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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2/20/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections under 35 USC 112 in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 5-6, 10-11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US Pub No. 2016/0108310)
Regarding Claim 1, Gu et al. teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus [Fig. 7, 0274] comprising:
a photoelectric conversion element [103, Fig. 7, 0274] which converts light energy of incident light into electric energy;
a first wavelength conversion layer [layer 100 which contains 105, Fig. 7, 0274] which is disposed in contact with a light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, layer 100 containing 105 is part of the structure and would be at least be in thermal contact with a light receiving surface];
and a second wavelength conversion layer [layer 100 with 106, Fig. 7, 0274] which is disposed on a side of a surface of the first wavelength conversion layer opposite to a surface in contact with the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, the second wavelength conversion layer is directly on a bottom side surface of the first wavelength conversion layer, the top surface of the photoelectric conversion element would be directly contacting a bottom side of the second wavelength conversion layer], wherein the first wavelength conversion layer contains a first wavelength conversion material which converts a wavelength of light in a first wavelength region, the second wavelength conversion layer contains a second wavelength conversion material which converts a wavelength of light in a second wavelength region [0013, 0015], and
an upper limit value of the first wavelength region is different from an upper limit value of the second wavelength region, and/or a lower limit value of the first wavelength region is different from a lower limit value of the second wavelength region [0013-0015].
Gu et al. is silent on wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a transmittance of 80% or more for light of 200 nm to 450 nm, and the second wavelength conversion layer has a transmittance of 90% or more for light of 200 nm to 450 nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters wavelength converter, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters wavelength converter are changed, the precise parameters wavelength converter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a transmittance of 80% or more for light of 200 nm to 450 nm, and the second wavelength conversion layer has a transmittance of 90% or more for light of 200 nm to 450 nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters wavelength converter to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 3, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first wavelength conversion layer contains a first resin and the first wavelength conversion material, the second wavelength conversion layer contains a second resin and the second wavelength conversion material, and the first resin and the second resin are different in type and/or composition [0205, 0250].
Regarding Claim 4, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. is silent on wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a refractive index larger than that of the second wavelength conversion layer. Gu et al. teaches a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.7 for the polymer matrix [0208].
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters wavelength converter, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters wavelength converter are changed, the precise parameters wavelength converter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a refractive index larger than that of the second wavelength conversion layer” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters wavelength converter to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 5, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first resin is at least one type selected from an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer resin (EVA), a polyolefin elastomer (POE), a silicone resin (SI), or an ionomer resin [0250, at least siloxane sol-gel]
Regarding Claim 6, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the second resin is at least one type selected from a group consisting of polyethylene (PE), ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (U-PE), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polycarbonate (PC), a fluorine-based resin, polyimide (PI), unsaturated polyester (UP), an epoxy resin (EP), and a silicone resin (SI) [0250, at least siloxane sol-gel].
Regarding Claim 10, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the second wavelength conversion layer is disposed so as to cover the first wavelength conversion layer disposed on the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and at least a part of a side surface of the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, see rejection of claim 1, the second wavelength conversion layer would at least cover a bottom surface of the first wavelength conversion layer].
Regarding Claim 11, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches further comprising an intermediate layer [0027, 0228] which is disposed between the first wavelength conversion layer and the second wavelength conversion layer, wherein the intermediate layer is disposed so as to cover the first wavelength conversion layer disposed on the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and at least a part of a side surface of the photoelectric conversion element [0228].
Regarding Claim 17, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first wavelength conversion material contains an organic phosphor [0017].
Regarding Claim 19, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first wavelength conversion layer includes
an absorption layer which is disposed in contact with the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and contains a UV absorbing material, and
a conversion layer which is disposed on a side of a surface of the UV absorption layer opposite to a surface in contact with the photoelectric conversion element and contains the first wavelength conversion material [0040, an additional layer can comprise a UV absorber].
Regarding Claim 21, Gu et al. teaches a photoelectric conversion apparatus [Fig. 7, 0274] comprising:
a photoelectric conversion element [103, Fig. 7, 0274] which converts light energy of incident light into electric energy;
a first wavelength conversion layer [layer 100 which contains 105, Fig. 7, 0274] which is disposed in contact with a light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, layer 100 containing 105 is part of the structure and would be at least be in thermal contact with a light receiving surface];
and a second wavelength conversion layer [layer 100 with 106, Fig. 7, 0274] which is disposed on a side of a surface of the first wavelength conversion layer opposite to a surface in contact with the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, the second wavelength conversion layer is directly on a bottom side surface of the first wavelength conversion layer, the top surface of the photoelectric conversion element would be directly contacting a bottom side of the second wavelength conversion layer], wherein the first wavelength conversion layer contains a first wavelength conversion material which converts a wavelength of light in a first wavelength region, the second wavelength conversion layer contains a second wavelength conversion material which converts a wavelength of light in a second wavelength region [0013, 0015], and
an upper limit value of the first wavelength region is different from an upper limit value of the second wavelength region, and/or a lower limit value of the first wavelength region is different from a lower limit value of the second wavelength region [0013-0015].
