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 .
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 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 17-18, 20, 24, 34, 37-38, and 45 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the substrate”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referring to the “a transparent substrate” or if a different substrate is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the bottom electrode”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referencing the “a light-transmissive bottom electrode” or if a different bottom electrode is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “the top electrode”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referring to the “a transparent top electrode” or if a different top electrode is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 2, Applicant recites, “the bottom electrode”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referencing the “a light-transmissive bottom electrode” or if a different bottom electrode is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 24, Applicant recites, “the bottom electrode”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referencing the “a light-transmissive bottom electrode” or if a different bottom electrode is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 34, Applicant recites, “the bottom electrode”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis as its unclear if Applicant is referencing the “a light-transmissive bottom electrode” or if a different bottom electrode is being further limited. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 38, Applicant recites, “an interfacial layer disposed between the second carrier transport layer and the transparent top electrode”, and “at least one interfacial layer”. Its unclear if there can be multiple interfacial layers or if there is just a single interfacial layer present. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 20, 24, 34, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawendi et al. (US 2025/0221139 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2012/0119193 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Bawendi et al. discloses a bifacial photovoltaic structure configured for receiving and converting a target wavelength or wavelength range of light to electricity (Figs. 1A-B & Paragraph 0029), comprising:
a transparent substrate which is transparent to the target wavelength or wavelength range of light (Fig. 1 TCO (FTO) on glass – the glass portion);
a light-transmissive bottom electrode (Fig. 1, TCO (FTO) on glass – the TCO/FTO portion);
comprising a first set of conductive lines disposed on the substrate (Fig. 1B, Au conductor – Paragraph 0039 – other material selections are possible) and a first conducting layer disposed over the first set of conductive lines (Figs. 1A-B, ETL);
a perovskite absorber layer disposed over the bottom electrode (Fig. 4, #30 or #35 in the alternative shown in Fig. 4 & Paragraph 0049);
a transparent top electrode which is transparent to the target wavelength or wavelength range of light disposed over the perovskite absorber layer (Figs. 1A-B, TCO (FTO, ITO) on glass – TCO (FTO,ITO) portion).
Bawendi et al. does not disclose that the first conducting layer disposed over the first set of conductive lines comprises a conductive carbon.
Sekiguchi et al. teaches a first conducting layer that comprises a conductive carbon in the form of carbon nanotubes (Fig. 1, #3 – Paragraph 0104). Sekiguchi et al. teaches that this type of first conducting layer is improved and allows the efficiency of the conversion of light in a photoelectric element to be improved (Paragraph 0096). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the carbon nanotube material of Sekiguchi et al. as the material for Bawendi et al. first conducting layer for the advantages of utilizing a material that improves the efficiency of the conversion of light.
In view of Claim 3, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. teaches that the first set of conductive lines can comprise silver (Fig. 1B, Au conductor can be selected as silver - Paragraph 0039).
In view of Claim 4, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. teaches that the first set of conductive lines can comprise copper (Fig. 1B, Au conductor can be selected as copper- Paragraph 0039).
In view of Claim 6, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Sekiguchi et al. teaches that the first conducting layer comprises carbon nanotubes (Fig. 1, #3 – Paragraph 0104).
In view of Claim 8, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. teaches that the transparent top electrode comprises a second conducting layer (Figs. 1A-B, TCO (FTO, ITO) on glass – TCO (FTO,ITO) portion).
In view of Claim 9, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Bawendi et al. teaches that the transparent top electrode comprises a transparent conductive oxide (Figs. 1A-B, TCO (FTO, ITO) on glass – TCO (FTO,ITO) portion).
In view of Claim 11, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Bawendi et al. teaches that the transparent top electrode further comprises a second set of conductive lines (Fig. 1B, Au conductor on top is in the form of grid – Paragraph 0007 or Fig. 4, #50).
In view of Claim 13, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Bawendi et al. teaches that the second conductive layer is disposed over the second set of conductive lines (Figs. 1A-B, the TCO section is above the Au conductor on top of cell).
In view of Claim 14, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Bawendi et al. teaches that the second set of conductive lines comprises a metal (Paragraph 0017).
In view of Claim 20, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. teaches that the first set of conductive lines has can have a height of 10 nm – 10 micrometers with specific selections of 10-100 nm (Paragraph 0040).
In view of Claim 24, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. teaches a first carrier transport layer (Fig. 4, #35) disposed between the bottom electrode (Fig. 4, #45) and the perovskite absorber layer (Fig. 4, #30), and a second carrier transport layer (Fig. 4, #25) disposed between the perovskite absorber layer (Fig. 4, #30) and the transparent top electrode (Fig. 4, #20 & Paragraph 0049).
In view of Claim 34, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 24. Bawendi et al. teaches an interfacial layer can be disposed between the bottom electrode and the first carrier transport layer (Paragraph 0013-0014 – adhesive may be present between these layers).
