in addressing claim 36, in further view of Walden (US Pub No. 2022/0283378)
Regarding Claim 37, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. is silent on wherein the non-stick surface is a surface of a non-stick coating on the flexible release substrate.
Walden et al. teaches a non-stick coating on a substrate [0116].
Since modified Choi et al. teaches the use of a substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the flexible release substrate of modified Choi et al. with the non-stick coating of Walden et al. in order to allow for easier release after fabrication [0116].
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (Nano Energy, ISSN: 2211-2855, Vol: 65, Page: 104044) in view of Conklin (US Pub No. 2015/0047697) as applied above in addressing claim 33, in further view of Walden (US Pub No. 2022/0283378)
Regarding Claim 38, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. is silent on comprising
a low-cohesion sacrificial layer interposed between the flexible release substrate and the first
transparent conductive layer, wherein the low-cohesion sacrificial layer has intrinsically low
cohesion or has low cohesion when activated such that the flexible release substrate is
separable from the thin-film photovoltaic device by breaking the low-cohesion sacrificial
layer.
Walden et al. teaches a low cohesion sacrificial layer [a non-stick coating] on a substrate [0116].
Since modified Choi et al. teaches the use of a substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the flexible release substrate of modified Choi et al. by adding the low cohesion sacrificial layer of Walden et al. between the flexible release substate and the first transparent conductive layer of modified Choi et al. in order to allow for easier release after fabrication [0116].
Claim(s) 39-40, and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (Nano Energy, ISSN: 2211-2855, Vol: 65, Page: 104044) in view of Conklin (US Pub No. 2015/0047697) as applied above in addressing claim 33, in further view of Wang (Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5254 (2020))
Regarding Claim 39, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. is silent on wherein the thin-film photovoltaic device further comprises (iii) a second transparent conductive layer,
located over the photoactive layer, wherein the second transparent conductive layer
comprises the transparent conductive adhesive for adhering the thin-film photovoltaic device
to the bottom photovoltaic sub-cell.
Wang et al. teaches a triple junction layer with two recombination layers [Fig. 4a, top of page 7], for the three sub cells of the device.
Since modified Choi et al. teaches a one transparent conductive layer in the form of the first transparent conductive layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply an additional sub cell and recombination layer in the form a second transparent conductive layer to the photovoltaic device of modified Choi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for solar cells in the art in order to provide higher efficiency.
As a result of the combination, modified Choi et al. teaches an additional sub cell which is connected with an additional transparent conductive layer (second transparent conductive layer) similar to the first transparent conductive layer.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 40, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches wherein the
transparent conductive adhesive comprises a second activatable adhesive, wherein the second
transparent conductive layer is adherent to the bottom photovoltaic sub-cell when the second
activatable adhesive is activated [see rejection of claim 39, the combination results in an additional IZO/NOA/IZO layer]
Regarding Claim 43, within the combination above, modified Choi et al. teaches a tandem photovoltaic cell arrangement comprising a bottom photovoltaic sub-cell
and a transferrable photovoltaic device arrangement according to claim 33 [see rejection of claim 33], modified Choi et al. is silent on wherein the thin-
film photovoltaic device is adhered to the bottom photovoltaic sub-cell via a second
transparent conductive layer comprising a transparent conductive adhesive.
Wang et al. teaches a triple junction layer with two recombination layers [Fig. 4a, top of page7], for the three sub cells of the device.
Since modified Choi et al. teaches a one transparent conductive layer in the form of the first transparent conductive layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply an additional sub cell and recombination layer in the form a second transparent conductive layer to the photovoltaic device of modified Choi et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for solar cells in the art in order to provide higher efficiency.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
As a result of the combination, modified Choi et al. teaches an additional sub cell which is connected with an additional transparent conductive layer (second transparent conductive layer) similar to the first transparent conductive layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights