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 .
Introduction
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14, 16, 18 and 20-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the third layer “blocks anion diffusion.” The meaning of block cannot be ascertained. Blocks could mean the blocking layer reduces the diffusion, or the term could indicate that the blocking layer prevents all diffusion between layers. Applicants’ arguments imply the latter interpretation is correct, whereas Figure 6A does not show a complete blocking of all anions between the layers.
Claims 2-14, 16, 18 and 20-24 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-14, 18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ergen et al. (US 2018/0366539 A1)(Ergen).
Ergen teaches a perovskite solar film. See the title. The solar film includes a first perovskite layer (115), a second perovskite layer (125) and a diffusion barrier (120)(corresponding to the claimed third layer) disposed therebetween. See the abstract, paragraph [0024] and Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first perovskite layer may be CH3NH3PbI3-xBrx. See paragraph [0032]. In this instance, the first cation is CH3NH3 (i.e., methyl ammonium)(corresponding to A) and the second cation is Pb (corresponding to B).
The second perovskite layer comprises CH3NH3SnI3 or CH3NH3SnI3-xBrx. See paragraph [0036]. When the second perovskite is CH3NH3SnI3, the first cation is CH3NH3 (i.e., methyl ammonium) (corresponding to A’) and the second cation is Sn (corresponding to B’).
The diffusion barrier 125 prevents the first cation from diffusing into the second perovskite layer, and the second cation of the second perovskite layer from diffusing into the first perovskite layer. See paragraph [0033].
Ergen discloses the diffusion layer may be a monolayer. See paragraph [0034]. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a “monolayer” is a 2D material.
Ergen fails to mention the presence of absence of anion diffusion. However, Ergen discloses a structure that is identical to the presently claimed structure. Therefore, the article is presumed to inherently block (within the broadest interpretation of the claimed term) anion diffusion.
As to claim 2, Ergen discloses the diffusion barrier is a monolayer, and may be graphene, hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN), silicene or a transition metal dichalcogenide. See paragraph [0034].
As to claim 3, Ergen discloses the transition metal dichalcogenide may be “MX2 (M: Hf, Mo, or W and X: S, Se, or Te, such as MoS2, WS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, HfS2).” Id. “A reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named.” MPEP 2131.02 II.
As to claim 4, Ergen discloses the diffusion layer (corresponding to the claimed third layer) may be a monolayer. See paragraph [0034].
As to claim 5, Ergen discloses the first perovskite has a thickness of 30 to 120 nm (paragraph [0032]) which indicates to the ordinary skilled artisan that the layer is a 3D material.
As to claim 6, Ergen teaches the A of the first perovskite layer is CH3NH3 (i.e., methyl ammonium) (paragraph [0032]), and the A’ of second perovskite layer comprises CH3NH3 (i.e, methyl ammonium) (paragraph [0036]).
The limitations of instant claims 7 and 10 can be found in Ergen in paragraph [0033].
As to claims 8 and 9, Ergen teaches the first perovskite comprises Pb which must be 2+ in the formula in paragraph [0032]. The second perovskite comprises Sn which must be 2+ in the formulas in paragraph [0036].
As to claim 11, Ergen discloses the first and second perovskites are halides. See paragraphs [0032] and [0036].
Claim 12 is rejected as applying when a pseudohalide is selected in claim 11, and Ergen teaches a halide. Claim 12 does not require that X or X’ be a pseudohalide.
As to claims 13, 14 and 23, Ergen discloses the first perovskite layer is a halide of bromine and iodine. See paragraph [0032]. Ergen discloses the second perovskite is a halide of iodine. See paragraph [0036]. Thus, a portion of X (i.e., the bromine portion) is different than X’ (i.e., iodine).
As to claim 18, Ergen discloses the first perovskite is CH3NH3PbI3-xBrx and the second perovskite is CH3NH3SnI3. See paragraphs [0032] and [0036]. Thus, these compounds result in a portion of X in the first perovskite (i.e., I) that is the same as X’ in in the second perovskite layer (i.e., I). The stoichiometries are different because the first layer contains an amount of bromine whereas the second layer does not contain bromine.
As to claim 22, Ergen discloses the diffusion layer may be a monolayer. See paragraph [0034]. One of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a “monolayer” is a single layer of the material.
Ergen does not disclose the property recited in claim 24. However, Ergen discloses a structure that is identical to the presently claimed structure. Therefore, the article is presumed to possess the claimed property.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergen et al. (US 2018/0366539 A1)(Ergen) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Seok et al. (US 2018/0248052 A1)(Seok).
Ergen anticipates claims 1 and 14 for the reason described above.
As to claims 16, and 21, Ergen discloses the first layer may have the formula CH3NH3PbI3-xBrx. See paragraph [0032]. Ergen discloses the second layer may have the formula CH3NH3SnI3-xBrx. See paragraph [0036]. In each instance, Ergen fails to disclose the value for x. Lacking a teaching for such a value, one of ordinary skill in the art must seek out a value for x.
Seok teaches a perovskite compound CH3NH3PbIyBrx in which x is between 0 and 3, y is between 0 and 3 and x+y=3. See paragraph [0193]. This compound is the same as the Ergen compound and suggests to the ordinary skill artisan that x in Ergen may be 0 to 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified compound CH3NH3PbI3-xBrx and CH3NH3SnI3-xBrx in Ergen to have a value of x which is independently between 0 and 3 as suggested by Seok. The rationale for doing so is the simple substitution of one element (i.e., an express value for x) for another (a non-disclosed value for x) to obtain predictable results (a perovskite layer).
When x is 3 for the first layer, and x=0 for the second layer, the first layer is an ABI3 layer and the second layer is a A’B’Br3 layer. These layers are of the same composition as recited in claim 16.
When x is greater than 0 and less than 3 in each instance of Ergen, the first layer has the formula CH3NH3PbI3-xBrx (which is an ABI3-xBrx layer) and the second layer has the formula CH3NH3SnI3-xBrx (which is an A’B’I3-xBrx layer). These formulas are the same as the formulas in claim 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formulated the structure of Ergen to have formed the first layer of Ergen as CH3NH3PbIyBrx and the second layer as CH3NH3SnI3-xBrx, where x is any value between 0 and 3 in each instance. The rationale for doing is selecting known materials (i.e., CH3NH3PbI3-xBrx and CH3NH3SnI3-xBrx with a value for x which is independently anywhere between 0 and 3) based upon their suitability for their intended purpose as perovskite layers.
As to 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the layer structure of Ergen to block the transfer of the iodine or bromine from the first layer to the second layer or vice versa because Ergen teaches materials for the diffusion barrier that are the same as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants cite Figure S5 of the supplemental material of Ergen NPL as evidence that the device of the Ergen Pregrant Publication does not block anion diffusion. The “blocking” shown by Figure S 5 of Ergen is similar to the “blocking” shown in instant Figure 6A to the degree the term can be interpreted in view of the invention and the prior art.
Conclusion
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 David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights