DETAILED ACTION
This is the fourth 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 04/18/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending.
Claims 5 and 6 are cancelled.
Claims 19 and 20 are new.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 3 and 7-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 13-20 are examined below.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 04/18/2026 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 13-20 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) and MAO (CN 112018100 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 electron transport layer has a thickness in the range of 30-50nm, or 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.
MAO teaches a perovskite solar cell having an electron transport layer thickness of 30-50nm (exact same range as is claimed by applicant).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify PALMSTROM and adjust the thickness of the electron transport layer to the claimed thickness range because this is a known thickness range of this type of layer within a perovskite solar cell as taught by MAO, is not new thickness range never before considered, or known to produce surprising or unexpected results, is only a simple matter of design choice, and is not discouraged or criticized by any other prior art reference. See also 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 expressly that the electron transport layer has a thickness in the range of 30-50nm. 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.
MAO teaches a perovskite solar cell having an electron transport layer thickness of 30-50nm (exact same range as is claimed by applicant).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify PALMSTROM and adjust the thickness of the electron transport layer to the claimed thickness range because this is a known thickness range of this type of layer within a perovskite solar cell as taught by MAO, is not new thickness range never before considered, or known to produce surprising or unexpected results, is only a simple matter of design choice, and is not discouraged or criticized by any other prior art reference. See also MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 19, modified PALMSTROM teaches the perovskite solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a material of the hole transport layer comprises at least one of poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA), 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis[N,N-bis(4-methoxyphenyl)amino]-9,9'-spirobifluorene (Spiro-OMeTAD), poly-3-hexylthiophene (P3HT), triptycene-cored triphenylamine (H101), 3,4- ethylenedioxythiophene-methoxytriphenylamine (EDOT-OMeTPA), N-(4- aminophenyl)carbazole-spirobifluorene (CzPAF-SBF), polythiophene, molybdenum oxide (MoO3), cuprous iodide (CuI), or cuprous oxide (Cu2O).
MAO teaches a perovskite solar cell having a hole transport layer comprising PTAA.
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify PALMSTROM and replace the HTM material with PTAA as taught by MAO because this requires only a simple substitution of one known HTL material with another acceptable HTL, and there would be no expectation of any surprising or unexpected results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 20, PALMSTROM teaches the 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 hole transport layer comprises at least one of poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA), 2,2',7,7'-tetrakis[N,N-bis(4- methoxyphenyl)amino]-9,9'-spirobifluorene (Spiro-OMeTAD), poly-3-hexylthiophene (P3HT), triptycene-cored triphenylamine (H 101), 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene-methoxytriphenylamine (EDOT-OMeTPA), N-(4-aminophenyl)carbazole-spirobifluorene (CzPAF-SBF), polythiophene, molybdenum oxide (MoO3), cuprous iodide (Cu), or cuprous oxide (Cu2O);
. PALMSTROM does not disclose that 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.
MAO teaches a perovskite solar cell having a hole transport layer comprising PTAA.
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify PALMSTROM and replace the HTM material with PTAA as taught by MAO because this requires only a simple substitution of one known HTL material with another acceptable HTL, and there would be no expectation of any surprising or unexpected results. MPEP 2143.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
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
Prosecution Insights