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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/2025 has been entered.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444).
Regarding claim 1, Irwin et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a first electrode (or electrode 1, 3902 in fig. 7);
a photoelectric conversion layer (see photoactive material layer of PAM1 3906 or PAM2 3908, fig. 7);
a hole transport layer comprising a hole transporting material (see charge transport layer CTL 3910, fig. 7, [0083]); and
a second electrode (see electrode 2 3912 and interfacial layer IFL5 3911, fig. 7);
wherein the second electrode (3912 and 3911, fig. 7) comprising a conductive layer (3912, fig. 7) comprising a conductive carbon (see carbon and allotropes thereof, [0080]) and a dopant layer (interfacial layer 3911) comprising a first p-type dopant (see dopants such as B or Ga or Al, and organic materials described in [0043]) and the conductive carbon (see carbon black and graphene as the interfacial material, [0043]).
Irwin et al. does not explicitly teach using carbon and allotropes thereof for the conductive layer (3912, [0080]) and using carbon black and graphene as the conductive carbon for the dopant layer (or the interfacial layer 3911). Irwin et al. does not explicitly disclose the carbon black or graphene to be the conductive carbon (or the carbon used in the conductive layer).
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used conductive carbon such as carbon black or graphene as the conductive carbon in the conductive layer (or electrode 2 3912), because Irwin et al. explicitly suggests using carbon and allotropes, and graphene or carbon black are carbons and allotropes (or different forms of carbons). Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Irwin et al. discloses all the structural limitations as claimed. Therefore, the first p-type dopant of the second electrode of Irwin et al. will display the characteristic/property of serving as an acceptor when the first p-type dopant is added to the hole transport material of the hole transport layer as claimed. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the conductive layer (3912) is substantially free of the first p-type dopant (see [0080]).
Regarding claim 3, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 2 above, and teaches the dopant layer (IFL5 3911) is in contact with the hole transport layer (CTL 3910, see fig. 7)
Regarding claim 5, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the hole transport layer comprises Spiro-OMeTAD, poly(3-hyxylthiophene), or dithiophene-benzene copolymer (see [0083]).
Regarding claims 8-9, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the concentration of the first p-dopant (or dopant in the interfacial layer) ranging from as little as 1ppb to 50mol% (see [0043]). In other words, Irwin et al. discloses an overlapping range.
Irwin et al. does not disclose the exact range of greater than or equal to 0.4mass% and less than 100 mass% as claimed in claim 8, greater than or equal to 0.4 mass% and less than or equal to 77.7 mass% as claimed in claim 9. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion in the range of from as little as 1ppb to 50mol% disclosed by Irwin et al. such that the overlapping portion is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.4mass% and less than 100 mass% as claimed in claim 8, greater than or equal to 0.4 mass% and less than or equal to 77.7 mass% as claimed in claim 9; because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 10, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches including an electron transport layer (see IFL2 3905/ML 3904/IFL1 in fig. 7 such as TIO2 4104/TiO2 4103 in fig. 8, TiO2 4303 in fig. 9) disposed between the first electrode (or electrode 1 3902) and the photoelectric conversion layer (PAM1/IFL3/PAM2, see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches using carbon black (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the photoelectric conversion layer comprising a perovskite compound represented by the formula ABX3 as claimed (see perovskite having formulation CMX3 described in [0061-0072], CMX3-yX’y described in [0102-0103] and more specifically MAPbI3, CsSnI3, FAPbI3 shown in figs. 8-11, 13-20).
Claim(s) 4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alsayed et al. (US 2017/0088719).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches the concentration of the first p-dopant (or dopant in the interfacial layer) ranging from as little as 1ppb to 50mol% (see [0043]).
Irwin et al. does not the second electrode further comprises a binder as claimed in claim 4, nor do they teach the first p-type dopant is greater than or equal to 0.4mass% and less than 100 mass% as claimed in claim 8.
Alsayed et al. discloses using conductive layer as a layer of a multilayer structured anode ([0207]), wherein the conductive layer comprising a binder (or conductive polymer) and about 20 to about 80 pbw (parts by weight) of the dopant (or organic salt, see [0067], [0071-0072]), or 20 to 80 mass%. 20 to 80 mass% is right within the claimed ranged of greater than or equal to 0.4mass% and less than or equal to 100 mass%.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Irwin et al. by incorporating a binder (or conductive polymer) such that the amount the dopant is about 20 to about 80 pbw (or 20 to 80mass%) as taught by Alsayed et al., because Alsayed et al. teaches such layer (or conductive polymer including dopant salt and binder) typically exhibits high conductivity and high optical transparency and is useful as a layer in an electronic device in which the high conductivity is desired in combination with optical transparency (Alsayed et al.: [0195]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 8 above, wherein the concentration of the first p-type dopant (or the metal salt) is from about 20 to about 80mass% (see claim 8 above).
Modified Irwin et al. does not explicitly disclose the upper limit of the range to be 77.7 mass%. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the upper limit of the range to be 77.7mass%, or the overlapping portion about 20mass% to less than or equal to 77.7 mass% of the range about 20 to about 80 mass% disclosed by Alsayed et al., because 77.7mass% is about 80mass% and selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claims 6-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yoon et al. (US 2012/0080086) or Lee et al. (US 2009/0211640).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13, Irwin discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches including dopant to modify the characteristics such as electrical, optical and mechanical of the dopant layer material (or the interfacial material, see [0043]).
Irwin does not explicitly disclose using the materials as claimed.
Yoon et al. discloses including lithium salt such as bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide lithium salt ([0044], claim 5) as a p-type dopant for an electrode (see claims 1-5) to improve optical properties, electrical properties and relatively high stability when exposed to air (see [0063]). Bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide lithium salt of Yoon et al. corresponds to the claimed metal salt comprising bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide group in claim 6, or the claimed lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide in claim 7.
Lee et al. teaches using lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonylimide or lithium pentafluoroethanesulfonimide (see [0016-0024], [0042], [0064], [0073-0074]) as the lithium salt for the second electrode (or top electrode 16/18 on the active layer 14, see fig. 1). Lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonylimide (or LITFSI) of Lee et al. corresponds to the claimed metal salt comprising bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide group in claim 6, or the claimed lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide in claim 7. Lithium bispentafluoroethanesulfonimide of Lee et al. corresponds to the claimed metal salt comprising a bis(pentafluoroethylsulfonyl)imide in claims 6-7 and 13.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Irwin et al. by using bis(trifluoromethane) sulfonimide lithium salt of Yoon et al. or lithium bistrifluoromethanesulfonylimide or lithium pentafluoroethanesulfonimide of Lee et al. for the metal salt; because Irwin et al. explicitly suggests including a dopant to modify the characteristics such as electrical, optical and mechanical of the dopant layer material (Irwin et al.: [0043]); Yoon et al. teaches electrode including the p-dopant such as bis(trifluoromethane) sulfonimide lithium salt would improve optical properties, electrical properties and relatively high stability when exposed to air (Yoon et al.: [0063]); and Lee et al. discloses the electrode including such metal salt would provide better performance for the device (Lee et al.: figs. 3 and 4A-4B, table 1).
Claims 6-7, 13-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kang et al. (CN 112635677, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13-14, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches including dopant to modify the characteristics such as electrical, optical and mechanical of the dopant layer material (or the interfacial material, see [0043]).
Irwin does not explicitly disclose using the materials as claimed.
Kang et al. teaches including BCF (or tri(pentafluorophenyl)boron) in anode buffer layer would optimize interface, improves the carrier transfer rate, reduce the interface recombination, and thereby effectively improving the conversion efficiency of the electronic device (or the solar cells, see [n0004] and [n0006-n0007]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Irwin et al. by using BCF as the first p-type dopant (or the dopant in the interfacial layer) as taught by Kang et al.; because Irwin et al. explicitly suggests including dopants to modify the characteristics such as electrical, optical and mechanical of the dopant layer material (or the interfacial material, see [0043] of Irwin et al.), and Kang teaches including BCF would optimize interface, improves the carrier transfer rate, reduce the interface recombination, and thereby effectively improving the conversion efficiency of the electronic device (Kang et al.: [n0004] and [n0006-n0007]).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (“Improved Performance and Reproducibility of Perovskite Solar Cells by Well-Soluble Tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane as a p-type dopant
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above.
