CTNF 18/988,950 CTNF 84380 DETAILED ACTION Summary 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-24 are currently pending while claims 19-24 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0182506 A1) . With regard to claim 1, Gao et al. discloses a conductive paste, comprising: 30 wt% to 90 wt% of a conductive particle (see Abstract teaching “a conductive paste, comprising 50 to 97 wt% of electrically conductive particles” which is cited to read on the claimed “30 wt% to 90 wt%” because it includes values within the claimed range of 30 wt% to 90 wt%); 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of a binder (see [0042] teaching “the conductive paste also may comprise organic binders in a range from 0.1 to 20% by weight” which is cited to read on the claimed “0.1 wt% to 10 wt%” because it includes values with the range of 0.1 wt% to 10 wt%); 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% of an organic amine (see [0034] teaching additives not more than 10% weight based on the mass of the conductive particles such as “octylamine” in order to stabilize the conductive particles as a coating; while Gao et al. does not specifically teach the cited organic amine/octylamine is in the claimed range of “0.1 wt% to 2 wt%”, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of octylamine additive in the conductive paste of Gao et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05, especially since it would have led to optimizing the stabilization of the conductive particles as a coating); and 10 wt% to 50 wt% of a solvent (see Abstract teaching “3 to 50 wt% of an organic medium which comprises a solvent and 10-90 wt% oil and 2-60 wt% of a polymeric component; it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected an amount of solvent, such as between 10 and 44 wt%, because Gao et al. teaches the selections as appropriate amounts of solvent in the organic medium and conductive paste). With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein Ca boiling point range of the organic amine is greater than or equal to 50°C and less than or equal to 180°C (see [0034] teaching “octylamine”). With regard to claim 3, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the organic amine comprises one or more alkylamines with a main carbon chain of 4 to 8 carbon atoms (see [0034] teaching “octylamine”). With regard to claim 4, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the conductive particle comprises a conductive carbon material, a conductive oxide, a metal, or a combination thereof (see [0030] teaching metals). With regard to claim 5, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the conductive particle comprises a conductive carbon material, a conductive oxide, a metal, or a combination thereof; wherein the conductive carbon material comprises graphite, carbon black, graphene, or a combination thereof (the claimed “the conductive particle comprises a conductive carbon material, a conductive oxide, a metal, or a combination thereof; wherein the conductive carbon material comprises graphite, carbon black, graphene, or a combination thereof” is interpreted to require the conductive particle to be graphite/carbon black/graphene/or a combination thereof, a conductive oxide, a metal, or a combination thereof, see [0030] teaching the conductive particle as a metal). With regard to claim 6, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the conductive particle comprises a conductive carbon material, a conductive oxide, a metal, or a combination thereof; wherein the conductive oxide comprises indium tin oxide, indium zinc oxide, or a combination thereof (the claimed “the conductive particle comprises a conductive carbon material, a conductive oxide, a metal, or a combination thereof; wherein the conductive oxide comprises indium tin oxide, indium zinc oxide, or a combination thereof” is interpreted to require the conductive particle to be a conductive carbon material, indium tin oxide/indium zinc oxide/or a combination thereof, a metal, or a combination thereof, see [0030] teaching the conductive particle as a metal). With regard to claim 7, dependent claim 4 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the metal comprises gold, silver, copper, aluminum, or a combination thereof (see [0030] teaching gold, silver, copper, aluminum and mixtures). With regard to claim 8, dependent claim 4 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the metal is a composite structure composed of any one of silver, copper, and aluminum and any one of gold, manganese, and chromium (see [0030] teaching silver, copper, aluminum, gold, manganese, chromium, and mixtures and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected any one of silver, copper, and aluminum and any one of gold, manganese, and chromium because Gao et al. teaches the selections as appropriate metals for the conductive particles). With regard to claim 9, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the binder comprises polyvinyl butyral, ethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, or a combination thereof (see [0042] teaching cellulose derivatives). With regard to claim 10, independent claim 1 is obvious over Gao et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Gao et al. discloses wherein the solvent comprises polyisopropyl alcohol, ethanol, terpineol, or a combination thereof (see [0036] teaching “terpineol”) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 11-18 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11, from which claims 12-18 depend, requires a solar cell module comprising, a first solar cell comprising a first perovskite layer, a second solar cell comprising a second perovskite layer, a conductive paste layer comprising the conductive paste of claim 1 disposed between the first and second solar cells, the conductive paste layer comprising a conductive portion and at least two insulating portions, the first and second perovskite layers are electrically insulated through the at least two insulating portions, and in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 11. The prior art, including Gao et al. of record and Kang et al. (KR 20200007241 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed February 12, 2025) teaches the conductive paste of claim 1 and a solar cell module including first and second solar cells comprising first and second perovskite layers but does not teach a solar cell module comprising, a first solar cell comprising a first perovskite layer, a second solar cell comprising a second perovskite layer, a conductive paste layer comprising a conductive portion and at least two insulating portions, the first and second perovskite layers are electrically insulated through the at least two insulating portions, and in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 11 and it would not have been an obvious modification . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shi et al. (CN 108682475 A) teaching conductive paste including conductive powder which can be metal or carbon black Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM. 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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. /DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 May 26, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/988,950 Page 2 Art Unit: 1721 Application/Control Number: 18/988,950 Page 3 Art Unit: 1721 Application/Control Number: 18/988,950 Page 4 Art Unit: 1721 Application/Control Number: 18/988,950 Page 5 Art Unit: 1721 Application/Control Number: 18/988,950 Page 6 Art Unit: 1721 Application/Control Number: 18/988,950 Page 7 Art Unit: 1721
Prosecution Insights