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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/7/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 9, 12, 15-16, 18, 25, 28, 31, and 51-53 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (“Global Control of CH3NH3PbI3 Formation with Multifunctional Ionic Liquid for Perovskite Hybrid Photovoltaics”, Cite No. 6 of Non-Patent Literature Documents in IDS 8/20/2021) in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2017/0018369) or Toma et al. (JP 2016-222492, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device (perovskite hybrid photovoltaics in the title or solar cell in the description) comprising:
a layer comprising a crystalline A/M/X material comprises a compound of formula: [A]a[M][X]c (see the perovskite layer of CH3NH3PbI3 in the title or MAPbI3 in the description) with [A] being a cation of CH3NH3 or MA, [M] being metal cation of Pb; [X] being anion of I; a is 1; b is 1; and c is 3; and
an ionic liquid (see ionic liquid in the title, IL in the description), and more specifically 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium iodide (BMII) which is a salt comprising an organic cation of heteroaryl comprising an N atom and a counter anion (see abstract, Scheme 1, “Results and Discussion” section);
wherein the crystalline A/M/X material (or the perovskite) is a polycrystalline A/M/X material comprising crystallites of the A/MIX material and grain boundaries between the crystallites (see abstract, scheme 1, figs. 3(a)); and
wherein the organic cation of the salt is present within the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material and present at grain boundaries between the crystallites (see abstract, Scheme 1).
Peng et al. teaches using ionic liquid as an additive to the perovskite to improve the performances and power conversion efficiency of the optoelectronic device (or the solar cell, see abstract and fig. 1). Peng et al. uses 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium iodide (or BMII) as the ionic liquid in the experiments with the anion to be iodide (I-). Peng et al. does not teach the ionic liquid having the counter anion of a non-coordinating polyatomic anion selected from borates, chlorates, triflates, carborane, phosphates and [Al(OC(CF3)3)4]-.
Nakamura et al. teaches ionic liquid used in perovskite solar cell ([0076], [0080] and [0106-0109]), wherein the ionic liquid includes an organic cation comprising a heteroaryl of imidazolium (see [0107]) and the counter anion of a non-coordinating polyatomic anion selected from borate, phosphate, triflates (e.g. anions with trifluoromethyl sulfonyl, see [0108]).
Toma et al. teaches incorporating ionic liquid in the perovskite precursor (see [ of an organic salt having organic cation of imidazolium, pyridinium, pyrrolidinium and a counter anion of a non-coordinating polyatomic anion such as tetrafluoroborate, hexafluorophosphate (see [0011] of the translation). In other words, Toma et al. teaches the ionic liquid comprising a heteroaryl or heterocyclyl cation comprising an N atom and a non-coordinating polyatomic counter anion of borate or phosphate.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optoelectronic device of Peng et al. by using the ionic liquid with non-coordinating polyatomic anion selected from borate, phosphate, triflates as taught by Nakamura et al. or borate and phosphate as taught by Toma et al.; because Peng et al. suggests incorporating the ionic liquid to the perovskite would improve the efficiency of the device (see title and abstract of Peng et al.), Nakamura et al. teaches such ionic liquid materials are well known materials to be use in solar cell and borate, phosphate and triflates are equivalent to halide as the anion being used in a ionic liquid (see [0106-0109 of Nakamura et al.), and Toma et al. teaches adding such ionic liquid to the perovskite would significantly change the properties of the perovskite to improve the conversion efficiency of the solar cell (or photovoltaic device, see [0018] of the translation of Toma et al.) and also teaches the borate and phosphate are equivalent to halides in the ionic liquid to be used in the perovskite (see [0011] of the translation of Toma et al.). In addition, such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Peng et al. teaches varying the amount of ionic liquid to find the optimal amount of the ionic liquid (see fig. 1 and the whole document), and found a small amount of 1mol% of ionic liquid with respect to the number of moles of one or more metal or metalloid cations M in the crystalline A/M/X material (or the molar ratio between BMII and PbI2) would provide better performances and conversion efficiency (see fig. 1, abstract and “results and discussion”). It is noted that 1mol% is the round up of 0.9mol%.
Peng et al. does not explicitly teach the amount of ionic liquid comprising hetroaryl or heterocyclyl cation including N atom and non-coordinating polyatomic anion of borates, phosphates, or triflates to be from 0.1 mol% to 0.9 mol% with respect to the number of moles of the one or more metal or metalloid cations M in the crystalline. However, the performances and power conversion of the optoelectronic device (or the photovoltaic device) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting amount of the ionic liquid present in the crystalline A/M/X material. The precise amount 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 0.1 mol% to 0.9mol% 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 amount of ionic liquid in the device of modified Peng et al. to obtain the desired balance between the performances and power conversion efficiency of the optoelectronic device, or the photovoltaic device (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since Peng et al. and Toma et al. explicitly suggests doing so and 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 5-6, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. discloses including a charge transporting material of hole transporting material and the crystalline A/M/X material (or the perovskite) being disposed on the charge transporting material (see Fabrication of PSCs in the Supporting Information of Peng et al.). Nakamura et al. also shows the hole transporting layer (6) formed on the photoelectric conversion layer (5, see fig. 1), and the photoelectric conversion layer includes perovskite material (see [0080]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 5 above, wherein Peng et al. discloses the counter-anion is present within the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material (see abstract and scheme 1)
Regarding claim 12, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. shows some of the counter-anion is not present within the crystalline A/M/X material (or the perovskite crystals, see abstract and Scheme 1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. discloses the organic cation (of the salt) is 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium, 1,3-dimethylimidazolium, or 1-hexyl-3-methylimidazaolium (see claim 1 above or abstract, Scheme 1, “Results and Discussion” section of Peng et al.), which are substituted imidazolium cation having formula I as claimed (see the formula shown in abstract and Scheme 1). Nakamura et al. and Toma et al. also teach the organic cation of imidazolium cation as claimed (see [0107] of Nakamura et al. or [0011] of the translation of Toma et al.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 15 above, wherein both Nakamura et al. and Toma et al. teach the organic cation is an imidazolium cation having formula I and the counter anion is BF4 (or tetrafluoroborate, see [0107-0108] of Nakamura et al. and [0011] of the translation of Toma et al.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Toma et al. teaches the organic cation is pyridinium cation or pyrrolidinium cation (see [0011] of the translation of Toma et al.).
Regarding claim 25, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. discloses using CH3NH3PbI3, with A cation is a cation of CH3NH3+of the formula [R1R2R3R4N]+; wherein R1 is an CH3 or C1 alkyl, which is not hydrogen, and each of R2, R3, R4 is a hydrogen.
Regarding claim 28, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. teaches using CH3NH3PbI3 which has M cation is Pb2+.
Regarding claim 31, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. discloses the optoelectronic device is a photovoltaic device (see title and abstract of Peng et al.).
Regarding claim 51, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above, wherein Peng et al. teaches the organic cation is 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium (see abstract of Peng et al.), Nakamura et al. teaches the organic cation is 1-butyl-3 methyl imidazolium (see [0107] of Nakamura et al.) and the counter anion is BF4- (or tetrafluoroborate ion, see [0108]), and Toma et al. also teaches the organic cation is 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium and the counter anion is BF4- (or tetrafluoroborate, see [0011] of the translation of Toma et al.).
Regarding claim 52, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 1 above. Peng et al. teaches varying the amount of ionic liquid to find the optimal amount of the ionic liquid (see fig. 1 and the whole document), and found a small amount of 1mol% of ionic liquid with respect to the number of moles of one or more metal or metalloid cations M in the crystalline A/M/X material (or the molar ratio between BMII and PbI2) would provide better performances and conversion efficiency (see fig. 1, abstract and “results and discussion”).
Modified Peng et al. does not explicitly teach the amount of ionic liquid comprising hetroaryl or heterocyclyl cation including N atom and non-coordinating polyatomic anion of borates, phosphates, or triflates to be from 0.2 mol% to 0.5 mol% with respect to the number of moles of the one or more metal or metalloid cations M in the crystalline. However, the performances and power conversion of the optoelectronic device (or the photovoltaic device) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting amount of the ionic liquid present in the crystalline A/M/X material. The precise amount 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 0.2 mol% to 0.5mol% 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 amount of ionic liquid in the device of modified Peng et al. to obtain the desired balance between the performances and power conversion efficiency of the optoelectronic device, or the photovoltaic device (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since Peng et al. and Toma et al. explicitly suggests doing so and 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 53, modified Peng et al. discloses a photoelectric conversion as in claim 18 above, wherein Nakamura et al. discloses the organic cation to be pyridinium having formula II as claimed (see [0107] of Nakamura et al.). Toma et al. also teaches the organic cation to by pyridinium (see [0011] of the translation of Toma et al.).
