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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is suggested to amend to recite “A photovoltaic cell” for the first line in claim 1 for better form.
It is also suggested to change the commas to semicolons after listing each item for better form. It is noted that a semicolon was used after “a photovoltaic active layer” and “a second interfacial layer”, but those are the only instances in which a semicolon was used.
It is suggested to amend to recite “The photovoltaic cell” for the first line in claims 2-9 and 11-13 for better form.
It is suggested to amend to recite “The method of manufacturing” for the first line in claim 15.
It is also suggested to amend “manufactoring” to “manufacturing” in claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and sodium polystyrene sulfonate” in claims 4 and 6 is used by the claim to mean “PEDOT:PSS,” while the accepted meaning is “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
It is noted that PEDOT:PSS does not contain sodium anywhere, as evidenced by the Wikipedia page for PEDOT:PSS. It is further noted that paragraph [007] of the instant specification provided “PEDOT:PSS” as the acronym for “poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and sodium polystyrene sulfonate,” such that it is unclear why sodium is included when it is commonly known without sodium in the composition.
Therefore, the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the upper electrode of the first photovoltaic cell" and “the lower electrode of the second photovoltaic cell.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because no particular electrodes have been disclosed to be in the first and second photovoltaic cells. It is noted that the first and second photovoltaic cells are not recited to be part of the at least two photovoltaic cells according to claim 5, such that they can be photovoltaic cells part of the photovoltaic module not recited as part of the at least two photovoltaic cells according to claim 5. Clarification is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “said first interfacial layer comprises nitrogen.” However, claim 1 from which claim 3 depends upon already recites “said first interfacial layer…comprising amine groups”, such that amine groups would inherently include nitrogen. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 recites “the organic polymer or organic molecule comprises nitrogen.” However, claim 9 from which claim 12 depends upon already recites “the organic polymer or organic molecule comprising amine groups,” such that amine groups would inherently include nitrogen. Therefore, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kippelen et al. (US 2014/0202517).
Regarding claim 1, Kippelen discloses photovoltaic cell (see Figure 43), comprising at least
a transparent support (glass),
a lower electrode (ITO) covering said support (see Figure 43), said lower electrode comprising an upper surface and a lower surface (see Figure 43),
a first interfacial layer (PEIE), said first interfacial layer comprising an upper surface and a lower surface (see Figure 43),
a photovoltaic active layer (P3HT:PCBM);
a second interfacial layer (PEDOT:PSS) covering said photovoltaic active layer (see Figure 43), said photovoltaic cell being characterized in that said first interfacial layer is an organic layer having a thickness of between 2 and 5 nm (4.2 nm; see Figure 43) and comprising amine groups at its lower surface in contact with the upper surface of the lower electrode (PEIE comprises amine groups; see Figure 1), and in that said first interfacial layer is continuous, transparent and free from metal oxide (inherent property of PEIE).
Regarding claim 2, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said first interfacial layer has an Rms roughness of less than 5 nm (the first interfacial layer is not disclosed to comprise any surface roughness or features; [0439]-[0440]).
Regarding claim 3, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said first interfacial layer comprises nitrogen (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 4, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said second interfacial layer comprises a polymer blend of poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) and sodium poly(styrene sulfonate) (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an upper electrode covering said second interfacial layer (Ag; see Figure 43).
Regarding claim 6, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said second interfacial layer comprising said polymer blend of poly(3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene) and sodium poly(styrene sulfonate) is an upper electrode (it is disclosed the PEDOT:PSS conducting polymer can be the upper electrode; [0208]).
Regarding claim 8, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses characterized in that it is completely organic (as seen in Figure 73, the substrate can be PES and the first electrode can be PH1000 with PEDOT as the second electrode, such that the solar cell can be completely organic).
Regarding claim 13, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses photovoltaic module comprising at least two photovoltaic cells according to claim 5, a first photovoltaic cell and a second photovoltaic cell (it is disclosed a solar cell module can be provided comprising a plurality of solar cell elements; [0012]), and the upper electrode of the first photovoltaic cell being in contact with the lower electrode of the second photovoltaic cell (as seen in Figure 154, the upper electrode of one solar cell is electrically in contact with the lower electrode of the other solar cell).
Regarding claim 14, Kippelen discloses a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic cell ([0438]-[0443]), comprising the following steps:
a) providing a support (glass);
b) forming on said support a lower electrode (ITO);
c) forming on said lower electrode a first organic interfacial layer comprising a lower surface including amine groups in contact with the lower electrode (PEIE; [0440]), the first interfacial layer having a thickness of between 2 and 5 nm (4.2 nm), being continuous, transparent, free of metal oxide (see Figure 43);
d) forming on said first interfacial layer a photovoltaic active layer ([0441]);
e) forming on said photovoltaic active layer a second interfacial layer ([0442]).
