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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that with regard to the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” MPEP 2111.03 III states “For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is 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. Specifically, claim 9 recites the limitation "the at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer" in line 3; however, an at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer is not previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 is 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. Specifically, claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer" in line 3; however, an at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer is not previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is 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. Specifically, claim 20 recites the limitation "the at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer" in lines 3 and 4; however, an at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer is not previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 9-14, 18, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2018/0158976) in view of CN 111180587 – cited on 10/20/2023 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘587, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a first electrode (150 in Fig. 12; [0138]); a photelectric conversion layer (122 in Fig. 3; [0057]; 120 in Fig. 12; [0133]); a hole transport layer (123 in Fig. 3; [0057]); and a second electrode in this order (142 in Fig. 12; [0135]).
Ahn does not explicitly disclose an intermediate layer between the photoelectric conversion layer and the hole transport layer, the intermediate layer consists essentially of at least one compound selected from a bromide, the at least one compound including a monovalent organic cation.
CN ‘587 discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses an intermediate layer (4 between 3 and 5 in Fig. 1) consists essentially of phenylethylammonium bromide (last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a passivation doping layer, as disclosed by CN ‘587, between the photoelectric conversion layer and the hole transport layer of Ahn, because as taught by CN ‘587, the film quality of the original perovskite layer is improved, the crystal gaps and holes of the perovskite film are filled, the lower surface of the perovskite and the grain boundary are passivated, and the probability of exciton recombination is reduced (last paragraph of second page of machine translation). CN ‘587 further discloses improved carrier lifetime thereby improving the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the perovskite solar cell (last paragraph of second page of machine translation).
Modified Ahn discloses the photoelectric conversion layer includes a perovskite compound (Ahn – [0056], [0057] L2; Lv – abstract), the photoelectric conversion layer having a thickness of greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 2000 nm (Ahn - [0131]).
Modified Ahn further discloses the at least one compound of the intermediate layer is different from the perovskite compound (CN ‘587 – 4 in relation 5 in Fig. 1; (last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the intermediate layer does not contain an iodide (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer), and the at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer is the butylammonium bromide (CN ‘587 – last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses tetrabutylammonium bromide).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the intermediate layer does not contain phenylethylammonium iodide (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the oxide includes a conductive oxide of which a matrix is indium oxide (Ahn – [0072], layer 142; [0065]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses wherein the oxide includes an indium-zinc composite oxide (Ahn – [0072], layer 142; [0065]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the hole transport layer includes a hole transport material, and the hole transport material includes poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-triphenylmethyl)amine] (Ahn – [0061]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the second electrode is in contact with the hole transport layer (Ahn – [0072], 142 on 123 in Fig. 3; Fig. 12; it is noted that that limitation “in contact” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the intermediate layer does not contain an iodide (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer), and the at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer is PEABr (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the intermediate layer does not contain an iodide (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer), the at least one compound that forms the entire intermediate layer is a bromide with a monovalent organic cation (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the second electrode is a layer formed directly on the hole transport layer (Ahn – 142 on 120 in Fig. 12; 123 in Fig. 3 is depicted as top layer of 120).
With regard to the limitation “by a sputtering method,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus 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 22, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the intermediate layer consists of phenylethylammonium bromide (CN ‘587 - last paragraph of third page of machine translation discloses PEABr for the passivation doping layer).
Regarding claim 23, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the perovskite compound is represented by the formula CH(NH2)2PbI3 (Ahn – [0060]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses a porous layer including a porous material (Ahn – [0131]), the porous material containing pores (Ahn – [0131]), wherein the pores are filled with the perovskite compound constituting the photoelectric conversion layer (Ahn – [0131]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses the hole transport layer includes a hole transport material, and the hole transport material includes poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-triphenylmethyl)amine] (Ahn – [0061]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Ahn discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Ahn further discloses wherein the oxide included in the second electrode is indium-zinc composite oxide (Ahn – [0072], layer 142; [0065]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that it is improper for the Office Action to construe “consisting essentially of” as equivalent to “comprising.” In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the Office Action, MPEP 2111.03 III states “For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 (“PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention.”)
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1, 9-14, 18, and 20-27 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.
It is further noted that while the claim amendments do overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous office action, amended claims 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above.
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 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