DETAILED ACTION
This is the third Office Action regarding application number 18/423,479, filed on 01/26/2024, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/079372, filed on 03/04/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 12/08/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-18 are currently pending.
Claims 5 and 6 are cancelled.
Claims 14-18 are new.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 3 and 7-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 13-18 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 12/08/2025 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALMSTROM (“Interfacial Effects of Tin Oxide Atomic Layer Deposition in Metal Halide Perovskite Photovoltaics”) in view of WU (CN 109360889 A; English machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-18, PALMSTROM teaches a perovskite solar cell, comprising:
a transparent conductive glass substrate (ITO);
an electron transport layer (SnO2 and/or C60);
a perovskite light-absorbing layer (perovskite);
a hole transport layer (NiO);
an electrode (ITO); and
a metal fluoride layer (LiF) disposed between the electron transport layer and the perovskite light-absorbing layer,
wherein a thickness of the metal fluoride layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 3 nm (LiF layer is 1 nm thick, see Fig. 5a).
PALMSTROM does not disclose expressly that the metal fluoride layer comprises one or more selected from potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, and barium fluoride.
WU teaches the importance of alkali and alkaline metal halide layers to provide an enhanced electron extraction layer and reduce carrier recombination provided over and in direct contact with a perovskite layer (para. 7), and should include metal halides such as potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, and barium fluoride (para. 10), from 1-5 nanometers thick (para. 15).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify PALMSTROM and substitute the LiF interlayer material with other metal fluorides such as potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, and barium fluoride because WU teaches that all of these provide an enhanced electron extraction layer and reduce carrier recombination between the perovskite/ETL, and also because this modification is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, modified PALMSTROM teaches the perovskite solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the metal fluoride layer is 1 nm-3 nm (LiF layer is 1 nm thick, see PALMSTROM, Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 4, modified PALMSTROM teaches the perovskite solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the transparent conductive glass substrate, the hole transport layer, the perovskite light-absorbing layer, the metal fluoride layer, the electron transport layer, and the electrode are sequentially arranged from bottom to top (see PALMSTROM, Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 13, PALMSTROM teaches a perovskite solar cell, comprising:
a transparent conductive glass substrate (ITO);
an electron transport layer (SnO2 and/or C60);
a perovskite light-absorbing layer (perovskite);
a hole transport layer (NiO);
an electrode (ITO); and
a metal fluoride layer (LiF) disposed between the electron transport layer and the perovskite light-absorbing layer.
PALMSTROM does not disclose that a thickness of the metal fluoride layer is 2 nm, and also does not disclose expressly that the metal fluoride layer comprises one or more selected from potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, and barium fluoride.
WU teaches the importance of alkali and alkaline metal halide layers to provide an enhanced electron extraction layer and reduce carrier recombination provided over and in direct contact with a perovskite layer (para. 7), and should include metal halides such as potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, and barium fluoride (para. 10), from 1-5 nanometers thick (para. 15).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify PALMSTROM and substitute the LiF interlayer material with other metal fluorides such as potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, cesium fluoride, strontium fluoride, and barium fluoride because WU teaches that all of these provide an enhanced electron extraction layer and reduce carrier recombination between the perovskite/ETL, and also because this modification is merely a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.
WU further describes that the thickness of the metal halide layer should be 1-5 nanometers thick. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner