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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/01/2025 and 12/15/2025 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, 4, 6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Patent 9, 391,287), in view of Li et al. (“Anchoring Fullerene onto Perovskite Film via Grafting Pyridine toward Enhanced Electron Transport in High-Efficiency Solar Cells”), and further in view Jokar et al. (“Slow surface passivation and crystal relaxation with additives to improve device performance and durability for tin-based perovskite solar cells”).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6, Huang et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell comprising:
a perovskite layer (see perovskite layer 106; fig. 2; col. 7, lines 5-21);
a surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative (112; fig. 2; col. 7, lines 5-21; col. 9, lines 1-57);
a bathocuproine (BCP) layer (see BCP layer described in col. 7, lines 5-21; col. 6, lines 49-54; col. 9, lines 1-57);
a C60 electron transport layer (110, fig. 2) which is described to be positioned between and in contact with the BCP layer and a surface treatment layer (112, see col. 7, lines 5-21 and col. 9, lines 1-57);
a PEDOT:PSS hole transport layer (108, fig. 2) deposited on a bottom side of the perovskite layer (106, see fig. 2; col. 7, lines 5-21 and col. 9, lines 1-57);
wherein the surface treatment layer (112) is physically distinct from the perovskite layer (106, see fig. 2).
Huang et al. discloses using PCBM or ICBA (or the functionalized fullerene derivative) for the surface treatment layer (112, see fig. 2), and annealing PCBM layer (see col. 9, lines 38-40). In other words, the surface treatment layer of functionalized fullerene derivative of Huang et al. is an annealed surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative.
Huang et al. does not disclose using functionalized fullerene derivative having structure of Formula I as claimed.
Li et al. teaches using C60-BPy, which has a structure of Formula I as claimed with R being a monocyclic aromatic ring comprising one nitrogen, covering the top side of the perovskite layer (see Scheme 1 and Fig. 2). Li et al. teaches C60-BPy providing higher efficiency than PCBM (see table 1). It is noted C60-BPy has the structure (1) as claimed in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perovskite solar cell of Huang et al. by using C60-BPy taught by Li et al. in place of PCBM, because Li et al. teaches using C60-BPy would provide higher efficiency. In addition, the recitation of how to form the surface treatment layer by annealing the surface treatment layer so that the surface treatment layer is an annealed surface treatment layer is directed toward a process limitations that does not further define the structure of the perovskite solar cell. See MPEP 2113. Regardless, how the surface treatment layer is formed by a wet process such as spin-coating and annealing to drive off the solvent or by a dry process, in the end a surface treatment layer of functionalized fullerene derivative is still a surface treatment layer of functionalized fullerene derivative.
Huang et al. does not disclose using tin-based perovskite composition having the empirical formula: CsxEDAyFA1-x-2ySnI3 wherein x is from about 0 to about 0.12, y is from about 0.01to about 0.03, FA is formamidinium, and EDA is ethylenediamine (claim 1); nor do they teach x is about 0 and y is about 0.02 (claim 6).
Jokar et al. discloses doping FASnI3 with EDAI2 to obtain a perovskite composition having formula of EDAyFA1-2ySnI3 to passivate surface defects, to control the film morphology and to improve crystallinity (see abstract, fig. 1(a)(2)), wherein the content of EDA is selected to be 1% or 2% or 3% (See fig. 2, Results and discussion), or y is 0.01 or 0.02 or 0.03. EDAyFA1-2ySnI3 with 1%, 2% or 3% EDA read on the claimed empirical formula CsxEDAyFA1-x-2ySnI3 where x is about 0 and y is about 0.01 (or 1%) to about 0.03 (or 3%) in claim 1. EDAyFA1-2ySnI3 with 2% EDA read on the claimed empirical formula CsxEDAyFA1-x-2ySnI3 where x is about 0 and y is about 0.02 (or 2%) in claim 6.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the solar cell of Huang et al. by using the perovskite having formula EDAyFA1-2ySnI3 from doping FASnI3 with 1% or 2% or 3% of EDAI2 as taught by Jokar et al.; because Jokar et al. teaches tin-based perovskite is less toxic and lead-free perovskite solar cells for commercialization, and adding impurities EDA with such amount would control the film morphology, passivate the surface defect states and prevent oxidation to improve crystallinity (of the perovskite) for high performance and efficiency and great (see Abstract, Broader context, Introduction, and conclusion).
