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 4/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Currently, claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 are pending in the application.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 8 are rejected on a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
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) 1, 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“Addition of 2D Ti3C2Tx to Enhance Photocurrent in Diodes for High-Efficiency Organic Solar Cells”) in view of Jin et al. (“Efficient Two-Dimensional Perovskite Solar Cells Realized by Incorporation of Ti3C2Tx MXene as Nano-Dopants”) or Hou et al. (“Surface-Engineered Ti3C2Tx with Tunable Work Functions for Highly Efficient Polymer Solar Cells”), and further in view of Lin et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayer Enables Hole Transport Layer-Free Organic Solar Cells with 18% Efficiency and Improved Operational Stability”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell of (ITO/PEDOT:PSS/BHJ@Ti3C2Tx/PDINO/Al), comprising:
a transparent lower electrode through which light passes (see ITO in fig. 4(b));
an organic semiconductor layer (see active layer of PBDB-T:ITIC or PBDB-T:ITM@Ti3C2Tx, PM6:Y6@T3C2Tx or PBDB-T:IT-M@Ti3C2Tx, described in “2.2. Structure and Energy Band Diagram of Devices”, “2.3. Photovoltaic properties”) comprising a donor, an acceptor and MXene having a predetermined concentration are mixed (see Fig. 4, table 1), in which the donor and a receptor generating an exciton by the light and separating the exciton into a positive charge and a negative charge.
an upper electrode (Al) absorbing the negative charge.
wherein the MXene of Ti3C2Tx is a laminate body (see fig. 4) of unit MXene formula Mn+1XnTx with M being a transition metal of Ti, X being carbon (C), Tx as the terminal of the unit MXene and being of -OH, F, -O (see fig. 4(b)-(c)), and n being 2 which is right within the claimed range of 1 to 3.
Zhao et al. teaches incorporating MXene (or Ti3C2Tx) into the active layer (or the organic semiconductor layer) at an amount to maintain a smooth surface for best performing blend film (see page 8). Zhao et al. does not teach a mean square roughness of the organic semiconductor layer containing the MXene is lower than that of an organic semiconductor layer without the MXene.
Jin et al. teaches incorporating an appropriate amount MXene (or Ti3C2Tx) into the active layer for a smoother film formation with dense pattern with almost no holes relative to the active layer without MXene (or the control) such that the root mean square roughness of the active layer containing MXene (e.g. active layer with 0.3mM Ti3C2Tx) is less than the active layer without the MXene (or the control with 0 mM Ti3C2Tx) to improve the power conversion efficiency (PCE, see page 6 of 13 of Jin et al.).
Hou et al. teaches using Ti3C2Tx, e.g. D-Ti3C2Tx-50, with significantly reduced roughness of 1.86nm to provide a denser and smoother (see page 6) and thereby improved power conversion efficiency (PCE, see table 1) by enhancing the interfacing characteristics of the Ti3C2Tx/active layer in organic (or polymer) solar cells (see abstract, table 1 and conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Zhao et al. by incorporating an appropriate amount of MXene (Ti3C2T2) into the active layer such that the root mean square roughness of the active layer containing MXene is less than the active layer without MXene for a smoother film formation with dense pattern with almost no hole to improve the power conversion efficiency as taught by Jin et al.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Zhao et al. by using D-Ti3C2Tx-50 having a roughness of 1.86nm in place of Ti3C2Tx (which has a roughness of 2.49nm) as taught by Hou et al., because Hou et al. teaches using a smoother and denser D-Ti3C2Tx-50 would improve power conversion efficiency by enhancing the interfacing characteristics of the Ti3C2Tx/active layer in organic semiconductor layer (or the solar cell). In such modification, the mean square roughness of the organic semiconductor layer of Zhao et al. containing the MXene of D-Ti3C2Tx-50 is found to be less than 1.89nm (or including the organic semiconductor would reduce the roughness of Ti3C2Tx from 2.49nm disclosed in page 6 of Hou et al. to 2.35nm disclosed in page of 8 of Zhao et al.). Less than 1.89nm is lower than that of the organic semiconductor layer without the MXene, or 2.22nm.
Zhao et al. teaches using PEDOT:PSS as a hole transporting material/hole selective contact disposed on the transparent lower electrode (ITO, see fig. 4b of Zhao et al.). Modified Zhao et al. does not the hole transport layer being composed of 2PACz ([2-(9H-Carbazol-9-yl)ethyl]phosphonic Acid).
Lin et al. teaches using 2PACz in place of PEDOT:PSS would provide a solar cell with better performances and efficiency (see fig. 3 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Zhao et al. by using 2PACz in place of PEDOT:PSS to have the photovoltaic cell with better performances and efficiency as taught by Lin et al.
Statement “indoor photovoltaic cell” in the preamble such that “indoor light passes” in line 2 “generating an exciton by the indoor light” in lines 3-4 are directed to the intended use of the photovoltaic cell, which do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, do not limit the claim, and do not distinguish over the prior art photovoltaic device. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115. In this case, a photovoltaic cell is a device that convert light to electricity, regardless what type of light being used, indoor or outdoor; and the photovoltaic cell of Zhao et al. is fully capable of being used indoor such that indoor light passes through the transparent ITO lower electrode and the donor and the acceptor generating an exciton by the indoor light.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhao et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses the donor is PM6 and the receptor is Y6 (see table 1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhao et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Zhao et al. discloses an electron transport layer (see PDINO in fig. 4b) disposed between the upper electrode (Al) and the organic semiconductor layer (active layer, see fig. 4b), and the electron transport layer function as transporting the negative charge generated in the organic semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhao et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above; wherein Zhao et al. explicitly discloses optimizing the performance of the photovoltaic cell by adjusting the concentration of the MXene in the organic semiconductor layer to find the optimal concentration (see figs. 5-8, table 1 of Zhao et al.), and Jin et al. discloses adjusting the concentration to obtain the balance between the roughness and the efficiency of the solar cell (see page 6 of Jin et al.).
Zhao et al. expresses the concentration in weight percent (see figs. 5-8, table 1 of Zhao et al.), and Jin et al. expresses the concentration in molar (or mM). Modified Zhao et al. does not explicitly express the concentration of the MXene in volume percent such that the MXene has the concentration of 0.04 to 0.06 volume percent.
However, the power conversion efficiency and roughness are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the concentration of the MXene, the precise concentration of MXene in volume percent would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed concentration of MXene in volume percent cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the concentration of MXene of 0.04 to 0.06 in volume percent to obtain the desired balance between the roughness and the power conversion efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8 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 previous cited references do not teach 2PACz. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhu et al. (US 2022/0148818) discloses 2PACz is a hole transporting material equivalent to PEDOT: PSS (see [0039], [0041], [0092], [0098]).
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights