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 6/15/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
(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, 10-11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040)
Regarding Claim 1, Yuya et al. teaches a solar cell module [Fig. 1, 0052-0053], comprising:
a substrate [10, Fig. 1, 0052-0053];
a first electrode layer [38, fig. 1, 0159] provided on the substrate [10, Fig. 1, 0052-0053];
a photoelectric conversion layer [34 and 36, Fig. 1, 0158-0159] provided on first substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0023]
a second electrode layer [44a, Fig. 2, 0168] provided on the substrate [10, Fig. 1, 0052-0053]; and
an extraction electrode layer [42b, Fig. 2, 0165] provided on the substrate [10, Fig. 1, 0052-0053] in a region that does not overlap with the photoelectric conversion layer when the substrate is observed in plan view [Fig. 2],
wherein at least a electrode [42a, fig. 2, 0165] including a same material as that of the second electrode layer [0165, 0168] is provided between the substrate [10, Fig. 1, 0052-0053] and the extraction electrode layer [42b, Fig. 2, 0165], and the electrode [42a, fig. 2, 0165] overlaps with the extraction electrode layer [42b, Fig. 2, 0165] in the plan view [Fig. 2, 0165, 0168]
Regarding Claim 10, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. teaches wherein the first electrode layer has optical transparency [0178].
Regarding Claim 11, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given Yuya, Huang et al. teaches wherein the extraction electrode layer is a metal layer [see rejection of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 14, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. teaches further comprising: a first scribe groove which divides the first electrode layer of the unit cell [see 39 for first scribe groove, Fig. 1, 0160]
Regarding Claim 15, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. teaches further comprising: a second scribe groove which divides the photoelectric conversion layer of the unit cell [see additional 39 for second scribe groove, Fig. 1, 0160].
Regarding Claim 16, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. teaches further comprising: a third scribe groove which divides the photoelectric conversion layer and the second electrode layer of the unit cell, wherein the third scribe groove is filled with a conductive martial [see vertical portion of 38 directly contacting 32 as the third groove, Fig. 1].
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) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040)
Regarding Claim 9, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. is silent on further comprising: a plurality of unit cells which are connected in series, wherein
each unit cell comprises the photoelectric conversion layer, the first electrode layer, and the
second electrode layer.
Since Yuya et al. teaches a unit cell with a photoelectric conversion layer, a first electrode layer, and a second electrode layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to provide additional unit cells to the solar cell module of Yuya et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design since the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 13, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, the limitation of “wherein on the substrate, the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the extraction electrode layer are laminated in this order.” is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040) in view of Oguz (US Pub No. 2021/0408224)
Regarding Claim 12, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. is silent on wherein the extraction electrode layer comprises a first extraction electrode layer and a second extraction electrode layer, the first extraction electrode layer is electrically connected to the first electrode layer, and the second extraction electrode layer is electrically connected to the second electrode layer.
Oguz et al. teaches the use of an electrode which is a bilayer [0060].
Since Yuya et al. teaches the use of an extraction electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the extraction electrode of Huang et al. with electrode bilayer of Oguz et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional electrode engineering design 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, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuya (US Pub No. 2012/0306040) in view of Huang (US Pub No. 2017/0194102)
Regarding Claim 8, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. is silent on wherein the photoelectric conversion layer comprises a light-absorbing layer, an electron transport layer, and a hole transport layer, and the light-absorbing layer contains a perovskite compound
Huang et al. teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion layer comprises a light-absorbing layer, an electron transport layer, and a hole transport layer, and the light-absorbing layer contains a perovskite compound [0025 teaches a perovskite for light absorber, 0026 teaches the etl and htl]
Since Yuya et al. teaches the use of a photoelectric conversion layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the photoelectric conversion layer of Yuya et al. with the photoelectric conversion layer of Huang et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional photoelectric material 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 17, Yuya et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Yuya et al. is silent on comprising: a sealing layer, wherein the sealing layer covers side surfaces of the extraction electrode layer along a thickness direction.
Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches further comprising: a sealing layer [13, Fig. 1, 0027], wherein the sealing layer covers side surfaces of the extraction electrode layer along a thickness direction [Fig. 1, 0027].
Since Yuya et al. teaches a photoelectric conversion device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the sealing layer of Huang et al. on the device of Yuya et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design 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 18, within the combination above, modified Yuya et al. teaches wherein the sealing layer covers a surface of the extraction electrode layer [Fig. 1, 0027, see rejection of claim 17].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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