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. Claims 1-3 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guha et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0087233). Examiner notes Liu et al., “Silver nanowire-based transparent, flexible, and conductive thin film,” Nanoscale Research Letters, 6:75 (January 2011) is incorporated by reference into Guha et al. A copy of this non-patent literature is included with the office action to establish the anticipation rejection.
With respect to claim 1, Guha teaches a manufacturing method of a perovskite solar cell (100) including a photoelectric conversion layer (114) containing a perovskite compound. Figure 1 and Paragraph 33. Guha teaches the method comprises forming a transparent top electrode (118) on a side of the electron transporting layer (116), wherein a material of the transparent top electrode is silver nanowire-based thin film, as taught by Liu. Paragraphs 38 and 55. Guha teaches Liu’s method comprises forming the silver nanowire-based thin film on the electron transport layer by applying a solution of silver nanowire in isopropyl alcohol (alcohol with three or more carbon atoms) thereon, followed by drying. Guha, Paragraphs 38 and 55 and Liu, Materials and experimental method.
With respect to claim 2, Guha teaches the method comprises applying the silver nanowire solution onto an electron transport layer containing C60, which is a fullerene compound, wherein the solvent of the silver nanowire solution is isopropyl alcohol (alcohol with 5 or less carbon atoms). Guha, Paragraphs 37, 38 and 55 and Liu, Materials and experimental method.
(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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guha et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0087233) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2014/092501 A1). The citations to Kim et al. refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claim 3, Guha is silent as to whether the method comprises applying the silver nanowire solution by inkjet method, wherein the solvent is an alcohol with four or more carbon atoms.
However, Kim, which deals with manufacturing methods for silver nanowires, teaches a produced silver nanowire is prepared as a dispersion by dispersing the silver nanowire in a solvent, wherein the solvent is an alcohol, such as isopropyl or alcohol or butanol. Page 7, Last paragraph.
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 butanol (alcohol with 4 or more carbon atoms) in place of isopropyl alcohol in Guha’s dispersion because Kim teaches the two are recognized equivalents in the art, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim further teaches inkjet printing is one of several effective application methods. Pages 8-9, Bridge paragraph.
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 combination of Guha and Kim is the use of a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. Both Guha and Kim teach application methods for silver nanowire solutions onto a substrate. Kim teaches inkjet printing is an effective application method. 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 utilize inkjet printing as the coating method because Kim teaches this to be an effective coating method for a similar silver nanowire solution, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(4)
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