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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the as-filed specification does not describe both an electron transport material (recited in claim 1) and a hole transport material (recited in claim 16) in the light conversion layer which is arranged on a light incident side of a light absorption layer of the solar cell (recited in claim 1).
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12-13, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svolt Energy Tech Company LTD (CN109671847A, hereinafter referred to as Svolt, cited on 09/15/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Svolt discloses a light conversion layer ([0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer) comprising: an electron transport material and a conversion material ([0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer), the light conversion layer is a first charge transport layer of a solar cell ([0016], [0025] discloses an electron transport layer), wherein the conversion material comprises a down-conversion luminescent material ([0025]), and the light conversion layer is arranged on a light incident side of a light absorption layer of the solar cell ([0025] discloses a perovskite layer is formed on the electron transport layer and the down-conversion layer, which is formed on a surface of a transparent substrate), the material of the light absorption layer includes perovskite ([0016], [0025]).
While Svolt does disclose forming an electron transport layer on the down-conversion light-emitting layer ([0025]), and further discloses the specific thickness of the down-conversion light-emitting layer is not particularly limited, and that those skilled in the art can make corresponding selections according to the actual degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency ([0057]); Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of a mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is less than or equal to 25%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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).
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of a mass of the electron transport material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 75%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of a mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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 2, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Svolt further discloses the solar cell comprises an upper electrode (Svolt - [0015] discloses a negative electrode), and the light conversion layer is arranged on a surface of the upper electrode (Svolt - [0015] discloses the down-conversion light-emitting layer is disposed between the negative electrode and the electron transport layer; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components; additionally, with regard to the limitation “upper,” the limitation is dependent upon the spatial orientation of the device).
Regarding claim 3, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Svolt further discloses the solar cell comprises an upper electrode, the light conversion layer is the upper electrode, and the light conversion layer comprises an upper electrode material and the conversion material (the disclosed down-conversion light-emitting layer formed on the surface of the negative electrode disclosed in [0025] (Svolt) satisfies the limitation “the light conversion layer comprises an upper electrode material and the conversion material”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Svolt does disclose forming an electron transport layer on the down-conversion light-emitting layer (Svolt - [0025]), and further discloses the specific thickness of the down-conversion light-emitting layer is not particularly limited, and that those skilled in the art can make corresponding selections according to the actual degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency (Svolt - [0057]); modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of the mass of the conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is in a range of 25% to 50%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of the mass of the conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the conversion material is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the conversion material in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of modified Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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 claims 7 and 8, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Svolt does disclose a thickness of the light conversion layer is not particularly limited, and in a range such as 30-90 nm, and that those skilled in the art can make corresponding selections according to the actual degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency (Svolt - [0057]); modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the light conversion layer is in a range of 30 to 60 nm, or 40 to 50 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the light conversion layer of modified Svolt with a thickness of 30 to 60 nm, or 40 to 50 nm, because the selection of the claimed ranges amounts to the selection of an overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Svolt, and selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Svolt further discloses the conversion material comprises the down-conversion luminescent material (Svolt - [0016] discloses a down-conversion light-emitting layer), and the down-conversion luminescent material comprises a fluorescent material (Svolt - [0056]), and further discloses the fluorescent material comprises a rare earth element complex (Svolt - [0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Svolt discloses a solar cell ([0016]) comprising a light conversion layer ([0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer), the light conversion layer includes an electron transport material and a conversion material ([0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer), the light conversion layer is a first charge transport layer of the solar cell ([0016], [0025] discloses an electron transport layer), wherein the conversion material comprises a down-conversion luminescent material ([0025]), and the light conversion layer is arranged on a light incident side of a light absorption layer of the solar cell ([0025] discloses a perovskite layer is formed on the electron transport layer and the down-conversion layer, which is formed on a surface of a transparent substrate), the material of the light absorption layer includes perovskite ([0016], [0025]).
