DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 3 and 8-9 are amended.
Claims 10-12 are cancelled.
Claim 16 is new.
Claims 1-9 and 13-16 are pending.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 8-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG (TiO2/RbPbI3 halide perovskite solar cells) in view of ZHANG II (Enhanced Power Conversion Efficiency of Perovskite Solar Cells with an Up-Conversion Material of Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ Tri-doped TiO2), with evidence provided by RICHARDS (The Mechanism of Iodine Reduction by TiO2 Electrons and the Kinetics of Recombination in Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells).
Regarding claim 3, JUNG teaches a composite that is an aggregate or a thin film comprising a perovskite structure as a main component (see the composite that is an aggregate or a thin film comprising a RbPbI3 structure as a main component; see Fig. 5a attached below), and core-shell particles (see the core-shell particles with TiO2 core and RbPbI3 shell; see Fig. 5a attached below), wherein each of the core shell particle comprises a core-shell structure (see the TiO2 core - RbPbI3 shell structure), wherein each of the core shell particle comprises an inorganic nanoparticle (see the TiO2 nanoparticle in Fig. 5a attached below); and a coating layer (see the RbPbI3 coating layer) formed on a surface of the inorganic nanoparticle (see Fig. 5a attached below and Fig. 5c showing SEM image and EDAX elemental mapping), and formed of an inorganic perovskite (see the RbPbI3, which is an inorganic perovskite).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claimed “an inorganic nanoparticle having a light wavelength conversion ability that converts an absorbed long-wavelength light into a short-wavelength light; wherein main materials of the inorganic nanoparticle comprise a rare earth element”, JUNG teaches an inorganic nanoparticle (see the TiO2 nanoparticle) having a light wavelength conversion ability (TiO2 has a light wavelength conversion ability) and main materials of the inorganic nanoparticle (see TiO2 materials), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “that converts an absorbed long-wavelength light into a short-wavelength light; a rare earth element”. However, ZHANG II discloses a TiO2/perovskite solar cell, wherein the Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ tri-doping into the TiO2 material presents an enhanced up-conversion emission, expands the spectral absorption of perovskite solar cells from visible light to near-infrared, and improves the performance of solar cells (see Abstract and Conclusions), wherein up-conversion materials in perovskite solar cells (PSCs) can convert NIR to visible light (see Background). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ tri-doping into the TiO2 nanoparticle in the device of JUNG as taught by ZHANG II, because the Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ tri-doping into the TiO2 presents an enhanced up-conversion emission, expands the spectral absorption of perovskite solar cells from visible light to near-infrared, and improves the performance of solar cells. Therefore, modified JUNG teaches an inorganic nanoparticle having a light wavelength conversion ability that converts an absorbed long-wavelength light into a short-wavelength light (The Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ tri-doped TiO2 nanoparticle has a light wavelength conversion ability that converts NIR (corresponding to the claimed “an absorbed long-wavelength light”) to visible light (corresponding to the claimed “a short-wavelength light”)), wherein main materials of the inorganic nanoparticle comprise a rare earth element (see Er, Yb).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 3.
JUNG teaches the inorganic nanoparticle in each of the core shell particles is a particle having a diameter of 10 nm to 100 nm (see Experimental: A mesoporous TiO2 layer, which was prepared diluted
TiO2 paste (DYESOL-18NRT) with ethanol; An evidence provided by RICHARDS, 18NRT Dyesol contains TiO2 crystal with ~20 nm diameter), a thickness of the coating layer is 5% or more of the diameter of the inorganic nanoparticle (see the SEM image in Fig. 5a; The average diameter of TiO2 nanoparticles coated with RbPbI3 layer is measured as to about 25 nm; Based on the measurement, the thickness of the coating layer is calculated as to about 12.5% of the diameter of the TiO2 nanoparticle), wherein a coverage of the coating layer on the surface of the inorganic nanoparticle is 50% or more and 100% or less (see P52, It is important to note that most of the TiO2 layer was covered by the RbPbI3 perovskite layer and see Fig. 5c, SEM image and corresponding EDAX elemental mapping; The coating layer on the surface of the TiO2 nanoparticle is considered to be 100%), and the core-shell particle forms a layer while in contact with the perovskite structure (see Fig. 5a, 5c; The core-shell particle with TiO2 core and RbPbI3 shell forms a layer while in contact with the RbPbI3 structure).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
JUNG teaches the coverage of the coating layer on the surface of the inorganic nanoparticle in each of the core shell particles is 100% (see the rejection of claim 8; see 100%).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 3.
Modified JUNG teaches the absorbed long-wavelength light is near infrared light and the short-wavelength light is visible light or ultraviolet light (see the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
Modified JUNG teaches the absorbed long-wavelength light is near infrared light and the short-wavelength light is visible light or ultraviolet light (see the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
Modified JUNG teaches the absorbed long-wavelength light is near infrared light and the short-wavelength light is visible light or ultraviolet light (see the rejection of claim 3).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG (TiO2/RbPbI3 halide perovskite solar cells) in view of ZHANG II (Enhanced Power Conversion Efficiency of Perovskite Solar Cells with an Up-Conversion Material of Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ Tri-doped TiO2), with evidence provided by RICHARDS (The Mechanism of Iodine Reduction by TiO2 Electrons and the Kinetics of Recombination in Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells) as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of NG (Cesium Lead Halide Inorganic-Based Perovskite-Sensitized Solar Cell for Photo-Supercapacitor Application under High Humidity Condition).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 3.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the coating layer comprises CsPbX3 wherein X is Cl-, Br-, or I-”, JUNG teaches the coating layer comprises RbPbI3 (see the RbPbI3 coating layer), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “CsPbX3 wherein X is Cl-, Br-, or I-”. However, NG discloses cesium lead halide inorganic-based perovskite-sensitized solar cell, wherein cesium lead halide inorganic material is CsPbBr3-xIx (x=0), (see Abstract, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the RbPbI3 in JUNG with the CsPbBr3-xIx (x=0) as taught by NG, because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function is a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2141 {III} {B}) and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima face obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/04/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that “The up-conversion function is located in a different layer”, is not persuasive.
The claim 1 requires “an inorganic nanoparticle having a light wavelength conversion ability that converts an absorbed long-wavelength light into a short-wavelength light”. Modified JUNG teaches Er3+-Yb3+-Li+ tri-doped TiO2 nanoparticle, which has a light wavelength conversion ability that converts an absorbed long-wavelength light into a short-wavelength light (see the rejection of claim 1 in the previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that “Jung et al.'s interconnected TiO2 has lost its particulate form and is not the presently claimed “core-shell particles””, is not persuasive.
The interconnected TiO2 still has TiO2 nanoparticle (see Fig. 5(a)), and Fig. 5(a) shows the core-shell particles with TiO2 core and RbPbI3 shell.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that “The composite recited in claim 3 of the present application comprises three structurally distinct materials: (a) a perovskite structure as the main component (matrix), (b) a coating layer (shell) of an inorganic perovskite, and (c) inorganic nanoparticles (core). The requirement of claim 3 of the present application are not met”, is not persuasive.
JUNG teaches a perovskite structure as a main component (see the RbPbI3 structure as a main component (which is on the TiO2 compact layer); see Fig. 5a attached below) and a core-shell particles (see the core-shell particles with TiO2 core and RbPbI3 shell; see Fig. 5a attached below) (see the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that “Because neither Jung et al. nor Zhang et al. describes or suggests nanoparticle formation using chain organic molecules, the presently claimed invention could not have been arrived at by combining them.”, is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s argument is regarding the product by process and is related with the product which was not claimed. The argument is not commensurate with scope with the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified and/or 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights