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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 and 12-14, in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (“Efficient and Stable Quasi-2D Ruddlesden-Popper Perovskite Solar Cells by Tailoring Crystal Orientation and Passivating Surface Defects”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a perovskite photoactive composite layer (abstract) comprising: a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer (abstract L6); and a passivation layer which is in physical contact with the perovskite photoactive layer and consists of n-tert-butyl-𝜶-phenylnitrone (PBN) (abstract L7).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses in Formula 1, R1, R2, and R3 are each methyl, and R4 is hydrogen (abstract L7; n-tert-butyl-𝜶-phenylnitrone (PBN)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the perovskite photoactive layer is grown by recrystallization in the vertical direction,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses a perovskite solar cell (abstract; Fig. 3a) comprising a first electrode (ITO in Fig. 3a); a hole transport layer formed on the first electrode (2PACz in Fig. 3a); a perovskite photoactive composite layer formed on the hole transport layer and comprising a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer and a passivation layer which is in physical contact with the perovskite photoactive layer and consists of n-tert-butyl-𝜶-phenylnitrone (PBN) (lines 4 and 5 of first full paragraph of right column on page 5 of 11); and a charge transport layer formed on the perovskite photoactive composite layer (PC60BM in Fig. 3a); and a second electrode formed on the charge transport layer (Ag; line 5 of first full paragraph of right column on page 5 of 11).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the organic monomolecular compound contains zwitterions, and the zwitterions are ionically bound to halogen atoms of the perovskite photoactive layer to inhibit the release of halogen atoms,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein in terms of photostability, when the perovskite solar cell is exposed to light and measured by a maximum power point tracking method under a nitrogen atmosphere, the solar cell retains its performance at 88% of the initial efficiency even after 1000 hours,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (“Fabrication of High-Performance CsPbBr3 Perovskite Quantum Dots/Polymer Composites via Photopolymerization: Implications for Luminescent Displays and Lighting”), or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (“Fabrication of High-Performance CsPbBr3 Perovskite Quantum Dots/Polymer Composites via Photopolymerization: Implications for Luminescent Displays and Lighting”) in view of Gao et al. (US 2021/0383977).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses a perovskite photoactive composite layer (page 650, lines 2 through 6 of right column) comprising: a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer (page 650, line 3 of right column); and a passivation layer which is in physical contact with the perovskite photoactive layer and consists of phenyl-N-tert-butylnitrone (PBN) (page 650, lines 3 through 6 of right column).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “passivation,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
If Peng does not disclose the perovskite photoactive layer is a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer, Gao discloses a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer ([0074], [0137]) used in a perovskite solar cell ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perovskite photoactive layer of Peng such that it is a two dimensional perovskite photoactive layer, because as evidenced by Gao, the use of a two dimensional perovskite photoactive layer in a photovoltaic device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the perovskite photoactive layer of Peng such that it is a two dimensional perovskite photoactive layer based on the teaching of Gao.
Regarding claim 2, Peng, or modified Peng, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Peng further discloses in Formula 1, R1, R2, and R3 are each methyl, and R4 is hydrogen (page 650, lines 3 through 6 of right column; phenyl-N-tert-butylnitrone (PBN)).
Regarding claim 3, Peng, or modified Peng, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the perovskite photoactive layer is grown by recrystallization in the vertical direction,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US 2021/0383977) in view of Peng et al. (“Fabrication of High-Performance CsPbBr3 Perovskite Quantum Dots/Polymer Composites via Photopolymerization: Implications for Luminescent Displays and Lighting”).
Regarding claim 12, Gao discloses a perovskite solar cell ([0066]) comprising: a first electrode ([0067]; bottom electrode 14); a hole transport layer formed on the first electrode ([0067]; hole transport layer 12); a perovskite photoactive layer formed on the hole transport layer and comprising a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer ([0074], [0137]); and a charge transport layer formed on the perovskite photoactive layer ([0067]; electron transport layer 13); and a second electrode formed on the charge transport layer ([0067]; conductive back contact electrode 15).
Gao does not explicitly disclose a passivation layer which is in physical contact with the perovskite photoactive layer and consists of an organic monomolecular compound represented by Formula 1.
Peng discloses halide perovskite quantum dots used in photovoltaic applications (page 646, first two lines of Section 1. Introduction) and further discloses a perovskite photoactive composite layer (page 650, lines 2 through 6 of right column) comprising: a two-dimensional perovskite photoactive layer (page 650, line 3 of right column); and a passivation layer which is in physical contact with the perovskite photoactive layer and consists of phenyl-N-tert-butylnitrone (PBN) (page 650, lines 3 through 6 of right column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a PBN layer, as disclosed by Peng, in physical contact with the perovskite photoactive layer of Gao, because a taught by Peng, the PBN layer traps generated radicals (page 650, lines 5 and 6 of right column).
Additionally, as evidenced by Gao, the use of a PBN layer on a perovskite photoactive layer amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming a PBN layer on the perovskite photoactive layer of Gao based on the teaching of Peng.
Modified Gao discloses a perovskite photoactive composite layer (Peng – page 650; lines 5 and 6, in combination with the perovskite photoactive layer of Gao as set forth above).
Regarding claim 13, modified Gao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the organic monomolecular compound contains zwitterions, and the zwitterions are ionically bound to halogen atoms of the perovskite photoactive layer to inhibit the release of halogen atoms,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 14, modified Gao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein in terms of photostability, when the perovskite solar cell is exposed to light and measured by a maximum power point tracking method under a nitrogen atmosphere, the solar cell retains its performance at 88% of the initial efficiency even after 1000 hours,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Additionally, the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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 Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights