DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 7/6/2026 is considered herein.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been cancelled and 24 has been added.
Claims 1-10 and 12-24 are pending and have been considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-16, 20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al (CN210379071U, wherein the English machine translation is provided by the Applicant is cited herein), in view of KATSUYUKI et al (JP2019-103990A, wherein the English machine translation is provided by the Applicant is cited herein) and AHN et al (US PG PUB 2012/0282419A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 14, XU et al teaches barrier film (protection against algae, paragraph [0008]) comprising:
an inorganic barrier layer (C11, titanium dioxide, paragraph [0025]); and
a sealing layer (C12, graphene oxide, paragraph [0025]) disposed to be in contact with a surface of the barrier layer (figures 1 and 3), wherein said sealing layer contains a two-dimensional material (graphene oxide is a known 2D material, which reads on graphene as well).
XU et al indicates the operation of the inorganic layer and sealing layer to cooperate as a photocatalyst in paragraph [0015], XU et al is silent to a zeta potential of a surface of said inorganic barrier layer in water at pH 6 and a zeta potential of a surface of said sealing layer in water at pH 6 have opposite signs. XU et al also fails to indicate a sealing layer includes a laminated structure of said two-dimensional material, and an average number of layers of said laminated structure is 2 to 6.
KATSUYUKI et al teaches photocatalytic layers for hydrophobicity or water repellant, just as in XU et al, in paragraph [0002]. KATSUYUKI et al teaches the use two photocatalytic layers having opposing zeta potentials (paragraph [0026]) in pH 6 water (paragraph [0022]) to increase adhesion and decrease peeling (paragraph [0036]).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the titanium oxide and graphene oxide photocatalytic layers of XU et al, with opposite signs (positive and negative values), as in KATSUYUKI et al to increase adhesion within the stack and decrease peeling between the layers.
Modified XU et al teaches the use of a metal oxide and graphene layer within a barrier layer, but fails to disclose sealing layer includes a laminated structure of said two-dimensional material, and an average number of layers of said laminated structure is 2 to 6.
AHN et al teaches the use of graphene layer and metal oxide layers within a barrier film (abstract, paragraph [0042]), just as in XU et al. AHN et al further teaches the use of a plurality of graphene layers to improve any deficits from a monolayer and improve gas and moisture blocking in paragraph [0057].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple layers of graphene of XU et al, as disclosed in AHN et al so as to improve gas blocking. Moreover, the use of too many layers would be well known in the art to increase the cost of manufacture and difficulty thereof. For this reason, one of ordinary skill would find obvious the balance between improving the gas blocking capabilities of the layers and cost and ease of manufacture, rendering obvious selection of a number of layers between 2-6 as a matter of engineering choice. Moreover, the selection of a particular number of layers of an unclaimed thickness in a non-limited laminated structure does not differentiate the layers of modified XU et al from the prior art.
Regarding claims 5-7, modified XU et al teaches the use of graphene as the two-dimensional material. For this reason, claims 5-7 are fulfilled by the alternative option of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, KATSUYUKI et al teaches the two photocatalyst layers to have opposing signs. When considered in light of XU et al, KATSUYUKI et al identifies two orientations for the zeta potentials of the titanium oxide (barrier layer) and graphene oxide (sealing layer), wherein the first is barrier +, sealing layer – and the second being barrier -, sealing layer +. The selection of this finite group of options is well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, with the same predictable result of increased adhesion regardless of the selection, as further detailed in KATSUYUKI et al paragraphs [0036]-[0039].
Regarding claim 12, XU et al teaches the use of graphene oxide layers 0.5-3micron thick in paragraph [0010]). For use of a monolayer which renders obvious a particle size of 0.5-3 micron, XU et al renders obvious an average particle size of said two-dimensional material is 1 to 20 micron, based on the overlapping sizes of the range.
Regarding claim 15, XU et al teaches the inorganic barrier layer to be titanium dioxide. The instant specification details the use of titanium dioxide in paragraph [0015] and the layer to have a water vapor transmission rate of 104(g/m2/day) or less in paragraph [0015]. No treatment or special formation is identified as being necessary to achieve the claimed transmission rate, and therefore it is the position of the Examiner that the inorganic barrier layer of XU et al would have the claimed rate..
Regarding claim 16, modified XU et al, by way of KATSUYUKI et al, teaches the device further comprising an additional barrier layer (underlayer), wherein said barrier film has a structure in which said additional barrier layer (underlayer, paragraph [0030] of oxides), with is below the photocatalytic layer, identified in XU et al to comprise the stack of stack of the inorganic barrier layer (titanium oxide), and said sealing layer (graphene oxide). The addition of an underlayer is taught in paragraph [0023] to separate the photocatalyst from other layer which serves to prevent deterioration of the substrate.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an additional barrier layer on top of the photocatalytic layer of XU et al, as disclosed in AHN et al so as to separate the photocatalyst from other layers in the device, which serves to prevent deterioration of the device.
Regarding claim 20, XU et al teaches a solar cell (abstract) comprising a light absorbing layer ( B, solar cell chip, obviously and necessarily comprising a light absorbing layer) and a barrier layer C11/C12 on one side (see figure 1). The requirement that the barrier film be “on a light incident side” is an intended use (based on the directionality of the sun) and does not structurally differentiate the components of the claim, as a stack is still the only structural relationship between the components. Moreover, since the cell of XU et al is taught to be used on water (see algae in the abstract), an extremely reflective surface, it would obviously be subject to light impinging the cell from both directions due to reflectivity. In conclusion, the device of modified XU et al is capable of receiving light from the barrier film, then to the light absorbing layer, fulfilling the claim.
Regarding claims 24, XU et al teaches barrier film (protection against algae, paragraph [0008]) comprising:
an inorganic barrier layer (C11, titanium dioxide, paragraph [0025]); and
a sealing layer (C12, graphene oxide, paragraph [0025]) disposed to be in contact with a surface of the barrier layer (figures 1 and 3), wherein said sealing layer contains a two-dimensional material (graphene oxide is a known 2D material, which reads on graphene as well).
XU et al indicates the operation of the inorganic layer and sealing layer to cooperate as a photocatalyst in paragraph [0015], XU et al is silent to a zeta potential of a surface of said inorganic barrier layer in water at pH 6 and a zeta potential of a surface of said sealing layer in water at pH 6 have opposite signs. XU et al also fails to indicate a sealing layer includes a laminated structure of said two-dimensional material, and an average number of layers of said laminated structure is 2 to 6.
KATSUYUKI et al teaches photocatalytic layers for hydrophobicity or water repellant, just as in XU et al, in paragraph [0002]. KATSUYUKI et al teaches the use two photocatalytic layers having opposing zeta potentials (paragraph [0026]) in pH 6 water (paragraph [0022]) to increase adhesion and decrease peeling (paragraph [0036]).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the titanium oxide and graphene oxide photocatalytic layers of XU et al, with opposite signs (positive and negative values), as in KATSUYUKI et al to increase adhesion within the stack and decrease peeling between the layers.
Modified XU et al teaches the use of a metal oxide and graphene layer within a barrier layer, but fails to disclose sealing layer includes a laminated structure of said two-dimensional material, and an average number of layers of said laminated structure is 2 to 6.
AHN et al teaches the use of graphene layer and metal oxide layers within a barrier film (abstract, paragraph [0042]), just as in XU et al. AHN et al further teaches the use of a plurality of graphene layers to improve any deficits from a monolayer and improve gas and moisture blocking in paragraph [0057].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple layers of graphene of XU et al, as disclosed in AHN et al so as to improve gas blocking. Moreover, the use of too many layers would be well known in the art to increase the cost of manufacture and difficulty thereof. For this reason, one of ordinary skill would find obvious the balance between improving the gas blocking capabilities of the layers and cost and ease of manufacture, rendering obvious selection of a number of layers between 2-6 as a matter of engineering choice. Moreover, the selection of a particular number of layers of an unclaimed thickness in a non-limited laminated structure does not differentiate the layers of modified XU et al from the prior art.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al, AHN et al and WU et al (US PG PUB 2023/0076330A1).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified XU et al fails to teach the graphene material being polyalkyleneimine chain-bonded graphene.
