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 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 62 and 129 are amended. Claims 145-151 are newly added. Currently, claims 62, 64, 66, 69, 84-85, 92-95, 129-131, and 138-151 are pending in the application.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejections are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 62, 64, 66, 69, 84-85, 92-95, 129-131, and 138-151 are rejected under a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
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.
Claims 62, 64, 66, 69, 84-85, 92-95, 129-131 and 138-144 are 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.
As amended, claim 62 recites “R1, R2, R3 and R4 are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen” in lines 20-21 and also recite “wherein R2 is not hydrogen” in line 28. 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 62 recites the broad recitation of R2 being a hydrogen, and the claim also recites “R2 is not hydrogen” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
Claims 64, 66, 69, 84-85, 92-95, 129-131 and 138-144 are rejected on the same ground as claim 62.
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) 62, 64, 66, 69, 84-85, 92-94, 129, 138-148, and 150-151 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al. (“Grain Boundary Defect Passivation of Triple Cation Mixed Halide Perovskite with Hydrazine-Based Aromatic Iodide for Efficiency Emprovement”, Cite No. 005 in Non Patent Literature Documents of IDS 6/29/2023) in view of Wang et al. (Phenylamine Passivation of Organolead Halide Perovskite Enabling High-Efficiency and Air Stable Photovoltaic Cells).
Regarding claims 62, 129, 138-142, 145-148, 151, Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film (or perovskite film – see figs. 1b-f and figs. 4a-b) formed by treating the perovskite of (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 with phenyl hydrazinium iodide (PHI, see abstract, page 41313, and conclusion). As such, Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film (or perovskite film) comprising a composition of perovskite (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 and a compound PHI. (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 has formula (I) with A being formamidinium (FA), methylammonium (MA), cesium (Cs); B is lead (Pb); and X is Br with y being 0.51 (or 3x0.17) in the claimed range of between 0 and 3; and a compound PHI is a salt of hydrazine which has formula (II) with R1, R3 and R4 each being a hydrogen and R2 being an aryl as disclosed.
Rahman et al. discloses using a hydrazine-based (or a di-amine) to passivate the perovskite, wherein the hydrazine-base is phenyl hydrazinium iodide, or a salt of phenyl hydrazine salt with R2 (or a substituent to the nitrogen of the di-amine) being a phenyl ring (or aryl group) as disclosed by Applicant. Rahman et al. does not disclose R2 (or a substituent to the di-amine) to be the groups as claimed in claims 62, 145 and 151; a C1-C10 alkyl substituted one or more times with a substituent as claimed in claim 129 or a C1-C10 alkyl as claimed in claim 148; selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl as claimed in claim 138; a C1-C10 alkyl substituted with a C6-C12 aryl as claimed in claim 139 and 146; a benzyl such as the formula of benzyl hydrazine in claims 140-141 and 148.
Wang et al. discloses using phenylakylamine such as benzylamine (BA) and phenethylamine (PA) by modifying the phenyl ring with alkyl group or incorporating the alkyl group to the phenyl ring, teaches such incorporation of the alkyl group provides better water repelling ability, and found incorporating of the benzyl group (or C6 aryl – C1 alkyl or C1 alkyl substituted with C6 aryl) would significantly improve the efficiency of the solar cell by increasing moisture resistance, improve thermal stability of the device, increasing carrier lifetime and reducing recombination (see pages 9987-9991).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrazine-based of Rahman et al. by using benzyl group (or C6 aryl – C1 alkyl or C1 alkyl substituted with C6 aryl) in place of the phenyl group as taught by Wang et al., because Wang et al. teaches such incorporation of the alkyl group (or C1 alkyl) would provide better water repelling ability and significantly improve the efficiency of the solar cell by increasing moisture resistance, improve thermal stability, increasing carrier lifetime and reducing recombination.
In such combination, the hydrazine-based compound of modified Rahman et al. will be benzylhydrazine which has the Formula II as claimed in claims 141 and 147, which also reads on claims 62, 129, 138-140, 142, 145-146, 148 and 151.
Regarding claim 64, modified Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film as in claim 62 above, wherein Rahman et al. teaches A of (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 is selected to be Cs, MA, FA and a combination.
Regarding claim 66, modified Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film as in claim 62 above, wherein Wang et al. teaches using FAPbI3 (see fig. 1). FAPbI3 has a formula CszMA1-x-zFAxPbI3 with x being 1 and z being 0 (or right within the claimed range of x and z are about 0 to about 1).
Regarding claim 69, modified Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film as in claim 62 above, wherein Rahman et al. teaches the hydrazine compound has R1, R3, and R4 being hydrogen.
Regarding claims 84 and 85, modified Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film as in claim 62 above, wherein Rahman et al. teaches the salt of compound of Formula (II) is present in an amount of 12mM (see fig. 5b) and the composition of Formula (I), or the perovskite, present in an amount of 1.5M (see experimental section). Therefore, the molar percent of the salt of compound of Formula (II) is found to be 0.008 (12mM/1.5M), or about 0.01, which is in the claimed ranges of about 0.01 to about 5 and about 0.01 to about 1.5 relative to the composition of Formula (I) as claimed in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 92, modified Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline perovskite as in claim 62 above, wherein Rahman et al. discloses a solar cell comprising a transparent conductive oxide layer (see ITO in figs. 4a-b), one or more conductive electrode layers (see Ag and ITO in figs. 4a-b); and an active layer (see perovskite layer in figs. 4a-b), wherein the active comprising the perovskite layer is the polycrystalline film (see figs. 4a-b).
Regarding claim 93, modified Rahman et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 92 above, wherein Rahman et al. teaches the solar cell further comprising a hole transport layer (see Spiro-OMeTAD in figs. 4a-b) and one or more electron transport layers (see BCPM in figs. 4a-b).
Regarding claim 94, modified Rahman et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 93 above, wherein Rahman et al. teaches the solar cell comprising one transparent conductive oxide layer (see ITO in figs. 4a-b), one conductive electrode layer (see Ag in figs. 4a-b), one hole transport layer (see Spiro-OMETAD in figs. 4a-b), one electron transport layer (see PCBM in figs. 4a-b) and one active layer (see perovskite in figs. 4a-b) comprising the polycrystalline film.
Regarding claims 142-144 and 150, modified Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film as in claims 62 and 145 above, wherein Wang et al. teaches defect passivation by coordination bonding with functional molecules such as thiophene would improve the efficiency of the perovskite solar cell an in particular their Voc (see second paragraph of the left column of page 9991).
Modified Rahman et al. does not explicitly show the R2 is a C1-C10 alkyl substituted with a 5- to 10-membered heteroaryl such as thiophenemethyl such that the Formula II has a thiophenemethylhydrazine structure as claimed in claims 142-144 and 150.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrazine-based compound of modified Rahman et al. by replacing the phenyl ring with the thiophene ring to provide coordination bonding to further improve the efficiency of the perovskite solar cell, because Wang et al. teaches defect passivation by coordination bonding with functional molecules such as thiophene would improve the efficiency of the perovskite solar cell an in particular their Voc. In such modification, when the phenyl ring is replaced with the thiophene ring, the R2 of modified Rahman et al. is a C1-C10 alkyl substituted with a 5- to 10-membered heteroaryl such as thiophenemethyl such that the Formula II has a thiophenemethylhydrazine structure as claimed in claims 142-144 and 150.
Claim(s) 62, 130-131, 145, 149 and 151 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al. (“Grain Boundary Defect Passivation of Triple Cation Mixed Halide Perovskite with Hydrazine-Based Aromatic Iodide for Efficiency Emprovement”) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111146344 – see machine translation) and PubChem.
Regarding claims 62, 130-131, 145, 149 and 151, Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film (or perovskite film – see figs. 1b-f and figs. 4a-b) formed by treating the perovskite of (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 with phenyl hydrazinium iodide (PHI, see abstract, page 41313, and conclusion). As such, Rahman et al. discloses a polycrystalline film (or perovskite film) comprising a composition of perovskite (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 and a compound PHI. (FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Cs0.05Pb(I0.83Br0.17)3 has formula (I) with A being formamidinium (FA), methylammonium (MA), cesium (Cs); B is lead (Pb); and X is Br with y being 0.51 (or 3x0.17) in the claimed range of between 0 and 3; and a compound PHI is a salt of hydrazine which has formula (II) with R1, R3 and R4 each being a hydrogen and R2 being an aryl as disclosed.
Rahman et al. discloses using a hydrazine-based compound with R2 (or a substituent to the nitrogen of the amine) being a phenyl ring (or aryl group) as disclosed. Rahman et al. does not disclose R2 being C1-C10 alkyl of R2 is substituted with hydrazine and carbonyl such
PNG
media_image1.png
104
147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang et al. teaches passivating perovskite by introducing amino-containing additives such as carbazide (or carbohydrazide) to improve the quality of the perovskite film, fill the defects and modify the perovskite grain boundary thereby improving the device performance of the perovskite solar cell (see [0006-0009]). PubChem shows carbazide is a hydrazine-based compound having R2 to be
PNG
media_image1.png
104
147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
648
1261
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polycrystalline film of Rahman et al. by using hydrazine-based compound (or amino-containing additives) such as carbazide as taught by Zhang et al. and PubChem, because Zhang et al. such amino-containing additive would improve the quality of the perovskite film, fill the defects and modify the perovskite grain boundary thereby improving the device performance of the perovskite solar cell. 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).
Claim(s) 66 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Rahman et al. (“Grain Boundary Defect Passivation of Triple Cation Mixed Halide Perovskite with Hydrazine-Based Aromatic Iodide for Efficiency Emprovement”) as applied to claims 62 and 94 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (“Enhanced performance of tin halide perovskite solar cells by addition of hydrazine monohydrobromide”).
Regarding claim 95, modified Rahman et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 94 above, wherein Rahman et al. discloses the order is reversed from the claimed order such that the hole transport layer is disposed on the transparent conductive oxide layer, the active layer comprising the polycrystalline film (or perovskite layer) is disposed on the hole transport layer, the electron transport layer is disposed on the active layer, and the conductive electrode layer is disposed on the electron transport layer.
Wu et al. shows the order of the layers in the solar cell such that the hole transport layer (PEDOT:PSS) is disposed on the transparent conductive oxide layer (ITO), the active layer comprising the polycrystalline film (or the perovskite layer) disposed on the hole transport layer (PEDOT:PSS), the electron transport layer (C60/BCP) is disposed on the active layer (or the perovskite layer), and the conductive electrode layer (Cu) is disposed on the electron transport layer (C60/BCP, see fig. 4b).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Rahman et al. by rearranging the layers of the solar cells to have the order as claimed such that the hole transport layer is disposed on the transparent conductive oxide layer, the active layer comprising the polycrystalline film (or perovskite layer) is disposed on the hole transport layer, the electron transport layer is disposed on the active layer, and the conductive electrode layer is disposed on the electron transport layer, because such modification would involve nothing more than a mere rearrangement of parts and a mere reversal of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 62, 64, 66, 69, 84-85, 92-95, 129-131, 138-151 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Wu and Rahman does not disclose R2 as claimed.
However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
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