Modified Huang et al. discloses all the structural limitation of the claimed perovskite solar cell, and more specifically the same functionalized fullerene derivative as claimed and disclosed. Therefore, the functionalized fullerene derivative of modified Huang et al., or C60-BPy taught by Li et al., will display the same characteristic/property of suppressing defects in the tin-based perovskite surface, minimizing interfacial non-radiative combination losses, and enhancing the power conversion efficiency of the perovskite solar cell (PVSC), and the perovskite of modified Huang et al. will display the properties of being an inverted PVSC having a power conversion efficiency (PCE) of about 14.14% as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, modified Huang et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Huang et al. teaches the solar cell including a substrate (ITO 102/glass 118, fig. 2) to which the hole transport layer (PEDOT:PSS) is deposited thereon, and a metal electrode (anode 102 of aluminum - Al shown in fig. 2, and described in col. 7, lines 5-21 and col. 9, lines 1-56) on the BCP layer (see col. 7, lines 5-21 and col. 9, lines 1-56).
Regarding claim 10, modified Huang et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 8 above, wherein Huang et al. discloses the substrate comprises ITO/glass (see fig. 2).
Claims 2-3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Huang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sawaki (US 2017/0062746).
Regarding claim 3, modified Huang et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Li et al. discloses the substituent R of the fullerene is a pyridine ring (see claim 1 above).
Modified Huang et al. not disclose using R is pyrazine as claimed in claim 2, or polycyclic aromatic ring selected from the group consisting of isoquinoline, naphthyridine, and a combination thereof as claimed in claims 3 and 21.
Sawaki discloses pyrazine ring, isoquinoline ring or naphthyridine ring among other preferred substituents of fullerene that are equivalent to pyridine (see [0184]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify functionalized fullerene derivative of modified Huang et al. by using pyrazine ring, isoquinoline ring or naphthyridine ring as taught by Sawaki in place of the pyridine ring as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent substituents for fullerene recognized in the art and of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Huang teaches PCBM layer may be spun on he formed perovskite layers after cooling to room temperature, but does not teach that the spun PCBM layer is annealed in col. 9, and contradictorily argues Huang teaches an annealed layer that includes PCBM layer in col. 9, but does not teach pre-annealed layer nor a separate PCBM layer independent from the perovskite layer.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First of all, a pre-annealed surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative is not claimed, nor disclosed.
Secondly, Applicant points to paragraph [0101] for the support of the “annealed surface treatment layer”, which describes “[a]bout 50~120 mL C60-BPy solution is spin-coated on top of the perovskite layer at from about 4000-6000rpm for about 10~25 s, and next transferred to the hotplate and annealed at from about 60-80oC for about 2~5min”. As such, Applicant does not even disclose a pre-annealed layer in the originally filed disclosure, nor annealing the PCBM independently from the perovskite layer in the process of making the perovskite solar cell. Contradictorily to Applicant’s arguments, Huang discloses annealing the PCBM layer in col. 9 and explicitly shows the PCBM layer (112) is a layer independently from the perovskite layer (106, see fig. 2).
Thirdly, annealing to form an “anneal surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative” is a process limitation.
Fourthly, regardless how the surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative is annealed, before being deposited onto the perovskite or after being deposited onto the perovskite, the surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative is still an annealed surface treatment layer of a functionalized fullerene derivative (or the surface treatment layer of functionalized fullerene derivative is being annealed).
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