WU et al teaches a graphene oxide material photocatalyst, as in the abstract, just as in XU et al. WU et al further teaches the use of polyalkyleneimine chain-bonded graphene (polyethyleneimine mixed with GO, see abstract).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the photocatalytic material of polyalkyleneimine graphene oxide, as in WU et al, for the photocatalytic graphene oxide material of XU et al in order to realize the same predictable photocatalytic behavior, rendering the same predictable result. Regarding claim 4, the use of a polyalkyleneimine graphene oxide material, as detailed in WU et al, which comprises nitrogen, is interpreted to read on graphene which is nitrogen-doped graphene.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al and AHN et al. CHANG et al (Chang, Chia-Wei, et al. “The transmittance and sheet resistance of chemically and heat reduced graphene oxide film.” Optical and Quantum Electronics, vol. 51, no. 1, 30 Nov. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11082-018-1698-3) is cited herein as evidence.
Regarding claim 8, XU et al teaches the sealing layer to be graphene oxide. CHANG et al establishes graphene oxide layers have a sheet resistance of at least 50kohms/square, reading on the claimed range of 104 to 1012 ohms, supporting the premise that the graphene oxide will reasonably utilize a sheet resistance within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al and AHN et al. WU et al (CN116850795, wherein the machine English translation supplied by the Applicant is cited herein) is cited herein as evidence.
Regarding claim 9, XU et al teaches the use of graphene oxide (sealing layer). WU et al teaches graphene oxide to a two-dimensional material that swells with water vapor in paragraph [n0002], supporting the premise that the graphene oxide layer of XU et al will obviously swell.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al, AHN et al and CHOI et al (KR20130106121A, wherein the English machine translation supplied by the Applicant is cited herein).
Regarding claim 17, while KATSUYUKI et al, when considered with XU et al, teaches the stack of underlayer (oxide layer per paragraph [0030] in KATSUYUKI et al), titanium oxide layer (inorganic barrier layer) and graphene oxide layer, wherein the last two function as a photocatalyst, but fails to teach said additional barrier layer contains silicon oxide or silicon nitride.
CHOI et al teaches a solar cell stack comprising an oxide layer over a titanium oxide layer within a photocatalytic film, as in modified XU et al, as detailed in the abstract. CHOI et al further teaches the use of a first low refractive index thin film layer (200) interior to the titanium oxide layer (300) to increase transmission of light through the layers and organic matter decomposition on the catalyst layer (paragraph [0032]). The first low refractive index thin film layer is taught to be made of silicon oxide (paragraph [0031]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material of CHOI et al for the first titanium oxide layer of modified XU et al, so as to increase transmission of light and organic matter decomposition.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al, AHN et al and LIU et al (CN116284934A, wherein the English machine translation provided by the Applicant is cited herein).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified XU et al teaches the use of a graphene oxide catalytic layer, XU et al, but fails to address an additional sealing layer, wherein said barrier film has a structure in which said barrier layer, said sealing layer, and said additional sealing layer are laminated in this order.
LIU et al teaches a graphene oxide layer, as in XU et al, in the abstract. LIU et al further teaches the addition of MXene layer to the graphene oxide layer to improve physical strength of the graphene oxide layer (paragraph [n0038]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an MXene layer to the exterior of the graphene oxide layer of modified XU et al, as shown in LIU et al, so as to increase mechanical strength of the oxide layer.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al and AHN et al. IHARA (WO2012/008276A1, wherein the English machine translation provided is cited herein).
Regarding claim 21, XU et al teaches the use of a titanium dioxide layer in paragraph [0011]. IHARA teaches titanium oxide to function as a UV absorber (3rd paragraph of “Description-of-Embodiments”, page 3), therefore modified XU et al teaches an ultraviolet absorbing layer.
Claim(s) 13, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU et al, in view of KATSUYUKI et al, AHN et al and LUO et al (CN108987581A, wherein the English machine translation provided is cited herein).
Regarding claim 13, XU et al teaches the use of a titanium dioxide layer within the barrier or photocatalytic layer, but is silent to a defect exists in said inorganic barrier layer.
LUO et at teaches a solar device comprising a titanium dioxide photocatalytic layer (1) for treating the surface of a solar module to clean the surface, 2nd and 5th paragraphs of summary of the invention on page 2, just as in modified XU et al, as taught in Embodiment A. Moreover, LUO et al teaches doping TiO2 to increase photocatalytic degradation on the surface and increase cleaning capabilities due to super-hydrophilicity (last paragraph of page 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a dopant in the titanium dioxide layer of XU et al, as detailed in LUO et al, so as to increase the photocatalytic capabilities of the layer, increase photocatalytic degradation on the dirty surface of the cell and increase cleaning capabilities. By introducing dopant material to the titanium dioxide, a defect is interpreted to exist in said inorganic barrier layer.
