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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-35 (13-35 withdrawn) are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 13-15, 17, 18, 23 and 27 were amended via the instant amendment dated 4 March 2026 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 4 March 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Wang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring x+y<0.80 as Wang discloses doping of the Cs at 0-20 mol% which would be x+y>=0.80 which cannot anticipate <0.80. The rejection instead is made infra over 35 U.S.C. 103, while Applicants discuss unexpected results (as discussed infra), the maximum value for x+y which data is provided for is x+y=0.66 (Remarks at 9). The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang in view of Saliba was made en masse over that of the independent claim rejection, though Applicants also state that in Wang, “teaches away from increasing a third A-site cation (Cs+) to a concentration above 10-15 mol% . . .”(Remarks at 8). However, Wang does not “affirmatively” teach away, “Fig. 3(a)” of Wang discloses broadly 0-20 mol% doping for Cs, while a decrease in grain size boundary is disclosed, this does not definitively teach away from using 15-20%, the same holds true with the hazy film aspect. Should Applicants wish to provide data showing that the critical change is at 20%, then they must also ensure that this data is commensurate in scope with respect to the species claimed too.
The rejection of claims 1-10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tan in view of Ma is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring x+y<0.80.
The traversal is that while Tan discloses broadly all values for x and y (and thusly 1-x-y), Applicants have shown that selecting x+y<0.80 presents an unexpected result. Given that Tan discloses a broad range, and there is nothing in Tan nor Ma to suggest setting x+y<0.80, there is no reason one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected a particular value, especially <0.80. The rejection of claim 11 over the asme in further view of Yuan is WITHDRAWN as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wang-2 in view of Ma is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment limiting A to FA, Ma, Cs, Rb, or GUA and A’’ to Cs, Rb, or GUA. Wang-2 discloses x=0.03, y=0.025 and x+y=0.0525 with A=Cs, A’=MA, A’’=FA, there can be no changing in the A/A’/A’’ sites due to the amended claim as A’’ cannot be FA and if one was to instead make A’’ Cs it would not work to meet the claim due to then having x=0.945, y=0.025 which would be greater than 0.80. The dependent rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the same in further view of Yuan is WITHDRAWN as the base rejection was withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 nad 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zhang in view of Saliba-2 is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment requiring x+y<0.80 as Saliba-2 discloses the A’’ site is doped at 15% where the claim requires it to be doped at at least 20%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8, Wang discloses a composition comprising:
A layer of formula AxA’yA’’1-x-yBX3 wherein A=MA, A’=FA, A’’=Cs, B=Pb, and X=I (Wang at 2439 R col) and a non-perovskite phase (CsPbI3, Id.) where the value for the A’’ subscript can be 0-20 mol% (“Figure 3(a) caption”) and 20% would be x+y=0.80 which abuts upon x+y<0.80 which has been held to be prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05); CsPbI3 is disclosed as being a delta phase which is non-perovskite, 2437 R col states it is orthorhombic which is not a perovskite).
As to claim 10, the desire in Wang is to keep the amount of delta phase to at most 15% (Wang at 2437 R col).
With respect to claim 11, given presence of 15% Cs and the presence of a α/δ-3 and that the Instant Specification at [0198] sets forth that the cation migration would be reduced, and as such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that same outcome, absent evidence to the contrary and the Office is unable to test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))".
Turning to claim 12, the thickness is ~500 nm (2440 L col).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of “Cesium-Containing Triple Cation Perovskite Solar Cells: Improved Stability, Reproducibility and High Efficiency” to Saliba et al. (hereinafter, “Saliba at __”; cited and provided by Applicants).
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not disclose adding Br to the X site.
Saliba in a method of making a perovskite containing PV material (Saliba at “Abstract”) discloses doping the B site with some Br (Saliba at 1990 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to dope the X site of Wang with the Br of Saliba. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being which increases the thermal stability (Saliba a t1991).
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 “Enhancing Defect Tolerance and Phase Stability of High-Bandgap Perovskites via Guanidinium Alloying” to Stoddard et al. (hereinafter, “Stoddard at __”) in view of Ma (claim 11 is rejected over the same but evidenced by Yuan).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-8, Stoddard discloses a composition comprising AxA’yA’’1-x-yBX3 wherein A=FA, A’’=Cs, and A’=GUA x=0.58 or 0.33, y=0.10 or 0.19, 1-x-y=0.32 or 0.47 so x+y=0.68 (Stoddard at “Figure 2(b)”), B=Pb, and X=I and Br. 0.19 would also abut upon 0.2<=y<=0.5 for claim 8.
However, Stoddard does not expressly state the presence a non-perovskite phase in the layer.
Ma also in a solar cell PV material discloses that a mixed a/d (perovskite/non-perovskite) phase may be formed (Ma at “Abstract”) utilizing the trihalide perovskite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the phase of the material of Stoddard to produce the mixed phase of Ma. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being lower wavelength of NIR emissions and structural stability (Ma at 800 R col).
Concerning claim 9, GUA can be present at at least 25% (Stoddard at 1264 L col) and x at 0.33 and this thusly overlaps as y>=25% covers y=0.33 which is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.
Turning to claim 10, the perovskite is present at 1.2 times the non-perovskite which is thusly less than 50% (Ma at “Abstract”). While the claim says “by volume”, given the mass difference the volume difference would be equally expected to be below 50%.
As to claim 11, ion migration is suppressed with a decrease in grain size (Ma at 800 R col) as evidenced by Yuan (at “Figure 5”).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are finally rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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).
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759