Regarding claim 15, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses steps b), c), d) and e) are each carried out by depositing ink compositions by digital inkjet printing (it is disclosed ink-jet printing can be used to deposit the solution of the amine polymer layer on the first electrode; [0222]), followed by thermal treatment (annealed at 110 degrees for 10 min on a hot plate; [0442]),
said ink composition used in step c) comprising a mixture based on organic molecules soluble in polar solvents ([0440]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippelen et al. (US 2014/0202517) in view of Ben Dkhil et al. (US 2023/0027970) in view of Wen et al. (“Highly conductive, ultra-flexible and continuously processable PEDOT:PSS fibers with high thermoelectric properties for wearable energy harvesting”).
Regarding claim 7, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said second interfacial layer is composed of PEDOT:PSS and is continuous (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose said second interfacial layer has a fibrous structure and an average thickness of between 100 nm and 400 nm.
Ben Dkhil discloses an organic photovoltaic cell comprising an interfacial layer comprising a blend of PEDOT:PSS having an organic fibrous structure with an average thickness between 100 nm and 400 nm ([0017]).
Wen discloses the use of PEDOT:PSS fibers, where PEDOT:PSS fibers exhibit a power factor of 15 times that of a film counterpart and has a high strength, large breaking strain and high toughness (abstract).
As Kippelen is not limited to any specific examples of PEDOT:PSS configuration and thickness and as the use of PEDOT:PSS in fiber form with a thickness between 100 nm and 400 nm as an interfacial layer in an organic photovoltaic device was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Ben Dkhil above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable PEDOT:PSS configuration, including fibrous PEDOT:PSS having an average thickness of between 100 nm and 400 nm in the device of Kippelen. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result, and because PEDOT:PSS in fiber form exhibits a power factor 15 times that of a film counterpart with higher strength and toughness, as taught by Wen.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kippelen et al. (US 2014/0202517).
Regarding claim 9, Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first interfacial layer is obtained by digital inkjet printing on the lower electrode of an organic ink composition (it is disclosed ink-jet printing can be used to deposit the solution of the amine polymer layer on the first electrode; [0222]) and comprising:
between 0.1% and 0.5% by weight of at least one organic polymer or organic molecule relative to the total weight of said ink composition (it is disclosed the final diluted composition was 0.1 wt%; [0440]), the organic polymer or organic molecule comprising amine groups and being soluble in polar solvents (as set forth above), where there is a need to reduce the work function of transparent conducting oxides to be efficient electron injection or collection electrodes while maintaining optical transparency and good air stability ([0215]), such that the use of an amine polymer layer on the first electrode reduces the work function of the first electrode ([0222]).
Kippelen does not expressly disclose the organic ink composition having a viscosity of between 2 and 50 mPa.s at 20°C and comprises
between 2% and 10% by weight of additives relative to the total weight of said ink composition,
between 80% and 90% by weight of one or more polar solvents, relative to the total weight of said ink composition, and
between 1 % and 5% by weight of water, based on the total weight of said ink composition, but the reference discloses modifiers can be added and 80% ethoxylated PEIE was dissolved in water with a concentration of 35-40 wt% and then further diluted with methoxyethanol to 0.1 wt% ([0040]).
As the power conversion efficiency and work function of the electrode are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said composition of the organic ink used to form the first interlayer, with said power conversion efficiency and work function of the electrode changing as the composition of the organic ink used to form the first interlayer is modified, the precise composition of the first interlayer and the viscosity would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed organic ink composition of the first interlayer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the composition of the organic ink used to form the first interlayer in the apparatus of Kippelen to obtain the desired balance between power conversion efficiency and the work function of the electrode (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the organic polymer or organic molecule is selected from Poly(9,9-bis(3'- (NN-dimethyl)-N-ethylammonium-propyl-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9- dioctylfluorene))dibromide (PFN-Br), polyethyleneimine (PEI), PEIE, Poly [(9,9-bis(3'- (N,N-dimethylamino)propyl)-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9-dioctylfluorene)] (PFN), N,N'- Bis(N,N-dimethylpropan-1-amine oxide)perylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic diimide (PDI- NO) or N,N'-Bis{3-[3-(Dimethylamino)propylamino]propyl}perylene-3,4,9,10- tetracarboxylic diimide (PDINN) (PEIE, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses said one or more solvents are selected from ethanol, isopropanol, hexanole, terpiniol, ethylene glycol, deionized water, phosphate saline buffer solution, butanol, di-ethylene glycol, glycerol (deionized water; [0440]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kippelen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the organic polymer or organic molecule comprises nitrogen (as set forth above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights