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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 1/8/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (US Pub No. 2019/0006540) in view of Zhang (Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1604984), Hayase (US Pub No. 2020/0361968), and Qin (CS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 2963−2973)
Regarding Claim 1, Nishihara et al. teaches a perovskite solar battery [Fig. 2, 0084], comprising: a first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061]; a second electrode [6, Fig. 2, 0081]; a light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067] between the first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061] and the second electrode [6, Fig. 2, 0081]; and a first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] and a second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052]; wherein: the first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] is located between the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] and the light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067]; the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] is located: between the first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061] and the light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067]; a first hole transport material of the first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] is one selected from nickel oxide doped with a doping element [0057]; and
a second hole transport material of the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] includes at least one of a P-type transition metal oxide semiconductor material [0057, nickel oxide with a portion substituted with lithium].
Nishihara et al. is silent on the limitation of is capable of isolating water and oxygen, and the second hole transport material comprise at least one of MoO3, CuO, Cu2O, CuI, NiMgLiO, CoO, CuGaO2 or CuGrO2 that is doped with at least one of P, S, or Se
Hayase et al. teaches a hole transport layer which comprises NiO and MoO3 used to provide a hole injection function or electron blocking function [0045].
Since Nishihara et al. teaches a second HTL comprising NiO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply an MoO3 to the NiO second HTL of Nishihara et al. as it merely the selection of a conventional HTL material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Qin et al. teaches the doping of MoO3 with sulfur provides improved hole transport properties of MoO3, which improves device performance [Abstract].
Since modified Nishihara et al. teaches the use of MoO3 as a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to dope the MoO3 of modified Nishihara et al. with Sulfur, as shown by Qin et al. in order to provide improved hole transport properties [Abstract].
Modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the hole transport layer of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “is capable of isolating water and oxygen” is met.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by solar cell of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “ wherein a difference value AVBM1 between a top energy level of a valence band of the second hole transport layer and a top energy level of a valence band of the first hole transport layer is from -1.0 eV to 1.0 eV.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein the doping element includes at least one of an alkali metal element [Li, 0069, 0072]
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein, based on a total mass of the first hole transport material, a mass percentage content of the doping element is 0% to 15% overlapping the claimed less than or equal to 20% [0072].
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein, based on a total mass of the second hole transport material, a mass percentage content of the second doping element is 1-30% overlapping the claimed less than or equal to 30% [0070].
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the solar cell of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “ wherein a difference value AVBM2 between a top energy level of a valence band of the first hole transport layer and a top energy level of a valence band of the light absorbing layer is from -1.0 eV to 1.0 eV.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the solar cell of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein: a difference value between a top energy level of a conduction band of the second hole transport layer and a top energy level of a conduction band of the light absorbing layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 eV; and/or a difference value between a top energy level of a conduction band of the first hole transport layer and a top energy level of a conduction band of the light absorbing layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 eV.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the solar cell of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “ wherein: a difference value between a Fermi level and a top energy level of a valence band of the second hole transport layer is less than or equal to 1.5 eV; and/or a difference value between a Fermi level and a top energy level of a valence band of the first hole transport layer is less than or equal to 1.5 eV.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the solar cell of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “ wherein a band gap of the second hole transport layer is greater than or equal to 1.5 eV.”
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein the light absorbing layer comprises a perovskite material [0064].
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode [0061].
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a metal electrode [0103].
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches further comprising: an electron transport layer [7, Fig. 2, 0082]; wherein: the electron transport layer is located between: the light absorbing layer, and the second electrode or the first electrode; and the light absorbing layer is located between the first hole transport layer and the electron transport layer [Fig. 2]
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches a photovoltaic assembly, comprising the perovskite solar battery according to claim 1 [Abstract].
Regarding Claim 18, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the first hole transport layer is greater than a thickness of the second hole transport layer [0075, 0077, the second HTL has a thickness of 1 to 50 nm and the first HTL has a thickness of 1 to 10 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (US Pub No. 2019/0006540) in view of Zheng (ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2018, 1, 561−570), Hayase (US Pub No. 2020/0361968), and Qin (CS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 2963−2973)
Regarding Claim 19, Nishihara et al. teaches a perovskite solar battery [Fig. 2, 0084], comprising: a first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061]; a second electrode [6, Fig. 2, 0081]; a light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067] between the first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061] and the second electrode [6, Fig. 2, 0081]; and a first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] and a second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052]; wherein: the first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] is located between the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] and the light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067]; the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] is located: between the first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061] and the light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067]; a first hole transport material of the first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] is one selected from nickel oxide doped with a doping element [0057]; and
a second hole transport material of the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] includes at least one of a P-type transition metal oxide semiconductor material [0057, nickel oxide with a portion substituted with lithium].
Nishihara et al. is silent on a second hole transport material of the second hole transport layer comprises at least one of MoO3, CuO, Cu2O, CuI, NiMgLiO, CoO, CuGaO2, that is doped with at least one of P, S, or Se.
Hayase et al. teaches a hole transport layer which comprises NiO and MoO3 used to provide a hole injection function or electron blocking function [0045].
Since Nishihara et al. teaches a second HTL comprising NiO, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply an MoO3 to the NiO second HTL of Nishihara et al. as it merely the selection of a conventional HTL material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Qin et al. teaches the doping of MoO3 with sulfur provides improved hole transport properties of MoO3, which improves device performance [Abstract].
Since modified Nishihara et al. teaches the use of MoO3 as a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to dope the MoO3 of modified Nishihara et al. with Sulfur, as shown by Qin et al. in order to provide improved hole transport properties [Abstract].
Zheng et al. a hole transport layer made of NiO being doped with Ag resulting in improved conductivity, improved carrier extraction, and enhanced p-type property [Abstract].
Since modified Nishihara et al. teaches a first hole transport layer made of nickel oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the first hole transport layer of modified Nishihara et al. with the hole transport material of Zheng et al. in order to provide improved conductivity, improved carrier extraction, and enhanced p-type property [Abstract]
Furthermore, the combination would have been merely the selection of a conventional hole transport material for solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (US Pub No. 2019/0006540) in view of Zhang (Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1604984), Hayase (US Pub No. 2020/0361968), and Qin (CS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 2963−2973) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Kaneko (Solar Energy 181 (2019) 243–250)
Regarding Claim 21, within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. is silent on the first hole transport material of the first hole transport layer comprises nickel oxide doped with a halogen element.
Kaneko et al. teaches a hole transport layer made of NiO being doped with Co resulting in improved photovoltaic performance [Abstract].
Since modified Nishihara et al. teaches a first hole transport layer made of nickel oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the first hole transport layer of modified Nishihara et al. with the hole transport material of Zheng et al. in order to provide improved conductivity, improved carrier extraction, and enhanced p-type property [Abstract]
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (US Pub No. 2019/0006540) in view of Zhang (Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1604984), and Kaneko (Solar Energy 181 (2019) 243–250)
Regarding Claim 22, Nishihara et al. teaches a perovskite solar battery [Fig. 2, 0084], comprising:
a first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061];
a second electrode [6, Fig. 2, 0081];
a light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067] between the first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061] and the second electrode [6, Fig. 2, 0081]; and
a first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] and a second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052];
wherein:
the first hole transport layer [32, Fig. 2, 0052] is located between the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] and
the light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067];
the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] is located:
between the first electrode [2, Fig. 2, 0061] and the light absorbing layer [5, Fig. 2, 0064-0067],
a first hole transport material of the first hole transport layer comprises nickel
oxide [32, Fig. 2, 0052] and silent on doped with at least one of Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, Pd, Cd, Ta, or Pt;
Kaneko et al. teaches a hole transport layer made of NiO being doped with Co resulting in improved photovoltaic performance [Abstract].
Since modified Nishihara et al. teaches a first hole transport layer made of nickel oxide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the first hole transport layer of modified Nishihara et al. with the hole transport material of Zheng et al. in order to provide improved conductivity, improved carrier extraction, and enhanced p-type property [Abstract]
Within the combination above, modified Nishihara et al. teaches a second hole transport material of the second hole transport layer [31, Fig. 2, 0052] and includes at least one of a P-type transition metal oxide semiconductor material and silent on that is capable of isolating water and oxygen; and the second hole transport material comprises at least one of CuGaO₂ or CuGrO₂.
Zhang et al. teaches a hole transport material made of CuGaO2 which is used to provide improved photovoltaic performance, and device stability [page 1 of 8, middle right of page]
Since modified Nishihara et al. teaches the use of NiO in a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the second hole transport layer of modified Nishihara et al. with the hole transport material of Zhang et al. in order to provide improved photovoltaic performance, and device stability [page 1 of 8, middle right of page].
Furthermore, the combination would have been merely the selection of a conventional hole transport material for solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Modified Nishihara et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Nishihara et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the hole transport layer of Nishihara et al. meeting the limitation of “is capable of isolating water and oxygen” is met.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 13-19, and 21-22 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728