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 of Group I in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0138163 to Berry.
Regarding claims 1-5, Berry teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1) comprising
A glass substrate 110 (¶0034)
A first electrode 140 disposed on the glass substrate 110 (¶0037)
An electron transport layer 150 disposed on the first electrode 140 (¶0038)
A perovskite layer 160 disposed on the electron transport layer 150 (¶0039)
An organic-inorganic hole transport bilayer 180 comprising an organic layer 320 (“second sublayer”, Fig. 4, ¶0058, 0062, 0064) which is disposed on the perovskite layer 160 and an inorganic layer 310 (“first sublayer”, ¶0065) which is disposed on the organic layer, and a second electrode 190 disposed on the inorganic layer (¶0045, 0046).
Per claims 2-5, Berry teaches the limitations of claim 1. The inorganic layer 320 of the organic-inorganic hole transport layer bilayer 180 comprises Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene)-poly(styrenesulfonate) or a polythiophene (¶0066, 0084, 0086).
The inorganic layer 310 of the organic-inorganic hole transport bilayer 180 comprises NiOx, which reads on the claimed MxOy (M=Ni) and nickel oxide layer, or CuI, which reads on the claimed CuX (X=I) (¶0065, 0086).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of “Synthesis and characterization of nickel oxide nanoparticles using CTAB as capping agent” to Yadav.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Berry teaches the limitations of claim 5. Berry further teaches that the inorganic nickel oxide layer may be formed as a nanoparticle layer (¶0086, 0087). Yadav teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a nickel oxide nanoparticle layer as a nickel oxide-cetyltrimethylammonium bromide nanoparticle layer so that such a layer will have a smooth surface (whole document, especially see Abstract, 1. Introduction, and 5. Conclusion).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry and Yadav as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Effects of guanidinium addition to CH3NH3PbI3-xClx perovskite photovoltaic devices” to Kishimoto.
Regarding claims 8-11, modified-Berry teaches the limitations of claim 7. Berry teaches that the perovskite layer comprises FA, MA, and PbI-3 (¶0003, 0040, 0041, 0071, 0089). While Berry does not teach a particular stoichiometry or doping of the perovskite layer, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add FA in order to expand the range of light absorption (right side of p. 491 of Kishimoto) and to add guanidinium chloride to improve conversion efficiency of the cell (Abstract, Fig. 3, 4. Conclusions).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Per claim 10, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the electron transport layer as a SnO-2 layer because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0038 of Berry).
Per claim 11, the substrate is a glass substrate in an embodiment (¶0034 of Berry).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry, Yadav, and Kishimoto as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2020/0343053 to Lunt.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified-Berry teaches the limitations of claim 10. Berry does not specifically teach that the substrate is a plastic polymeric substrate. However, it would have obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the substrate as a plastic polymeric substrate, because if is a known alternative to a glass substrate (¶0134 of Lunt). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Per claim 13, modified-Berry teaches the limitations of claim 12. In an embodiment, the first electrode 140 is an indium tin oxide electrode in an embodiment (¶0037 of Berry).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726