Alternatively, claim(s) 5-6, 8-9, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Peng et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di Girolamo et al. (“Inverted Perovskite Solar Cells with Transparent Hole Transporting Layer Based on Semiconductor Nickel Oxide”).
Regarding claims 5-6, 8 and 30-31, modified Peng et al. discloses the optoelectronic device being a photovoltaic (or solar cell) using perovskite such as CH3NH3PbI3 with ionic liquid as the additive (see claim 1 above, also see title and abstract of Peng et al.) as in claim 1 above.
Modified Peng et al. does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device being a (perovskite) solar cell having a p-i-n planar heterojunction (claim 31) structure comprising a layer comprising a charge-transporting material such that the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material is disposed on the layer comprising the charge-transporting material (claim 5), wherein the charge- transporting material is a hole-transporting (p-type) material (claim 6) of inorganic hole transporting material (claim 8); a first electrode comprising a transparent conducting oxide, wherein the layer comprising the hole-transporting material is disposed between the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material and the first electrode; a layer comprising an electron-transporting (n-type) material; and a second electrode which comprises a metal in elemental form, wherein the layer comprising the electron-transporting material is disposed between the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material and the second electrode (claim 30).
Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell (fig. 1) having a p-i-n planar heterojunction structure comprising:
a first electrode of transparent conductive oxide (see ITO in fig. 1),
a layer comprising A/M/X material (see the perovskite CH3NH3PbI3 in fig. 1),
a layer of hole-transporting material of inorganic hole transporting material (see NiOx in fig. 1), wherein the layer of hole transporting material (NiOx) is disposed between the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material (or the perovskite layer CH3NH3PbI3) and the first electrode (ITO, see fig. 1),
a layer comprising an electron-transporting material (see PCBM/BCP in fig. 1), and
a second electrode which comprises a metal in elemental form (see Ag in fig. 1), wherein the layer comprising the electron transporting material (PCBM/BCP) is disposed between the layer comprising crystalline A/M/X material (CH3NH3PbI3) and the second electrode (Ag, see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optoelectronic device by using the perovskite solar cell having the p-i-n structure of a first electrode, perovskite layer, a hole transporting layer of inorganic material of NiOx, an electron transporting material layer and a second electrode of metal as taught by Di Girolamo et al., because Peng et al. explicitly suggests the optoelectronic device to be perovskite solar cell and Di Girolamo et al. teaches perovskite solar cell having such structure would achieve large photoconversion efficiency and displayed an hysteresis-free behavior with excellent time stability of the maximum power output (see abstract, conclusions).
Regarding claim 9, modified Peng et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim above, wherein Peng et al. discloses the counter-anion is present within the layer comprising the crystalline A/M/X material (see abstract and scheme 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 18, 25, 28, 30-31, and 51-53 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant points to Applicant’s disclosure and more specifically pages 72-73 and the figures comparing the performances of the perovskite device using perovskite (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.9Br0.1)3 and ionic liquid of BMIMBF4 with ionic liquid of BMIMCl to show the advantages of BMIMBF4 over BMIMCl in the perovskite solar cell.
However, the optoelectronic device of perovskite solar cell of (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.9Br0.1)3 and BMIMBF4 is not specifically claimed in claim 1, and perovskite of (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.9Br0.1)3 and BMIMCl is not what disclosed by the prior art, e.g. Peng.
Accordingly, Applicant does not directly or indirectly compare the claimed invention and the closest prior art according to MPEP 716.02(b)(I), (II) and (III), nor unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention according to MPEP 716.02(d) and comparison with closest prior art according to MPEP 716.02(e).
Peng discloses the ionic liquid BMII could coordinate with PbI2 to retard the reaction of PbI2 and CH3NH3I through the ionic exchange process (see abstract). As such, it is expected that ionic liquid with multiple coordinating sites would coordinate with PbI2 better. Furthermore, Toma explicitly teaches ionic liquid with anion of BF4 is expected to be improve the conversion efficiency of the solar cell (see [0011] and [0018]).
Applicant argues Calio, Huang and Peng Chen do not teach the claimed invention, because there is no guidance in Calio to include ionic liquid in the perovskite except paragraph [0011], while the entire document describes including ionic liquid in the hole transporting layer.
However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (see the rejection above). Furthermore, Applicant explicitly claims the counter-anion of the ionic liquid is within the charge transporting material (see claim 9), or incorporating the ionic liquid in the charge transporting layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights