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 claims
The amendment to claims filed on 11/27/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 11 is amended. Claim 12 is canceled. Currently, claims 11 and 13-20 are pending in the application with claim 20 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous prior art rejection is maintained since Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection (see the response to argument below), and is modified to address the above amendment (see the rejection below).
Previous double patenting rejection is maintained since no terminal disclaimer being filed.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected.
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 14 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 14 depends on claim 11 and recites “an amount of brommethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide and cesium iodide is 100%, an amount of bromomethylamine is 1%-5%, an amount of iodoformamidine is 10%-28%, an amount of lead iodide is 50%-80%, and an amount of cesium iodine is balance”, while claim 11 is amended to recite a narrower range “an amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide and cesium iodide is 100%; an amount of bromomethylamine is 1% -5%, an amount of iodoformamidine is 10% -28%, an amount of lead iodide is 50% -80%, an amount of cesium iodide is balance; and an amount of 3,4-dichloroaniline is 0.6% -1.15% of the amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide, and cesium iodide” in lines 9-13. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation, and the claim also recites the narrower statement of the range/limitation in claim 11. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 depends on claim 11 and recites “an amount of brommethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide and cesium iodide is 100%, an amount of bromomethylamine is 1%-5%, an amount of iodoformamidine is 10%-28%, an amount of lead iodide is 50%-80%, and an amount of cesium iodine is balance”, while claim 11 is amended to recite a narrower range “an amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide and cesium iodide is 100%; an amount of bromomethylamine is 1% -5%, an amount of iodoformamidine is 10% -28%, an amount of lead iodide is 50% -80%, an amount of cesium iodide is balance; and an amount of 3,4-dichloroaniline is 0.6% -1.15% of the amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide, and cesium iodide” in lines 9-13. As such, claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim, e.g. claim 11, upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 11, 13-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (“Dipolar cations confer defect tolerance in wide-bandgap metal halide perovskites”) in view of Wen et al. (“Optimization of Perovskite Thin Film Crystallization of Solar Cell Performance Through Adding m-Chloroaniline”).
Regarding claim 11, Tan et al. discloses a method for improving the stability of a perovskite solar cell (see “solar cell fabrication” in pages 7-8), comprising
preparing a perovskite precursor solution for CsMAFAPb(IBr)3 that includes a perovskite precursor and a solvent (DMF and DMSO), the perovskite precursor includes bromomethylamine, (MABr), iodoformamidine (FAI), lead iodide (PbI2), cesium iodide (CsI);
preparing a perovskite layer of the perovskite solar cell from the perovskite precursor solution; and
improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell.
Tan et al. teaches introducing chlorine (Cl) would form a contact passivation (see “improved photovoltaic performance with dipolar cation” in pages 2-3).
Tan et al. does not teach including 3,4-dichloroaniline in the precursor.
Wen et al. teaches adding m-chloroaniline in the precursor solution to produce perovskite films with high crystallinity, high coverage and dendritic-oriented morphology, and thereby increasing power conversion efficiency see abstract, table 1, “solar cell performance” and conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tan et al. by adding chloroaniline in the precursor as taught by Wen et al.; because Wen et al. teaches such addition would produce perovskite films with high crystallinity, high coverage and dendritic-oriented morphology thereby increasing power conversion efficiency; and Tan et al. teaches introducing chlorine would provide contact passivation. In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used 3,4-dichloroaniline, since 3,4-dichloroaniline is a chloroaniline and is a homolog of m-chloroaniline, or 3,4-dichloroaniline is different from m-chloroaniline by successive addition of Cl group, and homologs are generally sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presume expectation that such compounds process similar properties, e.g. produce high crystallinity and introducing chlorine for passivation. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.).
Tan et al. teaches the amount of each binary salts in the precursor solution including bromomethylamine (or MABr), iodoformamidine (FAI), lead iodide (PbI2) and cesium iodide (CsI) are adjusted to form the desired perovskite composition (see solar cell fabrication of Tan et al.). Tan et al. uses 0.07mmol of bromomethylamine (MABr), 0.77 mmol of iodoformamidine (FAI), 0.84mmol of lead iodide (PbI2), and 0.07 mmol of cesium iodide (or CsI) in forming Cs0.12MA0.05FA0.83Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 (see solar cell fabrication of Tan et al.) , or 0.0078g (0.07/1000 mol* 111.97g/mol) of MaBr, 0.1324 g (0.77/1000 mol*171.97g/mol), of FAI, 0.3872g (or 0.84/1000 mol*461g/mol) of PbI2, and 0.18187g (or 0.07/1000 mol*259.81g/mol) of CsI. When an amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide and cesium iodide is 100% or 0.54568g, the an amount of bromomethylamine is found to be 1.4% (or 0.0078/0.54568) which is right within the claimed range of 1%-5%, an amount of iodoformamidine is found to be 24.26% (or 0.1324/0.54568) which is right within the claimed range of 10% - 28%, an amount of lead iodide is found to be 70.96% (or 0.3872/0.54568) which is right within the claimed range of 50%-80%, and an amount of cesium iodide is balance.
Wen et al. teaches adjusting the amount of chloroaniline to find the optimum performances and efficiency of the MAPbI3 perovskite solar cell (see table 1, solar cell performance, and conclusions of the translation)
Modified Tan et al. does not teach an amount of 3,4- dichloroaniline is 0.6%-1.15% of the amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide, and cesium iodide.
However, as the performances and efficiency of the perovskite solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting amount of chloroaniline in the precursor solution including bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide, and cesium iodide 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 amount of 3,4- dichloroaniline is 0.6%-1.15% of the amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide, and cesium iodide 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 3,4- dichloroaniline based on the amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide, and cesium iodide to be 0.6%-1.15% in the method of modified Tan et al. to obtain the optimum efficiency of the perovskite solar cell as explicitly shown by Wen et al. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since 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 13, modified Tan et al. discloses a method as in claim 11 above, wherein Tan et al. teaches the solvent is a mixture of a sulfone solvent (or DMSO) and an amide solvent (or DMF).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tan et al. discloses a method as in claim 11 above, wherein wherein Tan et al. teaches the amount of each binary salts in the precursor solution including bromomethylamine (or MABr), iodoformamidine (FAI), lead iodide (PbI2) and cesium iodide (CsI) are adjusted to form the desired perovskite composition (see solar cell fabrication of Tan et al.). Tan et al. uses 0.07mmol of bromomethylamine (MABr), 0.77 mmol of iodoformamidine (FAI), 0.84mmol of lead iodide (PbI2), and 0.07 mmol of cesium iodide (or CsI) in forming Cs0.12MA0.05FA0.83Pb(I0.6Br0.4)3 (see solar cell fabrication of Tan et al.) , or 0.0078g (0.07/1000 mol* 111.97g/mol) of MaBr, 0.1324 g (0.77/1000 mol*171.97g/mol), of FAI, 0.3872g (or 0.84/1000 mol*461g/mol) of PbI2, and 0.18187g (or 0.07/1000 mol*259.81g/mol) of CsI. When an amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide and cesium iodide is 100% or 0.54568g, the an amount of bromomethylamine is found to be 1.4% (or 0.0078/0.54568) which is right within the claimed range of 1%-5%, an amount of iodoformamidine is found to be 24.26% (or 0.1324/0.54568) which is right within the claimed range of 10% - 28%, an amount of lead iodide is found to be 70.96% (or 0.3872/0.54568) which is right within the claimed range of 50%-80%, and an amount of cesium iodide is balance.
Regarding claim 15, modified Tan et al. discloses a method as in claim 11 above, wherein Tan et al. teaches spin-coating the perovskite precursor solution on a substrate (or TiO2-Cl substrate); performing a thermal annealing to obtain a light absorption layer of the perovskite solar cell (see heating at 100oC for 30min); preparing a hole transport layer (Spiro-OMeTAD) on the light absorption layer; and forming an electrode (or Au contact) on the hole transport layer to obtain the perovskite solar cell (see Solar cell fabrication in pages 7-8 of Tan et al.).
Regarding claim 17, modified Tan et al. discloses a method according as in claim 13 above, wherein Tan et al. discloses the solvent is a mixture of dimethyl sulfoxide (or DMSO) and N,N-dimethylformamide (or DMF, see “Solar cell fabrication”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Tan et al. discloses a method as in claim 17 above, wherein Tan et al. discloses a volume ratio of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) is 1 : 4 (see “Solar cell fabrication”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Tan et al. discloses a method according to claim 11, wherein Tan et al. teaches the concentration of the precursor solution is 1.4M, and the amount of precursor is adjusted to obtained a desired composition of the perovskite material (see “Solar cell fabrication” of Tan et al.).
Tan et al. does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of the perovskite precursor and the solvent is 1: (0.8-1.5).
However, the efficiency and composition of the perovskite are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amounts of materials in the precursor and the weight ratio of the perovskite precursor and the solvent. The precises weight ratio of the perovskite precursor and the solvent 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 weight ratio of the perovskite precursor and the solvent 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 weight ratio of the perovskite precursor and the solvent to be 1: (0.8-1.5) in the method of modified Tan et al. to obtain the desired balance between perovskite composition and the efficiency of the perovskite solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since 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).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tan et al. (“Dipolar cations confer defect tolerance in wide-bandgap metal halide perovskites”) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 2020/0251654).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tan et al. discloses a method as in claim 15 above, wherein Tan et al. teaches spin-coating the perovskite precursor solution on the substrate comprising a first step of spin-coating at 2000rpm for 10s with acceleration of 200 rpm s-1, a second step of 6000 rpm for 40s, and dropwise a chlorobenzene during the second step at 20s before the end of the procedure (see “Solar cell fabrication”).
Modified Tan et al. does not explicitly teach spin-coating the perovskite precursor solution at a speed of 1000 rpm for 10 seconds, spin-coating the perovskite precursor solution at a speed of 6000 rpm for 30 seconds, and dropwise the solvent for 15 seconds before spin coating is completed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Tan et al. by having the first step of spin-coating at a speed of 1000rpm for 10 seconds, and the second step of spin-coating at a speed 6000rpm for 30 second, and dropwise the solvent for 15 seconds before spin coating is complete, because such modification would involve nothing more than use of spin-coating operational parameters for intended use of forming a perovskite layer in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Tan et al. uses chlorobenzene as the solvent in the dropwise step.
Modified Tan et al. does not teach using diethyl ether.
Zhu et al. teaches diethyl ether is a suitable antisolvent to promote the forming of the solid perovskite (see [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used diethyl ether to promote the forming of the solid perovskite taught by Zhu et al. as the antisolvent in place of chlorobenzene of Tan et al. as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent antisolvent recognized in the art and one 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 13-19 of copending Application No. 18/010,151 in view
Claims 11 and 13-19 of copending Application No. 18/010,151 recites the same perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of a perovskite solar cell, but do not explicitly teaches using the perovskite precursor solution in a method of improving the stability of a perovskite solar cell that includes the step of preparing layer of the perovskite solar cell and thereby improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used the perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of a perovskite solar cell of claims 11 and 13-19 of copending Application No. 18/010,151 to prepare a perovskite layer of a perovskite solar cell in a method of forming the perovskite solar cell and thereby improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell, because claims 11 and 13-19 of copending Application No. 18/010,154 explicitly suggests doing so (see the pre-ample of claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner fails to provide a reason as why one of ordinary skill would arrive at the claimed account of 3,4-dichloroaniline to be 0.6%-1.15% of the amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, cesium iodide and cesium iodide. Applicant points to paragraphs 0021, 0027-0029, 0043-0051 of Applicant’s disclosure, and arrives a summary table below based on the paragraphs 0021, 0027-0029, 0043-0051 to draw a conclusion that the claimed invention showed unexpected result.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s table appears to be inaccurately summarize Applicant’s disclosure.
Below is the summary of Applicant’s disclosure
In paragraph 0021, or Sample 1, Applicant discloses “the perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of perovskite solar cells included: 14.1 mg of bromomethylamine, 155.4 mg of iodoformamidine, 554.3 mg of lead iodide, 47 mg of cesium iodide, 7.86 mg (i.e., 1.02%) of 3,4-dichloroaniline, 200 mL of dimethyl sulfoxide, 800 mL of N,N-dimethylfornamide”.
The amount of bromomethylamine, iodoformamidine, lead iodide, and cesium iodide is found to be 770.8mg.
The amount of bromomethylamine is found to be 1.83% (or 14.1mg/770.8mg).
The amount of iodoformamidine is found to be 20.16% (or 155.4mg/770.8mg).
The amount of lead iodide is found to be 71.91% (or 554.3mg/770.8mg).
The amount of cesium iodide is found to be 6.10% (or 47mg/770.8mg).
In paragraph [0027], or Sample 2, Applicant discloses “the above 3,4-dichloroaniline was replaced with 3,5-dichloroaniline, and the rest was unchanged to obtain an isomer perovskite precursor solution”, or 7.86mg of the isomer of 3,5-dichloroaniline is being used.
In paragraph [0028], or Sample 3, Applicant discloses “the amount of the 3,4-dichloroaniline described above was changed to 4.62 mg (0.6%), and the rest are unchanged, so as to obtain a deficient perovskite precursor solution”.
In paragraph [0029], or Sample 4, Applicant discloses “the amount of the 3,4-dichloroaniline described above was changed by 8.87 mg (1.15%), and the rest are unchanged, so as to obtain an excess perovskite precursor solution”.
In paragraphs [0031-0037], Applicant discloses the solar cell of Example 3 comprising FTO glass (ITO glass) substrate, TiO2 or SnO2 electron transport layer, Spiro-OMeTAD hole transport layer, and thick silver electrode.
In paragraph [0038], or Comparative Sample 1, Applicant discloses “Comparing Solar Cells: Conducting Example 1, with 3, 4-dichloroaniline not added, and the balance not changed, to obtain a comparison perovskite precursor solution”, or
In paragraph [0043], or Comparative Sample 2, Applicant discloses “Comparative Example: the perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell of Example 3 was replaced with the isomer perovskite precursor solution, and the rest was unchanged. The obtained isomer solar cell (FTO) was tested for same stability, and its photoelectric conversion efficiency was reduced from 15.02% of initial (0 h) to 12.58% of 100 h”.
In paragraph [0044], Applicant discloses “The perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell of Example 3 was replaced with the less perovskite precursor solution, and the rest was unchanged, to obtain an isomer solar cell (FTO). The photoelectric conversion efficiency was reduced from 15.33% of initial (0 h) to 5.68% of 100 h in the same stability test” without specifying “the less perovskite precursor solution”.
In paragraph [0045], Applicant discloses “The perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell in Example 3 was replaced with the excess perovskite precursor solution, and the rest was unchanged, to obtain an isomer solar cell (FTO). The photoelectric conversion efficiency was reduced from 14.86% of the initial (0 h) to 8.37% of 100 h in the same stability test” without specifying “the excess perovskite precursor solution”.
In paragraph [0046], Applicant discloses “Example 4: Chloride ions affected the film-forming performance of perovskite, and the composition of perovskite also had a key effect on perovskite film performance.”
In paragraph [0047], or Sample 5, Applicant discloses “The perovskite precursor solution for improving the stability of the perovskite solar cell included 14.1 mg of bromomethylamine, 155.4 mg of iodoformamidine, 554.3 mg of lead iodide, 47 mg of cesium iodide, 7.32 mg (0.95%) of 3,4-dichloroaniline, 200 mL of dimethyl sulfoxide, and 800 mL of N,N-dimethylformamide, and the preparation method thereof was the same as Example 1”.
As such, the last two comparative examples summarized in the table of Applicant’s arguments as the matter of fact are Applicant’s own invention (0.6%) and (1.15%). Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention has inferior performance than the comparative example, and showing inferior performance is not showing unexpected result.
Furthermore, Tan shows the solar cell prepared by Tan’s method, e.g. adding Cl to the TiO2, has an efficiency of 20.7% and 19.1% (see table 1 of Tan). 20.7% and 19.1% are higher than 17.39% and 17.46% obtained from the solar cell prepared by Applicant’s method. Again, inferior performance of the claimed invention compared to the prior art is not an unexpected result. See MPEP 716.02(a)-(e).
Conclusion
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 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 at 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