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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant continues to amend the claims, and elects with traverse of species C drawn to leading absorbing material being a neutral molecule, and subspecies 1 drawn to using first and second transparent conductive oxide layers and lead absorbing material being disposed on the second transparent conductive oxide, in the reply filed on 6/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction employs the wrong standard because the present application is a national stage entry.
This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
First of all, the claims have been amended on 11/08/2024 to claim a different solar cell, e.g. first transparent conductive oxide/perovskite composition/second transparent conductive oxide, from the PCT application; since the PCT describes a solar cell of transparent conductive oxide/perovskite composition/metal electrode (see numerous subspecies shown in figs. 21-27). That is, Applicant has amended the claims to claim the invention that is not claimed in the PCT application. As such, the claims are restricted under US standard, and are not applicable for 371 standard.
Secondly, the restriction is species restriction and the species are completely and chemically distinct. There is no common technical feature among the species.
Thirdly, it is a burden to the examiner to search for numerous chemically different species as claimed in claims 3, 6 and 9, and numerous subspecies as shown in figs. 21-27. If Applicant admits on the record that numerous chemical species and numerous subspecies are obvious over one another, the claims will be rejoint, since a single search would suffice for all species and subspecies. By so admitting, applicants stipulate that if a reference is considered prior art over one species and one subspecies, it shall be considered prior art over all other species and subspecies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 3 and 6 are withdrawn from consideration for being directed to non-elected species; claims 35 and 37, 40 and 44, 47 are withdrawn from consideration for being directed toward carbon electrode, not elected subspecies of second transparent conductive oxide; claim 49 is withdrawn from consideration for being directed to a non-elected subspecies that is canceled, e.g. including metal electrode.
Claims 1, 9, 11-12, 14-16, 21, 31, 45, 54 and 56 are being examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "said first transport layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "said second transport layer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 9, 11-12 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (“High performance planar p-i-n perovskite solar cells with crown-ether functionalized fullerene and LiF as double cathode buffer layers”)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lei et al. discloses a solar cell (fig. 1) comprising an active layer comprising a perovskite composition comprising lead (see CH3NH3PbI3-xClx in fig. 1), and crown-ether (see crown-ether in fig. 1). Crown-ether is the same material as claimed in claim 9. As such, the crown-ether is a lead absorbing material as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the perovskite composition is CH3NH3PbI3-xClx , which has the formula ABX3 as claimed in claim 11 and MAPbI3 and MAPbCl3 as claimed in claim 12.
Regarding claim 54, Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the solar cell is single junction solar cell (see fig. 1).
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“On-device lead sequestration for perovskite solar cells”) in view of Wei et al. (CN 108034372, see the machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Li et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell comprising an active layer comprising perovskite composition comprising lead (see fig. 1a, and page 556) and a lead absorbing material (see fig. 1).
Li et al. uses the lead absorbing material of EDTMP-PEO incorporated with the encapsulant (EVA, see fig. 1a).
Li et al. does not teach using the lead absorbing material to be neutral molecule such as crown ether, cyclodextrin, porphyrin, calixarene, calixcarbazole, pillararene, or cucurbituril.
Wei et al. teaches incorporating ion absorbing material of neutral molecule such as crown ether ([0015] and [0032-0034]). It is noted lead is an ion in perovskite composition.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of Li et al. by using crown ether as taught by Wei et al., because Wei et al. the ion absorption material such as crown ether would reduce movement speed of harmful ions, reduce or eliminate occurrence of leakage current and enhance the anti-PID performance of the encapsulant EVA (see [0020] of the machine translation of Wei et al.). Furthermore, the crown ether of modified Li et al. will absorb lead. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Li et al. discloses the perovskite composition including MAPbBr3 (see page 556).
Regarding claim 14, modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 11 above, wherein Li et al. discloses the perovskite composition is (CsPbI3)0.05(FAPbI3)0.85(MAPbBr3)0.15 (see page 556), which has the formula as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 54, modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Li et al. teaches the solar cell is a single junction solar cell (see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Shi et al. (US 2022/0277902, the subject matter relied herein is fully supported by the provisional application No. 62/880,989 having a filing date on 7/31/ 2019 before Applicant’s provisional application filing date of 6/30/2020).
Regarding claim 14, Liu et al. or modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Liu et al. uses CH3NH3PbI3-xClx (see claim 1 above or fig. 1 of Liu et al.).
Liu et al. does not disclose using the perovskite composition of RbxCsyFA1-x-y-zMAzPbI3-fBrf with x+y+z < 1 and f<3.
Shi et al. discloses perovskite composition having formula ABX3 with A including Cs+ and Rb+, MA, FA (see [0029-0030]), B to be Pb2+, and X to be -Br- and I- (see [0030]) and adjusting the amount of source materials would adjust (bend) the band energy to achieve the desired bandgap (see [0034-0035]). Shi et al. provide examples of the perovskite composition to be Rb0.05Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.9Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 (see [0030]), which having the formular as claimed in the instant claim.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of Liu et al. by using the perovskite composition of Rb0.05Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.9Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 to provide a desired bandgap as taught by Shi et al. 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).
Regarding claim 15, modified Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 14 above, wherein Rb0.05Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.9Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 is used.