Regarding claim 22, XU et al teaches a solar cell, but is silent the components of the cell and therefore modified XU et al is silent to comprising a transparent electrode layer between said light absorbing layer and said barrier film.
LUO et at teaches a solar device comprising a titanium dioxide photocatalytic layer (1) and on one side of a light absorber (6), just as in modified XU et al, as taught in Embodiment A. LUO et al further teaches the use of a transparent conductive oxide (ITO/FTO) between the photocatalytic layer and light absorber to allow for light transmissivity (2nd paragraph of Embodiment A).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the transparent electrode between the photocatalytic or barrier layer and light absorbing layers of XU et al, as taught in LUO et al, so as to allow for light to reach the light absorbing layer to allow for power generation.
Regarding claim 23, XU et al teaches a solar cell, but is silent the components of the cell and therefore modified XU et al is silent to said light absorbing layer contains halogen.
LUO et at teaches a solar device comprising a titanium dioxide photocatalytic layer (1) and on one side of a light absorber (6), just as in modified XU et al, as taught in Embodiment A. LUO et al teaches a perovskite light absorber (4) (comprising a halogen, Cl/Br/I, step D of page 3) wherein perovskite materials are found to be of high efficiency (1st paragraph background technology, page 2).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the perovskite light absorber of LUO et al for the broad solar module of XU et al, as the selection of a perovskite solar module and therefore light absorber allows for realization of high efficiency. Therefore, modified XU details said light absorbing layer contains halogen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11, the Applicant argues AHN teaches a broad range but does not teach the specific range of 2 to 6 layers.
The Examiner disagrees. Firstly, the claim very broadly indicates the sealing layer comprises a 2D material which comprises a range of 2-6 layers of unnamed thickness. This claim does not limit the sealing layer to being only 2-6 layers and the use of the term “average” could indicate the 2D material comprises multiple laminate structures of 2-6 layers which average 2-6 layers. For at least this reason, the claim does not limit the sealing layer to only 2-6 layers as is indicated by the argument.
Moreover, AHN et al does specifically list 3 and 6 layers as being preferrable as this still provides transparency, but with paragraph [0076] teaching the use of decreasing transparency with increasing number of layers, it would be reasonable to not select more layers. Also, based on the broad language, the broad range renders obvious the claimed range, as there is not a mitigating factor such as unexpected results or criticality, as discussed below, and the goal of selection is the same in the art and in the rejection.
On pages 11-12 the Applicant argues the selection of 2-6 layers is unexpectedly beneficial because the specification states this range renders both “excellent gas barrier properties and excellent transparency can be achieved”.
The Examiner disagrees that these results are unexpected. Firstly, there is no comparative teaching in which one could assess the level of change compared to a base level to determine if the change is unexpected. Moreover, benefits of gas barrier functionality and transparency are not unexpected alone (both are taught in AHN et al).
In their argument, the Applicant specifically cites paragraph [0076] of AHN et al as teaching light transmission in the range of 3-6 layers is not optimal and not predictable, arguing AHN et al would not have selected this range of layers for that purpose.
This argument misrepresents the purpose of the layer of AHN et al. While the level of transparency in figure 5A is shown to be highest with one layer, the use of a particular number of multiple layers is based on the best combination of transparency and diffusion barrier functionality (abstract and paragraph [0076] of AHN et al), the same basis of the optimization presented by the Examiner. It is not just selection of the best level of either of these components, but the best combination, making the selection of the claimed number of layers well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill.
On page 12, the Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine XU and KAYSUYUKI because XU does not disclose zeta potentials between the layers so no one would have considered this relationship based on KATSUYUKI only.
The Examiner disagrees. In an obviousness rejection, XU et al does not need to disclose the relationship. However, the two references are analogous and applicable for combination because they both pertain to the operation of the layers as photocatalysts. This link makes KATSAYUKI et al relevant to XU et al.
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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 10/1/2026
