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 March 10, 2025, is entered.
(2)
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on December 18, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration.
(3)
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 5 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.
Claims 4 and 5 require the extraction electrodes are continuous to the first or second electrode layer, respectively. These limitations are confusing because each instance suggests both extraction electrodes are connected to the same electrode layer. Examiner suggests Applicant designate first and second extraction electrodes to correspond to the first and second electrode layers to make clear that the firsts of each are continuous and the seconds of each are continuous.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art.
(4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hesse et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0121352), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claim 1, Hesse teaches a solar cell module (organic photoelectric device) comprising a first substrate (10), a first electrode layer (30) provided on the first substrate, a photoelectric conversion layer (50) provided on the first electrode layer, a second electrode layer (33) provided on the photoelectric conversion layer, extraction electrode layers (30 overlapped by 31 and 30b overlapped by 32) provided in regions on the first substrate not overlapping with the photoelectric conversion layer in plan view of the substrate, the extraction electrode layers each being made of a laminate of a metal layer (31 or 32) and a transparent conductive layer (30 or 30b), respectively. Figure 3 and Paragraphs 43 and 55. Hesse further teaches a second substrate (20) is provided to cover the first electrode layer, the photoelectric conversion layer the second electrode layer and the extraction electrodes, wherein a glass frit (40) in the form of a paste is provided between the second substrate and the extraction electrode layers. Figure 3 and Paragraph 59.
With respect to claim 6, Hesse teaches the glass frit part is provided in an annular shape (Figure 12) surrounding the photoelectric conversion layer as viewed from a laminating direction of the first electrode layer, the photoelectric conversion layer and the second electrode layer, and the glass frit part includes a first region provided between the second substrate and the extraction electrode layers and a second region provided between the first substrate and the second substrate. Figures 3 and 12.
(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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0121352), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Guillen et al. Thin Solid Films, 520, (2011), 1-17.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Hesse teaches the extraction electrodes but is silent as to whether they are a multilayer TCO/metal/TCO laminate with the glass frit in contact with the second transparent conductive layer,
However, Guillen, which deals with electrodes for organic photovoltaic cells, teaches a TCO/metal/TCO electrode have optical characteristics that are globally superior to single-layer metal or TCO electrodes. Abstract. Guillen further teaches they offer the best chance for achieving low resistance and high transmittance with reduced film thicknesses. 5. Conclusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to form at least the extraction electrodes with a TCO/metal/TCO laminate in order from the side of the first substrate such that the glass frit is in contact with the second TCO layer because Guillen teaches this electrode structure is associated with low resistance and high transmittance.
(6)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0121352), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Hesse teaches the first and second electrode layers include, to a degree, the metal layer and the transparent conductive layer and are connected to extraction electrodes. Figure 3.
As to whether the extraction electrode layers are formed continuously to the first or second electrode, respectively, as per the MPEP, the choice between a separate or integral design is obvious absent a showing the specific choice is contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art. MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)&(C) (internal citation omitted).
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 the extraction electrodes perform a current collecting function independent of whether they are separate from or continuous (integral) with the first and second electrodes, respectively.
(7)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0121352), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Noh et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0098202).
With respect to claim 7, Hesse teaches the photoelectric conversion layer includes an organic photoelectric material and is silent as to the layer specifics and whether a perovskite is used in the photoelectric conversion layer as the light absorbing material.
However, Noh, which deals with photoelectric devices, teaches a perovskite solar cell having electrical efficiency equal to that of a conventional photoelectric device using an organic material. Paragraph 75.
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 a perovskite solar cell in place of Hesse’s organic solar cell because Noh teaches a perovskite solar cell structure having equal electrical efficiency to that of a conventional organic photoelectric device, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, Noh teaches the perovskite solar cell has, in order, an electron transport layer, a light absorbing layer and a hole transport layer arranged one on top of the other, wherein the light absorbing layer contains a perovskite compound represented by ABX3, wherein A is a monovalent cation, B is a divalent cation and X is a halogen anion. Figure 3A and Paragraphs 52, 161, 162, 175, 178, 183-187 and 200.
(8)
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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