In view of Claim 37, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 24. Bawendi et al. teaches an interfacial layer disposed between the second carrier transport layer and the transparent top electrode (Paragraph 0013-0014 – adhesive may be present between these layers).
In view of Claim 38, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 34. Bawendi et al. teaches that the at least one interfacial layer comprises a metal oxide (Paragraph 0029).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawendi et al. (US 2025/0221139 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2012/0119193 A1) as evidenced by Tibbo Glass “7 Main Differences Between ITO & FTO Glass”.
In view of Claim 2, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. teaches that the top electrode can be ITO and the bottom electrode can be selected to be FTO but is silent on either of these materials being more transparent than the other.
As evidenced by Tibbo Glass, ITO has a higher transmittance than FTO glass (Page 1, Section 7, 1st Paragraph). Accordingly, as evidenced by Tibbo Glass, Bawendi et al. discloses that the top electrode is more transparent than the bottom electrode.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawendi et al. (US 2025/0221139 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2012/0119193 A1) in view of Wang (CN-109980021-A). Wang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO website.
In view of Claim 12, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. does not teach that the second set of conductive lines is disposed over the second conductive layer.
Wang discloses a second set of conductive lines can be disposed over a second conductive layer (Fig. 1, # 7 – Page 3, Line 12-16). Wang discloses that this configuration can better utilize sunlight (Page 1, Lines 17-23 & Summary of the invention). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second set of conductive lines disposed over the second conductive layer as disclosed by Wang in modified Bawendi et al. bifacial photovoltaic structure for the advantage of better utilizing sunlight.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawendi et al. (US 2025/0221139 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2012/0119193 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0092881 A1).
In view of Claims 17-18, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Bawendi et al. does not teach that the second set of conductive lines has an average width that is less than an average width of the first set of conductive lines or the second set of conductive lines has an average height that is larger than an average height of the first set of conductive lines.
Lee et al. teaches that a second set of conductive lines may have a width that is less than an average width of a first set of conductive lines and that the second set of conductive lines have an average height that is larger than an average height of the first set of conductive lines to reduce a shading loss on the front side and sufficiently secure specific resistance (Fig. 1, #422 & #442 – Paragraph 0076). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second set of conductive lines have an average width that is less than an average width of the first set of conductive lines and that the second set of conductive lines has an average height that is larger than an average height of the first set of conductive lines in modified Bawendi et al. bifacial photovoltaic structure for the advantages of reducing a shading loss on the front side of the bifacial photovoltaic structure while sufficiently securing a specific resistance.
Claims 1 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawendi et al. (US 2025/0221139 A1) in view of Yan et al. (US 2022/0231242 A1).
In view of Claims 1 & 7, Bawendi et al. discloses a bifacial photovoltaic structure configured for receiving and converting a target wavelength or wavelength range of light to electricity (Figs. 1A-B & Paragraph 0029), comprising:
a transparent substrate which is transparent to the target wavelength or wavelength range of light (Fig. 1 TCO (FTO) on glass – the glass portion);
a light-transmissive bottom electrode (Fig. 1, TCO (FTO) on glass – the TCO/FTO portion);
comprising a first set of conductive lines disposed on the substrate (Fig. 1B, Au conductor – Paragraph 0039 – other material selections are possible) and a first conducting layer disposed over the first set of conductive lines (Figs. 1A-B, ETL);
a perovskite absorber layer disposed over the bottom electrode (Figs. 1A-B, perovskite);
a transparent top electrode which is transparent to the target wavelength or wavelength range of light disposed over the perovskite absorber layer (Figs. 1A-B, TCO (FTO, ITO) on glass – TCO (FTO,ITO) portion).
Bawendi et al. does not disclose that the first conducting layer disposed over the first set of conductive lines comprises a conductive carbon such as graphene or graphene oxide.
Yan et al. teaches a first conducting layer comprises graphene (Paragraph 0009). Yan et al. discloses that this type of conducting layer can eliminate the charge transfer potential barrier on the contact interface between an electron transport layer and a perovskite layer that has high overall performance (Paragraph 0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first conducting layer of Bawendi et al. comprise graphene as disclosed by Yan for the advantages of eliminating the charge transfer potential barrier between the first conducting layer and the perovskite layer while providing a high performance electron transfer material.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawendi et al. (US 2025/0221139 A1) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2012/0119193 A1) in view of Alemu et al. (US 2026/0068415 A1).
In view of Claim 45, Bawendi et al. and Sekiguchi et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Bawendi et al. does not teach the transparent substrate is flexible.
Alemu et al. discloses that a useful material for a transparent support can be thin flexible glass (Paragraph 0039). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a thin flexible glass as the transparent support of Bawendi et al. as this is a useful material for this type of layer and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2147.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726