DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed December 23, 2024, has been entered. Applicant amended claims 2-10 and 12-16. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-16 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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.
Claim 10-16 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 10 requires that the photovoltaic module is manufactured by a method requiring the provision of a substrate and realization of layers thereon. This language is ambiguous as to what the method requires. Specifically, it’s unclear what type of formation or deposition process encompasses realization of layers thereon. This awkward phrasing is vague as to what the claim requires.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 11-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 10.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadok et al. (FR 3 105 584) in view of Kippelen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0202517). Ben Dkhil et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0027970) is relied upon as an English language equivalent to Sadok et al.
With respect to claims 1, 7, 8 and 9, Sadok teaches a photovoltaic module (Figure 2) comprising a transparent substrate (glass or polymer), at least two photovoltaic cells on the substrate, wherein each of the photovoltaic cells comprises a lower electrode consisting of two layers (cathode and first interfacial layer), a photovoltaic active layer covering the upper surface of the lower electrode, and an upper electrode (second interfacial layer) comprising a polymer blend of PEDOT and sodium PSS covering the photovoltaic active layer, wherein the upper electrode is continuous, has an average thickness between 100 and 400 nm and has an organic fibrous structure. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 16, 17 and 29. Sadok further teaches the upper electrode of the first photovoltaic cell is in contact with the lower electrode of the second photovoltaic cell and the lower electrode has a lower surface in contact with the support and an upper surface. Figure 2 and Paragraph 18. Sadok also teaches the photovoltaic active layer is organic.
Sadok teaches the lower electrode is ITO with a ZnO or Al-ZnO interfacial layer thereon, but is silent as to whether it is an electrode meeting the specific requirements of the claimed invention.
However, Kippelen, which deals with organic solar cells, teaches an effective lower electrode arrangement for an organic solar cell comprises a PEDOT:PSS lower layer with a PEIE (organic polymer or molecule) interfacial layer thereon. Paragraphs 207, 208 and Example A4. Kippelen teaches this approach obtains an electrode with a reduced work function. Paragraph 251.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kippelen’s lower electrode arrangement in Sadok’s solar cell because Kippelen teaches doing so is an effective lower electrode for an organic solar cell and is associated with reduced work function.
Regarding the specific thickness of the lower electrode and the PEDOT:PSS material containing sodium and having an organic fibrous structure, Kippelen teaches both the lower and upper electrodes are selected from the same groupings of materials. Paragraph 208. Accordingly, it is within the scope of the combination of Sodak in view of Kippelen that both the first layer of the lower electrode and the upper electrode be formed of PEDOT and sodium PSS. Sodak, Paragraph 17 and Kippelen, Paragraph 208. Sodak teaches this material has an organic fibrous structure. Paragraph 17. Sodak also teaches 100 to 400 nm is an effective thickness for an electrode formed of this material. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 2, modified Sodak teaches the thickness of the second layer of the lower electrode is less than 5 nm. Kippelen, Paragraph 242. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted). Modified Sodak also teaches the second layer of the lower electrode comprises amine groups on it slower surface in contact with the upper surface of the first layer of the lower electrode. Kippelen, Paragraphs 222 and 228.
With respect to claim 3, modified Sodak teaches the second layer of the lower electrode is continuous, transparent and free of metal oxide. Kippelen, Examples A4 and A16 (which characterizes a cell comprising the PEIE layer as being semi-transparent, meaning the PEIE layer is transparent within the breadth of the claimed invention).
With respect to claim 4, Sodak teaches the upper electrode has a square resistance of between 100 to 600 Ohm/square. Paragraph 30. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 5, Sodak teaches the upper electrode has an RMS of equal to or less than 5 nm. Paragraph 31. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 10, Examiner notes that the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113.
Modified Sodak, as explained above, teaches a solar cell meeting the structural requirements of the claimed invention. Modified Sodak further teaches the method of making the solar cell comprises providing a transparent substrate, realizing on the transparent substrate a PEDOT and sodium PSS first layer and a PEIE second layer, realizing a photovoltaic active layer on the second layer, and realizing an upper electrode on the photovoltaic active layer, wherein the process utilizes deposition of ink compositions by digital ink printing followed by heat treatment. Sodak, Paragraphs 16, 17, 29 and 35-44 and Kippelen, Paragraphs 207, 208 and Example A4.
With respect to claim 11, modified Sodak teaches that after deposition of the PEDOT and sodium PSS layer, a heat treatment step is performed at a temperature of 120 °C for 1 to 5 minutes. Paragraph 43.
With respect to claim 12, modified Sodak teaches that after deposition of the PEIE layer, the layer is annealed at a temperature of 120 °C, Kippelen, Example A4. Furthermore, regarding the annealing time, modified Sodak teaches a temperature range of 1 to 5 minutes is suitable. Paragraphs 40-43. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an annealing temperature range of 1 to 5 minutes when Kippelen’s PEIE interfacial layer is incorporated into modified Sodak’s module because modified Sodak teaches this to be an effective range, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(4)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadok et al. (FR 3 105 584) in view of Kippelen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0202517), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-12 above, and further in view of Courtright et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2015, 26167-26175.
With respect to claim 6, modified Sodak teaches the second layer of the lower electrode is PEI but is silent as to its RMS.
However, Courtright, which deals with PEIE interfacial layers, teaches a PEI buffer layer, which is an equivalent to PEIE, has a surface roughness of 0.55 nm, suggesting PEIE has a comparable value. Sec. 2.1.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Sodak with Courtright is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Sodak and Courtright deal with organic solar cells comprising PEI or PEIE interfacial layers. Courtright teaches the layers are formed to have a surface roughness of 0.55 nm. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modified Sodak’s PEIE with a similar thickness because Courtright teaches this to be effective for organic solar cells, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, as per the MPEP, Examiner notes that the courts have held that "a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable," In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381 (CCPA 1963). Additionally, as per the MPEP, the "products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present." MPEP 2112.01 (internal citation omitted). In this case, modified Sodak’s PEIE second layer of the lower electrode is within the scope of materials disclosed as having the required surface roughness.
(5)
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadok et al. (FR 3 105 584) in view of Kippelen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0202517), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-12 above, and further in view of Ballarino et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0260919).
With respect to claims 13, 14, 15 and 16, modified Sodak teaches the ink compositions used for the digital ink jet printing comprise a viscosity of 10 mPA·s or less at 20 °C, includes the PEIE organic molecule, additives, polar solvents and residual water (see Kippelen, which teaches PEI is obtained in water and diluted with solvent), wherein the solvent is methoxy ethanol. Sodak, Claim 15 and Kippelen, Example A4.
Regarding the PEIE concentration in the ink, Ballarino, which deals with PEIE sprays, teaches a concentration of 0.4% by weight of PEIE in a deionized water solvent is an effective amount for forming a PEIE layer. Paragraph 87. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the combination of modified Sodak with Ballarino is the use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. Both modified Sodak and Ballarino are concerned with depositing PEIE layers. Ballarino teaches an effective concentration in a deposition solution is 0.4 % by weight of the PEIE. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly concentrate the PEIE in modified Sodak’s deposition solution because Ballarino teaches this to be an effective amount, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, modified Sodak teaches the additive is present in an amount of between 2 to 10 % by volume, the solvent is present in an amount of 90 to 98% by volume minus the amount of PEDOT:PSS, and water is present based on the solvent being deionized water, as taught by Ballarino. Sodak, Claim 15 and Ballarino, Paragraph 87. It is within the skill level of one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convert these values, based on the selected components, to amounts by weight, wherein the weight amounts would be expected to be approximate to a within the claimed ranges. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
(6)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights