DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed November 11, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed November 11, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-7, 11-13, and 16-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent August 11, 2025 have been modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-7, 11-13, and 16-25 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-13, 17, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0338430 A1) in view of Park et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0273185 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, and 16, Qi et al. discloses a composition comprising
a compound configured to form internal π bonds (see [0039-0040] teaching a triple portion hole transport layer, HTL, including “Spiro-OMeTAD” which is cited to provide for the claimed “configured to form internal π bonds”), and
an inorganic material (see [0042] teaching a hole transport layer, HTL, including as a p-type dopant in the p-type doped portion of the HTL “transition metal oxides such as…Wo3” cited to read on the claimed “nanoparticle” because they are in the form of particles with nano-sized dimensions; see [0064]), wherein the composition is defined by
a first surface opposing a second surface and a first thickness measured from the first surface to the second surface of the composition (as depicted in Fig. 2, the composition at the triple portion “hole transport layer”, HTL, is defined by a first right surface of the p-doped HTL portion opposing a second left surface of the n-doped HTL portion and a first horizontal thickness measured from the cited first right surface of the p-doped HTL portion to the cited second left surface of the n-doped HTL portion of the composition), wherein
the inorganic material is diffused only within a second thickness measured from the first surface, wherein the second thickness is smaller than the first thickness and is about 20 nm to about 60 nm (see Fig. 2 depicting the cited inorganic material, as the p-type dopant, diffused only within a second thickness measured from the cited first surface such as the horizontal thickness of the p-doped HTL portion, which is smaller than the cited first thickness of the entire triple portion HTL; see [0064] teaching cited second thickness, the thickness of the p-doped HTL portion, being 30 nm); wherein
the composition is substantially stable and does not degrade from room temperature to 85 °C (see [0069]).
Qi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the composition is substantially free of crystalline phase at a temperature of 60 °C to 85 °C.
However, the amount of crystalline phase at a temperature in a range is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of inorganic nanoparticles in the compound (see Park et al. at [0031] and [0048] teaching selecting an appropriate amount of inorganic nanoparticles provides for maintaining the morphology of the hole transport layer since the inorganic nanoparticles exhibits heat dissipation effect).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of crystalline phase at the claimed temperature in the compound of Qi et al. and arrive at the claimed amount through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of inorganic nanoparticles in the composition.
With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
the internal π bonds comprise π-π stacking (see [0039-0040] teaching a hole transport layer including “Spiro-OMeTAD”).
With regard to claim 3, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
the compound is a charge transport material (see Fig. 12 depicting hole transport layer).
With regard to claim 6, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
the inorganic material is at least partially insulating (see [0042] teaching a hole transport layer, HTL, including as a p-type dopant in the p-type doped portion of the HTL “transition metal oxides such as…Wo3”).
With regard to claim 11, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
a second portion of the inorganic material is disposed on the first surface (see Fig. 2 depicting a portion of the cited inorganic material, p-type dopant, is disposed on the cited first left surface of the p-doped HTL portion).
With regard to claim 12, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Qi et al., as modified above, does not teach wherein at least a portion of the inorganic material is present as one or more clusters.
However, Park et al. discloses the shape of inorganic material into Spiro-OMeTAD containing hole transport layer can be in one or more clusters (see Fig. 1).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the cited inorganic material in the composition of Qi et al., as modified above, to include one or more clusters because the change in shape is a matter of obviousness (see MPEP 2141.04 IV B).
With regard to claim 17, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
the compound comprises Spiro-OMeTAD and the inorganic material comprises TiO2 (see [0039-0040] “Spiro-OMeTAD”; see [0042] teaching “transition metal oxides” which implicitly teaches TiO2).
With regard to claim 18, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
at least a portion of the π-π stacking is disrupted (see [0039-0040] teaching “Spiro-OMeTAD” and see [0042] teaching “transition metal oxides” which is cited to provide for the claimed “at least a portion of the π-π stacking is disrupted” because the π-π stacking is disrupted by the transition metal oxide nanoparticles).
With regard to claim 19, independent claim 1 is obvious over Qi et al. in view of Park et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Qi et al. discloses wherein
the composition is formed by a vapor phase infiltration (VPI) (as the generally recited process limitation of “is formed by a vapor phase infiltration (VPI)” does not definitely impart a specific structure to the claimed composition, the cited composition of Qi et al., as modified above, is cited to read on the structural requirements of the claim).
With regard to claims 20 and 21, Qi et al. discloses a device comprising
at least one composition of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
the device is a photovoltaic cell (see [0039]).
With regard to claim 22, Qi et al. discloses a photovoltaic device comprising:
a perovskite material layer (see Fig. 2); and
a layer (triple portion HTL, Fig. 2) comprising a composition comprising
a compound (see [0039-0040] teaching a triple portion hole transport layer, HTL, including “Spiro-OMeTAD”) and
an inorganic material (see [0042] teaching a hole transport layer, HTL, including as a p-type dopant in the p-type doped portion of the HTL “transition metal oxides such as…Wo3”), wherein
the layer is defined by a first surface opposing a second surface and a first thickness measured from the first surface to the second surface (as depicted in Fig. 2, the composition at the triple portion “hole transport layer”, HTL, is defined by a first right surface of the p-doped HTL portion opposing a second left surface of the n-doped HTL portion and a first horizontal thickness measured from the cited first right surface of the p-doped HTL portion to the cited second left surface of the n-doped HTL portion of the composition); wherein
the second surface overlays the perovskite material layer (as depicted in Fig. 2, the cited second left surface of the n-doped HTL portion overlays the cited perovskite material layer), wherein
the compound comprises a Spiro-OMeTAD (see [0039-0040] teaching “Spiro-OMeTAD”), wherein
the inorganic material is diffused only within a second thickness measured from the first surface, wherein the second thickness is smaller than the first thickness and is about 20 nm to about 60 nm (see Fig. 2 depicting the cited inorganic material, as the p-type dopant, diffused only within a second thickness measured from the cited first surface such as the horizontal thickness of the p-doped HTL portion, which is smaller than the cited first thickness of the entire triple portion HTL; see [0064] teaching cited second thickness, the thickness of the p-doped HTL portion, being 30 nm).
Qi et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the composition is substantially free of crystalline phase at a temperature of 60 °C to 85 °C.
However, the amount of crystalline phase at a temperature in a range is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of inorganic nanoparticles in the compound (see Park et al. at [0031] and [0048] teaching selecting an appropriate amount of inorganic nanoparticles provides for maintaining the morphology of the hole transport layer since the inorganic nanoparticles exhibits heat dissipation effect).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of crystalline phase at the claimed temperature in the compound of Qi et al. and arrive at the claimed amount through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of inorganic nanoparticles in the composition.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0338430 A1) in view of Park et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0273185 A1), and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 111607199 A) and Jagt et al. (“Rapid Vapor-Phase Deposition of High-Mobility p-Type Buffer Layers on Perovskite Photovoltaics for Efficient Semitransparent Devices” ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 2456-2465 (2020)).
With regard to claims 23-25, Qi et al., as modified above, teaches a method of making the composition of claim 1 (recall rejection of claim 1 above).
Qi et al. does not disclose wherein the method comprises exposing a layer of the compound to a vapor phase comprising a first precursor to form a modified compound, and exposing the modified compound to a second precursor to form the inorganic material.
However, Wang et al. discloses a method of doping a layer of organic photoelectric material (see Abstract and [0002]). Wang et al. teaches doping the layer of organic photoelectric material can be done by vapor phase infiltration (see [0005]).
Wang et al. teaches exposing the layer of organic photoelectric material to a vapor phase comprising a first precursor for a first predetermined time, thereby at least partially infiltrating the layer with at least a portion of the first precursor to form a modified organic photoelectric material (see [0013-0014] teaching using metal precursor for 90-120 second which is cited to provide for a modified organic photoelectric material including some infiltration); and exposing the modified organic photoelectric material to a second precursor for a second predetermined time, thereby forming the doped organic photoelectric material comprising a first portion of the inorganic material dispersed within the layer of the organic photoelectric material and a second portion of the inorganic material at least partially disposed on the surface of the layer (see [0015] teaching repeating step “2)” which is cited to provide for exposing the cited modified organic photoelectric material to a second precursor for second predetermined time of 90-for another 120 second which forms the doped organic photoelectric material dispersed within and on a surface of the layer).
Wang et al. teaches the vapor phase infiltration technique has a simple process and simple operation (see Abstract).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the technique of making the composition of Qi et al., as modified above, to include the vapor phase infiltration technique of Wang et al. because it would have provided for a simple process and simple operation.
Qi et al., as modified by Wang et al., does not explicitly teach wherein the first precursor comprises a metal-organic and the second precursor is water vapor.
However, Qi et al. teaches the a metal oxide (recall [0042]). Jagt et al. teaches a photovoltaic device (see Title) and teaches metal oxide formation can include a first precursor comprising a metal-organic and a second precursor is an oxidant to react with the metal in the first precursor, such as water vapor (see left column, page 2458).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the precursor material cited in Qi et al., as modified by Wang et al. above, to include a metal-organic and oxidant, such as water vapor, as suggested by Jagt et al. because it would have predictably formed a transition metal oxide and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Qi et al., as modified by Wang et al. and Jagt et al. above, teaches the first precursor of metal-organic and oxidant which is cited to read on the claimed “comprising a metal-organic” because it includes a metal-organic and teaches the second precursor of metal-organic and oxidant which is cited to read on the claimed “is water vapor” because it includes water vapor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly amended claims are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections of the claims above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (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 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 February 21, 2026