While Svolt does disclose forming an electron transport layer on the down-conversion light-emitting layer ([0025]), and further discloses the specific thickness of the down-conversion light-emitting layer is not particularly limited, and that those skilled in the art can make corresponding selections according to the actual degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency ([0057]); Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of a mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is less than or equal to 25%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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).
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of a mass of the electron transport material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 75%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of a mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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 18, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Svolt further discloses in a first direction, the solar cell comprises sequentially an upper electrode ([0051], negative electrode), the first charge transport layer ([0051], electron transport layer), the light absorption layer ([0051], perovskite layer), a second charge transport layer ([0051], hole transport layer), and a lower electrode ([0051], positive electrode); the first charge transport layer comprises the light conversion layer including the electron transport material ([0051]; it is noted that the disclosed electron transport layer formed on the surface of the down-conversion light-emitting layer in [0025] satisfies the limitation “the first charge transport layer comprises the light conversion layer”), and a charge transport material in the second charge transport layer comprises a hole transport material ([0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Svolt discloses an electrical apparatus ([0016] discloses a solar cell) comprising a solar cell ([0016]), the solar cell including: a light conversion layer ([0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer) comprising: an electron transport material and a conversion material ([0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer), the light conversion layer is a first charge transport layer of a solar cell ([0016], [0025] discloses an electron transport layer), wherein the conversion material comprises a down-conversion luminescent material ([0025]), and the light conversion layer is arranged on a light incident side of a light absorption layer of the solar cell ([0025] discloses a perovskite layer is formed on the electron transport layer and the down-conversion layer, which is formed on a surface of a transparent substrate), the material of the light absorption layer includes perovskite ([0016], [0025]).
While Svolt does disclose forming an electron transport layer on the down-conversion light-emitting layer ([0025]), and further discloses the specific thickness of the down-conversion light-emitting layer is not particularly limited, and that those skilled in the art can make corresponding selections according to the actual degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency ([0057]); Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of a mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is less than or equal to 25%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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).
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose a proportion of a mass of the electron transport material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 75%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of a mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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 21, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is equal to 25%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of modified Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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).
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the proportion of the mass of the electron transport material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is equal to 75%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of a mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of modified Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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 22, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Svolt further discloses the light conversion layer is composited with the first charge transport layer including the electron transport material and the conversion material (cell (Svolt - [0016], [0025] discloses an electron transport layer and a down-conversion layer). It is noted that the layer containing the disclosed electron transport layer and down-conversion layer satisfies both “first charge transport layer” and “the light conversion layer is composited with the first charge transport layer.”
Claims 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svolt Energy Tech Company LTD (CN109671847A, hereinafter referred to as Svolt, cited on 09/15/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Liu et al. (CN115411125A – see previously attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Svolt does disclose the light conversion layer comprises the electron transport material (Svolt - [0025] discloses an electron transport layer formed on the surface of the down-conversion light-emitting layer, and the disclosed electron transport layer formed on the surface of the down-conversion light-emitting layer satisfies the limitation “the light conversion layer comprises the electron transport material), and the down-conversion luminescent material (Svolt - [0015],[0016]); modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the light conversion layer comprises both the up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material.
Liu discloses a perovskite solar cell (n0022]) and further discloses a material of a light conversion layer may include upconversion quantum dot material, downconversion quantum dot material, or both upconversion quantum dot material and down conversion quantum dot material ([n0012]). Liu further discloses specific materials included in a light conversion layer can be set according to actual needs and are not limited here ([n0012]). Additionally, Liu discloses a concentration ratio can also be adjusted according to actual needs and is not limited here ([n0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material, as disclosed in Liu, in the light conversion layer of modified Svolt, because as evidenced by Liu, the use of both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material in a light conversion layer of a perovskite solar cell amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material in the light conversion layer of modified Svolt based on the teaching of Liu ([n0012]).
While modified Svolt does disclose the specific thickness of the down-conversion light-emitting layer is not particularly limited, and that those skilled in the art can make corresponding selections according to the actual degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency (Svolt - [0057]), and modified Svolt further discloses the concentration ratio can also be adjusted according to actual needs and is not limited here (Liu - [n0019]); modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the proportion of the mass of the up-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 25%; the proportion of the mass of the down-conversion luminescent material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 25%; and the proportion of the mass of the electron transport material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 75%.
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of the mass of the respective conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the respective conversion material is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the respective conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the respective conversion material in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the respective conversion material in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of modified Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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).
As the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said proportion of a mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer, with said degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and material cost both increasing as the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer is increased, the precise proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the materials of the light conversion layer cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the proportion of the mass of the electron transport layer in the total mass of the light conversion layer in the apparatus of modified Svolt to obtain the desired balance between the degree of improvement in photoelectric conversion efficiency and the material cost (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 claims 10 and 11, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Svolt does disclose the light conversion layer comprises the down-conversion luminescent material (Svolt - [0015],[0016]); modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the light conversion layer comprises both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material.
Liu discloses a perovskite solar cell (n0022]) and further discloses the material of a light conversion layer may include upconversion quantum dot material, downconversion quantum dot material, or both upconversion quantum dot material and down conversion quantum dot material ([n0012]). Liu further discloses the specific materials included in the light conversion layer can be set according to actual needs and are not limited here ([n0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material, as disclosed in Liu, in the light conversion layer of modified Svolt, because as evidenced by Liu, the use of both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material in a light conversion layer of a perovskite solar cell amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including both up-conversion and down-conversion luminescent material in the light conversion layer of modified Svolt based on the teaching of Liu ([n0012]).
Modified Svolt further discloses the up-conversion luminescent material comprises NaYF4 doped with Yb (Svolt - [0058]).
Claims 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svolt Energy Tech Company LTD (CN109671847A, hereinafter referred to as Svolt, cited on 09/15/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 18 above, in view of Matsushita et al. (WO 2021/220926 A1 – see equivalent US 2023/0022255).
Regarding claim 15, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the electron transport material comprises at least one of an imide compound, a quinone compound, fullerene and a derivative thereof, a metal oxide, a semiconductor material oxide, a titanate, and a fluoride.
Matsushita discloses a light conversion layer (abstract) and further discloses an electron transport layer in a perovskite cell comprising a metal oxide ([0099],[0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the electron transport layer of modified Svolt with a metal oxide, as disclosed by Matsushita, because as evidenced by Matsushita, the use of a metal oxide for an electron transport layer in a perovskite solar cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the electron transport layer of modified Svolt with a metal oxide based on the teaching of Matsushita.
Regarding claim 16, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose a hole transport layer comprises at least one of 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis(N,N-p-methoxyaniline)-9,9'-spirobifluorene, methoxytriphenylamine-fluoroformamidine, poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine], poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), polystyrene sulfonic acid, poly(3-hexylthiophene), triphenylamine with triptycene as a core, 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene-methoxytriphenylamine, N-(4-aniline)carbazole-spirobifluorene, polythiophene, phosphoryl single molecule, carbazolyl single molecule, sulfo single molecule, triphenylamine single molecule, aryl single molecule, metal oxide, and cuprous thiocyanate, and the metal element in the metal oxide comprises at least one of Ni, Mo, and Cu.
Matsushita discloses a light conversion layer (abstract) and further discloses a hole transport layer in a perovskite cell comprising a metal oxide and the metal element in the metal oxide comprises Ni ([0039],[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the hole transport layer of modified Svolt with nickel oxide, as disclosed by Matsushita, because as evidenced by Matsushita, the use of nickel oxide for a hole transport layer in a perovskite solar cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the hole transport layer of modified Svolt with nickel oxide based on the teaching of Matsushita.