Irwin does not disclose the hole transport layer comprising a second p-type dopant comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane.
Ye et al. discloses adding a p-type dopant of tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane or tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane and lithium bis(trisfluoromethanesulfonyl)imide to the hole transport layer (spiro-OMeTAD HTL) would enhance the conductivity of the hole transport layer and thereby increasing the efficiency (see abstract, tables 1-3, and conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hole transport layer of Irwin et al. by incorporating a (second) p-type dopant of tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane or tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane and lithium bis(trisfluoromethanesulfonyl)imide as taught by Ye et al., because Ye et al. teaches adding such p-type dopant would enhance the conductivity of the hole transport layer and thereby increasing the efficiency.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Seike et al. (US 2015/0243444) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Afzali-Ardakani et al. (US 2017/0084853).
Regarding claim 12, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above.
Irwin et al. does not disclose including an auxiliary electrode electrically connected to the second electrode.
Afzali-Ardakani et al. discloses forming the conductive layer (422/432, fig. 4B) including a transparent conductive layer (422, fig. 4B, [0067]) connected to the second electrode (or top metal electrode 432, fig. 4B, [0071]) to improve lateral carrier collection at the top electrode (432) and also serve as an anti-reflective coating ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Irwin et al. by including the conductive layer (422/432) having a transparent conductive material layer (422) connected to the second electrode to improve lateral carrier collection and serve as an anti-reflective coating as taught by Afzali-Ardakani et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kang et al. (CN12635677, see machine translation), and further in view of Ye et al. (“Improved Performance and Reproducibility of Perovskite Solar Cells by Well-Soluble Tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane as a p-type dopant
Regarding claim 16, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 1 above, and teaches including dopant to modify the characteristics such as electrical, optical and mechanical of the dopant layer material (or the interfacial material, see [0043]).
Irwin et al. does not explicitly disclose using lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide or tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane as the first p-type dopant;
Kang et al. teaches including BCF (or tri(pentafluorophenyl)boron) in anode buffer layer would optimize interface, improves the carrier transfer rate, reduce the interface recombination, and thereby effectively improving the conversion efficiency of the electronic device (or the solar cells, see [n0004] and [n0006-n0007]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Irwin et al. by using BCF as the first p-type dopant (or the dopant in the interfacial layer) as taught by Kang et al.; because Irwin et al. explicitly suggests including dopants to modify the characteristics such as electrical, optical and mechanical of the dopant layer material (or the interfacial material, see [0043] of Irwin et al.), and Kang teaches including BCF would optimize interface, improves the carrier transfer rate, reduce the interface recombination, and thereby effectively improving the conversion efficiency of the electronic device (Kang et al.: [n0004] and [n0006-n0007]).
Irwin does not disclose a second p-type dopant comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide and tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane.
Ye et al. discloses adding a p-type dopant of tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane or tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane and lithium bis(trisfluoromethanesulfonyl)imide to the hole transport layer (spiro-OMeTAD HTL) would enhance the conductivity of the hole transport layer and thereby increasing the efficiency (see abstract, tables 1-3, and conclusions).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hole transport layer of Irwin et al. by incorporating a (second) p-type dopant of tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane or tris(pentafluorophenyl)borane and lithium bis(trisfluoromethanesulfonyl)imide as taught by Ye et al., because Ye et al. teaches adding such p-type dopant would enhance the conductivity of the hole transport layer and thereby increasing the efficiency.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Seike et al. (US 2012/0211075) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kamura et al. (US 2016/0372528)
Regarding claim 19, Irwin et al. discloses an electronic device as in claim 18 above, wherein carbon black is used (see claim 1 above).
Irwin et al. does not explicitly disclose the carbon black to be acetylene black.
Kamura et al. teaches carbon black includes acetylene black and graphene ([0148]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used acetylene black as the carbon black as taught by Kamura et al., because such use would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 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.
Applicant argues previously cited references do not teach the claimed invention.
However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726