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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-10, 16 and 19-20 are currently pending. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.
All rejections from the Office Action mailed on 04/09/2026 are withdrawn in view of applicant’s persuasive argument. 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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 10-2018-0050190 A) (refer to translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a photo-absorbing layer (quasi-2D perovskite film as shown in figure 9a that is used as a photoactive layer, [0098]) (see also [0093-0109]), comprising:
a two-dimensional perovskite (quasi-2D perovskite) having a formula 1 ([0094-0109]),
PNG
media_image1.png
241
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
which reads on instant claimed formula A2Bn-1MnX3n+1, where
claimed “A” being disclosed ANH3, which reads in instant claimed RNH3 with claimed R (“A” in disclosed formula of Kim) being an organic group (aryl-alkyl group, see [0096]),
claimed B being disclosed RNH3, which reads on claimed R’NH3 with claimed R’ (R in disclosed formula of Kim) which an organic group (alkyl group, see [0096]),
M being Pb, Sn, Ge or Cu ([0096]),
X being F, Cl, Br, I or a combination thereof ([0096] and [0108]),
n denotes the number of M-X sheets in each inorganic layer (see fig. 1A and [0207]), and
n is at least 2 (“2 or more”, see [0096]).
Kim further discloses the photo-absorbing layer is made of quasi-2d perovskite crystals represented by the above formula 1 ([0097]) with a crystallite size > 10 nm (100-500 nm, see [0279]).
It is further noted that the photo absorbing layer of Kim 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 Kim 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, Kim discloses a perovskite solar cell (perovskite solar cell as shown in fig. 9a, see also [0093-0130] and [0278-0281]), comprising:
a transparent substrate (glass substrate, fig. 9a and [0126]) 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
178
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a transparent electrode (FTO layer, fig. 9a and [0126]) deposited above the visibly transparent substrate (glass);
a photovoltaic composite layer (recombination prevention layer made of TiO2, light absorption layer or perovskite layer, and hole transport layer or Spiro-OMeTAD layer) ([0127-0129] and fig. 9a) above the transparent electrode (FTO layer), the photovoltaic composite layer comprising
a photo-absorbing layer (perovskite layer, fig. 9a) between an electron transport layer (TiO2 layer that is an electron transport layer, [0242] and fig. 9a) and a hole transport layer (Spiro-MeOTAD layer, [0128-0129] and fig. 9a), and
a second electrode (Au electrode, [0130] and fig. 9a) above the photovoltaic composite layer (see fig. 9a);
wherein the photo-absorbing layer (perovskite layer) is a visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further discloses that the transparent electrode is FTO ([0126] and fig. 9a).
Regarding claim 6, Kim further discloses that the electron transport layer comprises TiO2 (fig. 9a, [0127] and [0242]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses that the hole transport layer comprises spiro-OMeTAD ([0128-0129] and fig. 9a).
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 19, Kim further discloses that X is Fl, Cl or Br ([0108]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim further discloses that X comprises at least two different atoms selected from the group consisting of F, Cl, Br and I (“combinations thereof” [0108]).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-2018-0050190 A) (refer to translation as provided) as applied above.
Regarding claim 16, Kim further discloses that the visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer has a crystallite size of 100-500 nm ([0279]). Thus, claimed range (> 400 nm) overlaps with the disclosed range (100-500 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 16 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On pages 2-3 of Remarks, Applicant argues Gan’s fig. 5 clearly shows an absorption profile in which absorption cutoff values are over 470 nm, and thus fails to disclose the visibly transparent photo-absorbing layer has an absorption cutoff at equal to or less than 470 nm.
The argument is found persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsai et al. (“High-efficiency two-dimensional Ruddlesden– Popper perovskite solar cells”, Nature volume 536, pages 312–316 (2016)) discloses a 2-D halide perovskite (BA)2(MA)n-1PbnI3n+1 (see fig. 1) that reads on instant claimed formula A2Bn-1MnX3n+1, with A being BA, B being MA, M being Pb, X being I and n being 3 or 4 (see page 312 or figure 1).
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