Modified Liu et al. does not teach using Rb0.05Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.05PbI2.85Br0.15 with the amount of Br to be 0.15 and the amount of MA to be 0.05 as claimed. However, Shi et al. teaches using 0.15 for Br (see the last example in [0030]) and 0.05 MA (see the example FA0.95MA0.05Pb(I0.95Br0.05)3 in [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used 0.15 Br and 0.05 MA such that the perovskite composition Rb0.05Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.9Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 become Rb0.05Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.05PbI2.85Br0.15 to provide a desired bandgap for the perovskite solar cell.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Duong et al. (“Rubidium Multication Perovskite with Optimized Bandgap for Perovskite-Silicon Tandem with over 26% Efficiency”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 11 above, wherein Li et al. teaches the perovskite composition is (CsPbI3)0.05(FAPbI3)0.85(MAPbBr3)0.15 which has 0.05 of Cs, 0.85 of FA and 0.15 of Br.
Modified Li et al. does not teach including Rb so that the perovskite composition is Rb0.05Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.05PbI2.85Br0.15 .
Duong et al. teaches doping CsFAMAPbIBr with 5% of Rb to improve performance of the cell (see pages 3-4, abstract and conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Li et al. by doping the CsFAMAPbIBr of Li et al. with 5% of Rb, or partially substituting the MA with 5% Rb, as taught by Duong et al., because Duong et al. teaches adding Rb would improve performance of the cell. In such modification, the amount of Rb will be 0.05 (or 5%) and the CsFAMAPbIBr of modified Li et al. is Rb0.05Cs0.05FA0.85MA0.05PbI2.85Br0.15.
Claim(s) 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. or modified Li et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Irwin et al. (US 2015/0144195).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Liu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Liu et al. teaches using one transparent conductive oxide layer is one transparent conductive oxide layer (ITO, see fig. 1), and the perovskite composition (CH3NH3PbI3-xClx) being disposed on first electrode of the transparent conductive oxide layer (ITO) and the lead absorbing material (or crown ether) is in a lead absorbing material layer (or PCBC layer, fig. 1) is disposed on second electrode of metal layer (see fig. 1).
Liu et al. or modified Li et al. does not teach one or more transparent comprising a first transparent conductive oxide layer and a second transparent conductive oxide layer such that the perovskite composition is disposed on the first transparent conductive oxide and the second transparent conductive oxide layer is disposed on the perovskite composition as claimed in claim 16 and the lead absorbing material layer and the lead absorbing material is disposed on the second transparent conductive oxide layer as claimed in claim 21.
Irwin et al. teaches a solar cell comprising a first transparent conductive oxide (FTO, figs. 14-15, 25, 38, 39) and a second transparent conductive oxide (FTO, figs. 14-15, 25, 38, 39, [0108] and [0166]). Irwin et al. teaches transparency would allow solar radiation to transmit through ([0108-0109], [0113], [0149], [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of Liu et al. or modified Li et al. by using the second transparent conductive oxide as taught by Irwin et al. in place of the metal electrode (Al) of Liu et al. or (Au) of Li et al. such that the one or more transparent conductive oxide layers comprising a first transparent conductive oxide and a second transparent oxide as taught by Irwin et al., because Irwin et al. using transparent layer conductive oxide would allow solar radiation to transmit through. 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).
In such modification, when the metal electrode is replaced with the second transparent conductive oxide layer, the perovskite composition is disposed on the first transparent conductive oxide and the second transparent conductive oxide layer is disposed on the perovskite composition as claimed in claim 16 and the lead absorbing material layer and the lead absorbing material is disposed on the second transparent conductive oxide layer.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Li et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (“Defect passivation in hybrid perovskite solar cells using quaternary ammonium halide anions and cations”).
Regarding claim 31, modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 21 above, wherein the lead absorbing material is a neutral molecule (see claim 1 above) and the second electrode is the second transparent conductive oxide layer (see claim 21 above). Li et al. teaches disposing the lead absorbing material directly on the second electrode, and using a standard perovskite solar cell stack (see fig. 1a).
Modified Li et al. does not teach perovskite solar cell stack of the first transparent conductive ITO, first transport layer of PTAA, perovskite composition of MAPbI3, second transport layer comprising C60, and a buffer layer BCP as claimed.
Zheng et al. teaches a perovskite stack of first transparent conductive ITO, first transport layer of PTAA, perovskite composition of MAPbI3, second transport layer comprising C60, and a buffer layer BCP as claimed (see fig. 1a). Zheng et al. discloses such stack is made mostly by solution processing (see methods).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the perovskite solar cell stack taught by Zheng et al. in place of the perovskite stack of Li et al.; because Zheng et al. teaches such stack is made by mostly solution processing (or inexpensive process).
Claim(s) 45 and 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. or modified Li et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and in view of Lee et al. (WO 2019/160264 having an English equivalence of US 2021/0082634).
Regarding claims 45 and 56, Liu et al. and modified Li et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 16 above.
Liu et al. or modified Li et al. does not teach using a plurality of solar cells to form a solar module as in claim 45, nor do they teach including a polymer encapsulation of polypropylene affixed to the back side of the solar cell module.
Lee et al. discloses encapsulating a plurality of perovskite solar cells (150) to form a solar module (see figs. 2-7), wherein a polypropylene (PP) polymer encapsulation (132) is affixed to the back side of the solar module (see figs. 2-7, [0101]) to prevent thermal degradation and/or damage to a perovskite absorbing layer, prevent deterioration of performance of the solar module, and improve reliability of the solar module (see [0033-0036]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a plurality of solar cells taught by Liu et al. or modified Li et al. to form a solar module and using polypropylene polymer encapsulation affixed to the back side of the solar module as taught by Lee et al.; because Lee et al. teaches such uses would prevent thermal degradation and/or damage to a perovskite absorbing layer, prevent deterioration of performance of the solar module, and improve reliability of the solar module.
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