DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 9/5/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309)
Regarding Claim 30, Ma et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic device structure [page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page] comprising:
performing selective precursor dissolution by coating a perovskite precursor by coating a 2D perovskite precursor in a solvent including a semiconductor substrate including a 3D perovskite, the perovskite precursor forming a layer on surface of the semiconductor substrate, the solvent selectively dissolving the 2D perovskite precursor, while retaining a high quality 3D perovskite underlayer and passivating surface and grain boundary defects [3D perovskite is formed initially on substrate, then CAI solution in IPA is spin coated on already prepared 3D perovskite, and then annealed to produce 2D perovskite, on the top through a reaction of CAI with excess PbI2, page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309) in view of Wang (Nano Energy 39 (2017) 616–625), Qin (Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1703399), and Yang (Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017))
Regarding claim 1, Ma et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic device structure [page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page] comprising:
performing selective precursor dissolution by coating a perovskite precursor by coating a 2D perovskite precursor in a solvent including a semiconductor substrate including a 3D perovskite, the perovskite precursor forming a layer on surface of the semiconductor substrate, the solvent selectively dissolving the 2D perovskite precursor, while retaining a high quality 3D perovskite underlayer and passivating surface and grain boundary defects [3D perovskite is formed initially on substrate, then CAI solution in IPA is spin coated on already prepared 3D perovskite, and then annealed to produce 2D perovskite, on the top through a reaction of CAI with excess PbI2, page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page].
Ma et al. is silent on a halogenated hydrocarbon, and preventing the formation of a detrimental crystallographic
δ
-phase during surface treatment, and the photovoltaic device structure maintaining an efficiency of 20% or greater under maximum power
Qin et al. teaches the incorporation of ITIC-Th into a precursor solution for the formation of a perovskite can suppress the formation of the delta phase in order to stabilize the perovskite solution, resulting in improved fill factor [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. teaches the use of a CAI solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the ITIC-Th into the CAI solution of Ma et al. in order to suppress the formation of the delta phase and stabilize the precursor solution, and improve the fill factor of the resulting film [Abstract]. As a result of the combination, modified Ma et al. would teach “preventing the formation of a detrimental crystallographic
δ
-phase during surface treatment.”
Wang et al. teaches the formation of perovskite solar cell [Abstract] with a precursor that is dissolved in a solvent [chlorobenzene and IPA, Abstract]. The use of chlorobenzene and IPA resulted in a more homogeneous surface morphology and larger grain size of perovskite films [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. teaches the formation of a perovskite solar cell through a precursor in IPA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the solvent of Wang in place of the solvent of Ma et al. in order to provide a more homogeneous surface morphology and larger grain size of perovskite films [Abstract]
Within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches the formation of a 2D perovskite layer on a lead halide perovskite thin film; therefore, would meet the limitation of “passivating surface and grain boundary defects” according to the specification filed on 10/1/2019 [See line 9-15, page 5],
which teaches adding a 2D perovskite layer onto a perovskite film can effectively passivate surface and grain boundary in perovskite solar cell.
Yang et al. teaches the formation of perovskite layers though an intramolecular exchanging process, decreasing the concentration of deep level defects, enabling the fabrication of solar cells with efficiency higher than 20% [Abstract] by the introduction of additional iodine ions into the organic cation solution [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. is concerned about improved efficiencies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the additional iodine ions as taught by Yang et al. into the method of Ma et al. in order to enable fabrication of solar cells with efficiencies higher than 20% [Abstract] overlapping the claimed 20% or greater.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches wherein the layer is a 2D perovskite layer [see rejection of claim 1, 2D perovskite layer is formed on 3D perovskite layer].
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches wherein the semiconductor includes a 3D perovskite on an electrode layer [Fig. 5, top left of page, page 18312].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches the precursor includes a C3 alkyl ammonium halide [See rejection of claim 1, page 18310, section 2.1, middle left of page].
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches the perovskite precursor includes a lead iodide [See rejection above of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches wherein coating includes spin-coating, [page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page].
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches wherein coating includes spin coating at a rate between 2000 and 6000 rpm [3000 rpm, page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page].
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches all the structural limitation of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Ma et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of modified Ma et al. meeting the limitation of “ wherein the passivated surface and grain boundary defects produce an open-circuit-voltage loss of less than about 350 mV”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309) in view of Wang (Nano Energy 39 (2017) 616–625), Qin (Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1703399), and Yang (Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017)) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Zhou (J. Mater. Chem. A, 2016, 4, 16191)
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. is silent on the 2D perovskite precursor comprises bromide.
Zhou et al. teaches adding bromide to a perovskite resulting in improved carrier lifetimes and charge extraction [page 16192, top left of page, and abstract]. The perovskite precursor of Zhou et al. comprises a bromide and iodine [Abstract and page 16192, top left of page].
Since modified Ma et al. teaches a perovskite precursor comprising an iodine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention incorporate the bromide of Zhou et al. in the 2D precursor of modified Ma et al. in order to provide improved carrier lifetimes and improved charge extraction [Abstract and page 16192, top left of page].
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309) in view of Wang (Nano Energy 39 (2017) 616–625), Qin (Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1703399), and Yang (Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017)) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Kim (Thin Solid Films 661 (2018) 122–127)
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. is silent on wherein the solvent is chloroform.
Kim et al. teaches the formation of a perovskite by a precursor comprising chloroform resulting in smooth surface morphology of the perovskite film which leads the high performance of perovskite solar cells [Abstract].
Since modified Ma et al. teaches a perovskite precursor comprising a solvent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the solvent of Kim et al. in the solvent of modified Ma et al. in order to provide smooth surface morphology of the perovskite film which leads the high performance of perovskite solar cells [Abstract].
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309) in view of Wang (Nano Energy 39 (2017) 616–625), Qin (Adv. Energy Mater. 2018, 8, 1703399), and Yang (Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017)) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Lin (J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 654−658) and Kim (Thin Solid Films 661 (2018) 122–127)
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. is silent on wherein the C2-C16 alkyl ammonium is selected from a group consisting of n-Butylammonium bromide (C4Br), n-Hexylammonium bromide (C6Br), or n-Octylammonium bromide (C8Br), the solvent is chloroform and the 2D perovskite is lead iodide.
Lin et al. teaches the precursor includes n-Butylammonium Iodide [page S3].
Since Ma et al. teaches an alkyl ammonium based precursor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the n-butylammonium iodide of Lin et al. in place of the precursor of Ma et al. as it is merely the selection of known perovskite precursors in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Kim et al. teaches the formation of a perovskite by a precursor comprising chloroform resulting in smooth surface morphology of the perovskite film which leads the high performance of perovskite solar cells [Abstract].
Since modified Ma et al. teaches a perovskite precursor comprising a solvent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to add the solvent of Kim et al. in the solvent of modified Ma et al. in order to provide smooth surface morphology of the perovskite film which leads the high performance of perovskite solar cells [Abstract].
Claims 22-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309) in view of Wang (Nano Energy 39 (2017) 616–625), and Yang (Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017))
Regarding claim 22, Ma et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic device structure [page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page] comprising:
performing selective precursor dissolution by coating a perovskite precursor by coating a 2D perovskite precursor in a solvent including a semiconductor substrate including a 3D perovskite, the perovskite precursor forming a layer on surface of the semiconductor substrate, the solvent selectively dissolving the 2D perovskite precursor, while retaining a high quality 3D perovskite underlayer and passivating surface and grain boundary defects [3D perovskite is formed initially on substrate, then CAI solution in IPA is spin coated on already prepared 3D perovskite, and then annealed to produce 2D perovskite, on the top through a reaction of CAI with excess PbI2, page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page].
Ma et al. is silent on a halogenated hydrocarbon, and the photovoltaic device structure maintaining an efficiency of 20% or greater under maximum power
Wang et al. teaches the formation of perovskite solar cell [Abstract] with a precursor that is dissolved in a solvent [chlorobenzene and IPA, Abstract]. The use of chlorobenzene and IPA resulted in a more homogeneous surface morphology and larger grain size of perovskite films [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. teaches the formation of a perovskite solar cell through a precursor in IPA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to utilize the solvent of Wang in place of the solvent of Ma et al. in order to provide a more homogeneous surface morphology and larger grain size of perovskite films [Abstract]
Within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches the formation of a 2D perovskite layer on a lead halide perovskite thin film; therefore, would meet the limitation of “passivating surface and grain boundary defects” according to the specification filed on 10/1/2019 [See line 9-15, page 5],
which teaches adding a 2D perovskite layer onto a perovskite film can effectively passivate surface and grain boundary in perovskite solar cell.
Yang et al. teaches the formation of perovskite layers though an intramolecular exchanging process, decreasing the concentration of deep level defects, enabling the fabrication of solar cells with efficiency higher than 20% [Abstract] by the introduction of additional iodine ions into the organic cation solution [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. is concerned about improved efficiencies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the additional iodine ions as taught by Yang et al. into the method of Ma et al. in order to enable fabrication of solar cells with efficiencies higher than 20% [Abstract] overlapping the claimed 20% or greater.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 23, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches wherein the layer is a 2D perovskite layer [see rejection of claim 1, 2D perovskite layer is formed on 3D perovskite layer].
Regarding Claim 24, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches wherein the semiconductor includes a 3D perovskite on an electrode layer [Fig. 5, top left of page, page 18312].
Regarding Claim 25, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches the precursor includes a C3 alkyl ammonium halide [See rejection of claim 1, page 18310, section 2.1, middle left of page].
Regarding Claim 26, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches the perovskite precursor includes a lead iodide [See rejection above of claim 1].
Regarding Claim 27, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches efficiencies higher than 20% [Abstract] overlapping the claimed 23% or greater.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 28 and 29, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. teaches all the structural limitation of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Ma et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of modified Ma et al. meeting the limitation of “ wherein the passivated surface and grain boundary defects produce an open-circuit-voltage loss of less than about 350 mV”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claims 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (Nanoscale, 2016, 8, 18309) in view of Yang (Science 356, 1376–1379 (2017))
Regarding Claim 31, within the combination above, modified Ma et al. is silent on wherein the coating forms a photovoltaic device structure that maintains an efficiency of 20% or greater under maximum power.
Yang et al. teaches the formation of perovskite layers though an intramolecular exchanging process, decreasing the concentration of deep level defects, enabling the fabrication of solar cells with efficiency higher than 20% [Abstract] by the introduction of additional iodine ions into the organic cation solution [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. is concerned about improved efficiencies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the additional iodine ions as taught by Yang et al. into the method of Ma et al. in order to enable fabrication of solar cells with efficiencies higher than 20% [Abstract] overlapping the claimed 20% or greater.
Regarding Claim 32, Ma et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic device structure [page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page] comprising:
performing selective precursor dissolution by coating a perovskite precursor by coating a 2D perovskite precursor in a solvent including a semiconductor substrate including a 3D perovskite, the perovskite precursor forming a layer on surface of the semiconductor substrate, the solvent selectively dissolving the 2D perovskite precursor, while retaining a high quality 3D perovskite underlayer and passivating surface and grain boundary defects [3D perovskite is formed initially on substrate, then CAI solution in IPA is spin coated on already prepared 3D perovskite, and then annealed to produce 2D perovskite, on the top through a reaction of CAI with excess PbI2, page 18313, section 4.2, bottom left of page].
Ma et al. is silent on wherein the coating forms a photovoltaic device structure that maintains an efficiency of 20% or greater under maximum power.
Yang et al. teaches the formation of perovskite layers though an intramolecular exchanging process, decreasing the concentration of deep level defects, enabling the fabrication of solar cells with efficiency higher than 20% [Abstract] by the introduction of additional iodine ions into the organic cation solution [Abstract].
Since Ma et al. is concerned about improved efficiencies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the additional iodine ions as taught by Yang et al. into the method of Ma et al. in order to enable fabrication of solar cells with efficiencies higher than 20% [Abstract] overlapping the claimed 20% or greater.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the arguments about claims 1 and 22, about chlorobenzene being an anti-solvent, the claim requires the use of a solvent, and chlorobenzene is considered a solvent, even if considered an anti-solvent, it would still meet the limitation of “solvent” in the limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728