Regarding claim 19, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Svolt further discloses the material of the light absorption layer comprises perovskite (Svolt - [0051]), modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the structural formula of the perovskite is ABX3, where A is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, B is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, and X is an inorganic anion and/or an organic anion.
Matsushita discloses a light conversion layer (abstract) and further discloses the structural formula of the perovskite is ABX3 ([0003]) where A is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, B is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, and X is an inorganic anion and/or an organic anion ([0003]; it is noted that the disclosed cations are necessarily either organic or inorganic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perovskite of modified Svolt with a structural formula of ABX3 where A is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, B is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, and X is an inorganic anion and/or an organic anion, as disclosed in Matsushita, because as evidenced by Matsushita, the use of a perovskite with a structural formula of ABX3 where A is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, B is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, and X is an inorganic anion and/or an organic anion amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the perovskite of modified Svolt with a structural formula of ABX3 where A is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, B is an inorganic cation and/or an organic cation, and X is an inorganic anion and/or an organic anion based on the teaching of Matsushita.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svolt Energy Tech Company LTD (CN109671847A, hereinafter referred to as Svolt, cited on 09/15/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Slager (US 2010/0243051).
Regarding claim 23, modified Svolt discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Svolt does disclose the down-conversion luminescent material (Svolt - [0016] discloses a down-conversion light-emitting layer), and the down-conversion luminescent material comprises a fluorescent material (Svolt - [0056]), and further discloses the fluorescent material comprises a rare earth element complex (Svolt - [0056]); modified Svolt does not explicitly disclose the fluorescent material includes at least one of riboflavin, a fluorescein compound, a rhodamine compound, phycoerythrin, an iridium complex, a rare earth element complex including chelates of trivalent rare earth lanthanides, a polyfluorene compound, a coumarin compound, a naphthalimide compound, a polyacene compound, a fluorine-and-boron-based dipyrrole compound, a Resorufin compound, a pyrazoline compound, a triphenylamine compound, a carbazole compound, a green fluorescent protein, a diamine fluorescent compound, a perovskite luminescent nanomaterial, and a thermally activated delayed fluorescent compound.
Slager discloses a light conversion layer ([0033] - [0037]) and further discloses the use of a coumarin compound as a down-conversion luminescent fluorescent material ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the down-conversion luminescent fluorescent material of modified Svolt with a coumarin compound, as disclosed by Slager, because as evidenced by Slager, the use of a coumarin compound as a down-conversion luminescent fluorescent material in a solar cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the down-conversion luminescent fluorescent material of modified Svolt with a coumarin compound based on the teaching of Slager.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the experimental data in Table 1 of the disclosure as filed showing clear evidence of unexpected results.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in MPEP 716.02(d): Whether
the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
The conversion material, as set forth in claim 1 of the instant application, comprises an up-conversion luminescent material and/or a down-conversion luminescent material, however, this limitation is not commensurate in scope with the parameters described in the as-filed specification which results in the data in Tables 1-3 of the as-filed specification. Specifically, no experimental data in the as-filed specification is shown for an up-conversion material alone without down-conversion material, which is encompassed by the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, the scope of the limitations of claim 1 encompass any thickness while the data presented corresponds to a thickness of 40 nm when both up-conversion and down-conversion material are present in the light conversion layer. Further, the data presented is the result of the use of tetraethyl rhodamine, rhodamine, and phycoerythrin as the down-conversion luminescent material, and NaYF4 as the up-conversion material, which is not commensurate in scope with the limitations claimed. The data presented does not show the results occur over the entire claimed range as required in MPEP 716.02(d). It is noted that the response to Applicant’s argument above includes examples of the manner in which the claim limitations are not commensurate in scope with the parameters described in the as-filed specification which lead to the results in Tables 1-3, but is not inclusive of all the parameters which are not commensurate.
It is further noted that the claim amendments overcome the 35 USC § 112
rejections set forth in the previous office action, however, claim 16 is currently rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) as set forth above.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726