Gu et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Gu et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of Gu et al. meeting the limitation of “the first wavelength conversion layer and the second wavelength conversion layer convert light in the first wavelength region and in the second wavelength region, respectively, into light in a wavelength region where conversion efficiency by the photoelectric conversion element is relatively higher.”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US Pub No. 2016/0108310) in view of Sato (US Pub No. 2018/0026150)
Regarding Claim 2, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first wavelength region includes a third wavelength region included in a range of 400 nm to 520 nm overlapping the claimed range of 100 nm or more and 400 nm or less [0013], and silent on the second wavelength region includes a fourth wavelength region included in a range of 100 nm or more and 400 nm or less, and an upper limit value of the third wavelength region is different from an upper limit value of the fourth wavelength region, and/or a lower limit value of the third wavelength region is different from a lower limit value of the fourth wavelength region.
Sato et al. teaches a wavelength converter for a photovoltaic that comprising a phosphor that emits a wavelength region of about 380 to 600 nm overlapping the claimed 100 to 400 nm [Fig. 3, 0088, Abstract]
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a phosphor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the phosphor in the second wavelength converter of Gu et al. with the phosphor of Sata et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional phosphors in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Gu et al. teaches wherein the second wavelength conversion material contains an inorganic phosphor [Sato: 0025].
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US Pub No. 2016/0108310) in view of Simavoryan (US Pub No. 2016/0276514)
Regarding Claim 7, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first wavelength conversion layer is disposed so as to cover at least a part of the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and a side surface of the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, 0034], and silent on a thickness of 20 um or more and 100 um or less.
Simavoryan et al. teaches a wavelength conversion layer with a thickness of about 10 um to about 2 mm overlapping the claimed 20 um to 200 um [0109].
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a wavelength conversion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first wavelength conversion layer of Gu et al. with the thickness as taught by Simavoryan et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for wavelength conversion layers in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 9, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. is silent on wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a thickness of less than 10 um.
Simavoryan et al. teaches a wavelength conversion layer with a thickness of about 10 um to about 2 mm overlapping the claimed less than 10 um [0109].
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a wavelength conversion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first wavelength conversion layer of Gu et al. with the thickness as taught by Simavoryan et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for wavelength conversion layers in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. is silent on wherein the second wavelength conversion layer has a thickness of 20 um or more and 50 um or less.
Simavoryan et al. teaches a wavelength conversion layer with a thickness of about 10 um to about 2 mm overlapping the claimed 20 um to 50 um [0109].
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a wavelength conversion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the second wavelength conversion layer of Gu et al. with the thickness as taught by Simavoryan et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for wavelength conversion layers in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US Pub No. 2016/0108310) in view of Sato (US Pub No. 2018/0026150) as applied above in addressing claim 2, in further view of Simavoryan (US Pub No. 2016/0276514)
Regarding Claim 8, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the first wavelength conversion layer is disposed so as to cover at least a part of the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and a side surface of the photoelectric conversion element, and silent on a thickness of 20 um or more and 100 um or less.
Simavoryan et al. teaches a wavelength conversion layer with a thickness of about 10 um to about 2 mm overlapping the claimed 20 um to 200 um [0109].
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a wavelength conversion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first wavelength conversion layer of Gu et al. with the thickness as taught by Simavoryan et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for wavelength conversion layers in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 12, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. is silent on wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a thickness of less than 10 um.
Simavoryan et al. teaches a wavelength conversion layer with a thickness of about 10 um to about 2 mm overlapping the claimed less than 10 um [0109].
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a wavelength conversion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first wavelength conversion layer of Gu et al. with the thickness as taught by Simavoryan et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional thickness for wavelength conversion layers in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 13, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches wherein the second wavelength conversion layer is disposed so as to cover the first wavelength conversion layer disposed on the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and at least a part of a side surface of the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, 0274].
Regarding Claim 14, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. teaches further comprising an intermediate layer which is disposed between the first wavelength conversion layer and the second wavelength conversion layer, wherein the intermediate layer is disposed so as to cover the first wavelength conversion layer disposed on the light receiving surface of the photoelectric conversion element and at least a part of a side surface of the photoelectric conversion element [Fig. 7, 0270]
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US Pub No. 2016/0108310) in view of Gaever (US Pub No. 2021/0367093)
Regarding Claim 20, Gu et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Gu et al. is silent on a flight vehicle comprising: the photoelectric conversion apparatus according to claim 1; and
a propulsion force generation apparatus which generates a propulsion force by using electric energy generated by the photoelectric conversion apparatus.
Gaever et al. teaches an airplane which uses propulsion force that comprises solar panels [Fig. 17, 0094].
Since Gu et al. teaches the use of a photoelectric conversion apparatus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the photoelectric conversion apparatus of Gu et al. in place of the solar panels of Gaever et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional photoelectric conversion apparatuses in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments corresponding with the new limitations in claim 1, as the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters wavelength converter, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters wavelength converter are changed, the precise parameters wavelength converter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the first wavelength conversion layer has a transmittance of 80% or more for light of 200 nm to 450 nm, and the second wavelength conversion layer has a transmittance of 90% or more for light of 200 nm to 450 nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters wavelength converter to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
The arguments corresponding with the new limitations in claim 1 and claim 21 are relevant; however, the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights