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 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 3, 5-7 is/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 3 and 5 recites the limitation " loop shape ". It is unclear what a loop shape is. The specification describes element 23 as having a loop shape which is square shaped in Fig. 1. Examiner is unsure if this is a rough translation or not.
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) 1,4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Doi (JP 2014063565 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, Doi discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion component comprising: forming a porous semiconductor layer on a first substrate; disposing dye solution including a dye with printing on the first substrate or a second substrate; and bonding the first substrate and the second substrate (bottom of page 5).
Re Claim 4, Doi discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the second substrate (bottom of page 5). Note that this claim has limited patentable weight since claim 1 recites that it can be on either first or second substrate, thus in the alternate configuration, this claim would not carry patentable weight.
Re Claim 8, Doi discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the first substrate (bottom of page 5).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Fukuoka (JP 2014165049 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, Fukuoka discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion component comprising: forming a porous semiconductor layer on a first substrate (20 or 22); disposing dye solution 15A/15B including a dye with printing on the first substrate or a second substrate (opposite of first substrate 20 or 22) (page 3-4; Fig. 2-4); and bonding the first substrate and the second substrate (page 3-4; Fig. 2-4: “the first substrate 20 and the second substrate 22 are pulled up from the dye solutions 15 A and 15B so as to face each other and are bonded together using the sealing material 16.”).
Re Claim 4, Fukuoka discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the second substrate (bottom of page 5). Note that this claim has limited patentable weight since claim 1 recites that it can be on either first or second substrate, thus in the alternate configuration, this claim would not carry patentable weight.
Re Claim 8, Fukuoka discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the first substrate (bottom of page 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (or Fukuoka) in view of Ishikawa (JP 2015046298 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 2, Doi (or Fukuoka) does not disclose placing a screen plate having holes on the first substrate or the second substrate; supplying the dye solution on the screen plate; and spreading the dye solution supplied on the screen plate with a squeegee. However, Ishikawa teaches utilizing screen and squeegee (bottom of page 16). It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to utilize these known techniques, as taught by Ishikawa, since it is well known in the art and could easily be performed and also since it is an effective way to apply the desired layer.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi.
Re Claim 3, as best understood, Doi discloses disposing sealing material with coating on one of the first substrate and the second substrate on which the dye solution is not disposed with printing such that the sealing material has a shape; and supplying an electrolyte in an area surrounded by the sealing material (page 8; Fig. 10). Doi does not specially disclose loop shape. However, it would be obvious to form into a desired shape that it most efficient and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the sealing material of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuoka.
Re Claim 3, as best understood, Fukuoka discloses disposing sealing material with coating on one of the first substrate and the second substrate on which the dye solution is not disposed with printing such that the sealing material has a shape; and supplying an electrolyte in an area surrounded by the sealing material (page 3-4; Fig. 2-4: “A first porous semiconductor layer 13 comprising semiconductor fine particles and pigment molecules, an electrolyte solution 14 in which a redox electrolyte is dissolved in a solvent, and an electrolyte solution 14. A second porous semiconductor layer 27 comprising semiconductor fine particles and dye molecules; a catalyst layer 19 disposed on the second porous semiconductor layer 27; a second electrode 18 disposed on the catalyst layer 19; and a second electrode. 18 includes a second substrate (counter electrode side) 22 disposed on 18, and a sealing material 16 disposed between the first substrate 20 and the second substrate 22 and sealing the electrolytic solution 14.” ). Fukuoka does not specially disclose loop shape. However, it would be obvious to form into a desired shape that it most efficient and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the sealing material of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 1, Doi discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion component comprising: forming a porous semiconductor layer on a first substrate; disposing dye solution including a dye with printing on the first substrate or a second substrate; and bonding the first substrate and the second substrate.
Re Claim 2, Doi discloses placing a screen plate having holes on the first substrate or the second substrate; supplying the dye solution on the screen plate; and spreading the dye solution supplied on the screen plate with a squeegee.
Re Claim 3, Doi discloses disposing sealing material with coating on one of the first substrate and the second substrate on which the dye solution is not disposed with printing such that the sealing material has a loop shape; and supplying an electrolyte in an area surrounded by the sealing material.
Re Claim 4, Doi discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the second substrate.
Re Claim 5, Doi discloses disposing sealing material with coating on the first substrate such that the sealing material has a loop shape; and supplying an electrolyte in an area surrounded by the sealing material, wherein in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the second substrate such that printed sections on which the dye solution is disposed and non-printed sections on which the dye solution is not disposed are alternately arranged in a surface area of the second substrate.
Re Claim 6, Doi discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the second substrate such that each of the printed sections and the non-printed sections is formed in a band shape extending in one direction.
Re Claim 7, Doi discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the second substrate such that the printed sections are arranged in a zig-zag pattern and the non-printed sections are arranged in a zig-zag pattern.
Re Claim 8, Doi discloses in the disposing, the dye solution is disposed with printing on the first substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and 112 issues are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
