DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 03/25/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 16 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 01/16/2026, Applicant has amended claim 1. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 01/16/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gan et al. (CN 104795501 A) (refer to translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Gan discloses a photo-absorbing layer (perovskite layer as shown in figure 7) (pages 2-5 of translation), comprising:
a two-dimensional perovskite having a formula (C6H5CH2CH2NH3)2(CH3NH3)n-1PbnI3n+1 (see pages 2-5),
PNG
media_image1.png
269
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on instant claimed formula A2Bn-1MnX3n+1 with
A being RNH3, where R is an organic group (C6H5CH2CH2) (see pages 2-5),
B being R’NH3, where R’ is an organic group (CH3) (see pages 2-5),
M being Pb (see pages 2-5),
X being I (see pages 2-5), and
n being 2 (see pages 2-5).
Gan further discloses the photo-absorbing layer is formed of perovskite crystals (example 2), wherein the transparent photo-absorbing layer has a crystallite size > 10 nm (1 µm as shown in fig. 6).
It is further noted that the photo absorbing layer is made of same compound (two-dimensional perovskite having a formula A2Bn-1MnX3n+1) as in the case of the instant application (see Above). Therefore, the layer must be visibly transparent as in the case of the instant application. If different results are achieved, it must be due to some other limitations that are not currently recited in the instant claim.
Alternatively, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “visibly transparent” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Since the absorption layer of Gan comprises same composition/compound as in the case of the instant application, and the layer must have an absorption cutoff at equal to or less than 470 nm as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the limitation to "the visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer is formed by thermal co-evaporation, sequential thermal evaporation or a combination thereof of, using precursors …" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the 2-D halide-perovskite compound of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 4, Gan further discloses that a perovskite solar cell (perovskite solar cell as shown in fig. 7, see also example 2 and claims 1-10), comprising:
a transparent substrate (glass substrate of the FTO transparent electric conduction glass substrate; pages 2-3, example 2, fig. 7 and claim 1) that is made of glass, as in the case of the instant application (page 10, lines 15-17), and thus must be visible transparent as in the case of the instant application; and
PNG
media_image2.png
310
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a transparent electrode (FTO layer that is coated on glass substrate) (page 2-3, example 2, fig. 7 and claim 1) deposited above the visibly transparent substrate (glass);
a photovoltaic composite layer (electron transmission layer, light absorption layer, hole transport layer, page 3 and fig. 7) above the transparent electrode (FTO layer of the conductive transparent substrate), the photovoltaic composite layer comprising
a photo-absorbing layer (perovskite light-absorption layer, fig. 7) between an electron transport layer (electron transmission layer made of TiO2) (page 3, fig. 7) and a hole transport layer (hole transmission layer made of Spiro-MeOTAD, page 3, fig. 7), and
a second electrode (metal electrode, page 3 and fig. 7) above the photovoltaic composite layer (see fig. 7);
wherein the photo-absorbing layer is a visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Gan further discloses that the transparent electrode is FTO (page 3, example 2 or claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Gan further discloses that the electron transport layer comprises TiO2 (example 2 or fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Gan further discloses that the hole transport layer comprises spiro-OMeTAD (example 2 or fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that the limitation to "the visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer is formed by thermal co-evaporation, sequential thermal evaporation or a combination thereof of, using precursors …" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the 2-D halide perovskite compound of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 16, Etgar further discloses that the visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer has a crystallite size > 400 nm (1 µm as shown in fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8 and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues that the claims as amended requires B to be R’NH3 and requested withdrawal of the rejection as presented in the previous office action.
The arguments are directed to claims as amended and is moot in view of withdrawal of the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
2020/0343053 A1 to Lunt et al. discloses a visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer have a perovskite compound having formula ABX3 (see figures 6 and/or 7, and claim 34).
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.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights