DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are amended.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 8-9 are cancelled.
Claims 5 and 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, and 10-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a poly(9, 9-bis(3'-(N, N- dimethylamino)propyl)-2, 7-fluorene-2, 7-ylene-ethynylene) (PFN) monolayer, a Self-Assembled Monolayer (SAM) layer” in lines 13-15, which is not supported by the specification or previously presented claims. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIRNER (WO 2021255468 A1) in view of PANIGRAHI (Progress on the intrinsic a-Si:H films for interface passivation of silicon heterojunction solar cells: A review), KUANG (US 20190229285 A1), BAG (Effect of absorber layer, hole transport layer thicknesses, and its doping density on the performance of perovskite solar cells by device simulation), ZHEGEN (CN 202111140 U, see English Machine Translation), and KOROVIN (Influence of the dopant penetration depth on the solar cell performance of n-type interdigitated back contact silicon solar cells).
Regarding claim 1, KIRNER teaches a multilayer structure for photovoltaic applications (see the multilayer structure of the monolithically integrated multi-junction photovoltaic device in Fig. 2), the multilayer structure comprising:
a support structure (see the components 202, 220, 205, 203 in Fig. 2),
the support structure comprises a second absorber cell (see the second sub-cell 220) comprising a material with a lower band gap material (see the c-Si(n) material) than the material of the first absorber cell ([0031] The term “perovskite”, as used herein, refers to a material with a structure related to that of CaTiO3) (The band gap of c-Si(n) is lower than that of the perovskite material of CaTiO3) so that to obtain a monolithic tandem structure ([0054] FIG. 2 schematically depicts a monolithically integrated multi-junction photovoltaic device; see Fig. 2), and
the second absorber cell further comprises a second absorber layer of c-Si (see the c-Si(n) layer 221), and a n-type doped Si layer (see the a-Si(n+) 205), which is covered by the hole-selective contact structure so that n-type doped Si layer and the hole-selective contact structure (see the MoxNy layer 203) form a recombination junction (see the recombination junction between the a-Si(n+) 205 and the MoxNy layer 203) (see the discussion above and Fig. 2). Regarding the claimed “a second passivation layer of (i) a-Si:H”, KIRNER teaches a second passivation layer of (i) a-Si (see a Si(i) 222), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “a-Si:H”. However, PANIGRAHI discloses an amorphous/crystalline silicon heterojunction (SHJ) solar cell, wherein it was earlier observed that the transition-zone i-a-Si:H layers, which are deposited close to a-Si/epi-Si phase boundary, yield the best passivation results (see the Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the i-a-Si:H layers for the Si(i) layers in the device of KIRNER as taught by PANIGRAHI, because the i-a-Si:H layers yield the best passivation results.
And, KIRNER discloses a first sub-cell 210 comprising a perovskite material and the second sub-cell 220 comprising a photoactive silicon absorber (see Fig. 2 and [0054]).
Regarding the claimed “- a n-type high-work function transition metal oxide (TMO) layer deposited on a support structure, - a thin n-type low-work function transition metal oxide (TMO) layer having a thickness between 0.5 nm and 2.5 nm covering the n-type high-work function TMO layer, and - a first absorber cell based on a perovskite material on the n-type low-work function TMO layer, the n-type high-work function TMO layer and the thin n-type low-work function TMO layer forming a hole-selective contact structure; - a conductive film comprising a Transparent Conductive Oxide (TCO), - a passivation and wetting agent film underlying a perovskite absorber layer of the first absorber cell, the passivation and wetting agent film selected from a poly(9, 9-bis(3'-(N, N- dimethylamino)propyl)-2, 7-fluorene-2, 7-ylene-ethynylene) (PFN) monolayer, a Self-Assembled Monolayer (SAM) layer or a dipole layer”, KUANG discloses a perovskite solar cell, and teaches a n-type high-work function transition metal oxide (TMO) layer (see the HTM (MoOx, WOx, V2O5) layer, which is a n-type high-work function transition metal oxide; see [0029]; Regarding the claimed “n-type high-work function”, since KUANG teaches the same material as the Applicant’s specification material (see the material: MoOx, WOx, V2O5), KUANG’s material is considered to inherently provide the same predictable property regarding “n-type high-work function”, and the property regarding “n-type high-work function” would obviously have been present in KUANG’s material. “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). See MPEP 2112.) deposited on a support structure (see the substrate; Regarding the recitation “deposited”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in 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. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).) (see Fig. 3J), a thin n-type low-work function transition metal oxide (TMO) layer (see the barrier (TiO2, ZnO) layer between the HTM layer and the perovskite layer, which is a thin n-type low-work function transition metal oxide (TMO) layer; see [0032]; Regarding the claimed “n-type low-work function”, since KUANG teaches the same material as the Applicant’s specification material (see the material: TiO2, ZnO), KUANG’s material is considered to inherently provide the same predictable property regarding “n-type low-work function”, and the property regarding “n-type low-work function” would obviously have been present in KUANG’s material. “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). See MPEP 2112.) covering the n-type high-work function TMO layer (see Fig. 3J) (Regarding the claimed “having a thickness between 0.5 nm and 2.5 nm”, KUANG discloses a thin (e.g., between 0.2 nm and several nanometers thick) Al2O3 passivating barrier layer is used to seal off the sensitive perovskite layer [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the barrier layer so as to be between 0.2 nm and several nanometers thick in the device of KUANG, because KUANG suggests the thickness and because the change in configuration of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)), and a first absorber cell (see the perovskite layer & barrier layer & ETM layer) based on a perovskite material (see the perovskite layer) on the n-type low-work function TMO layer (see Fig. 3J), the n-type high-work function TMO layer and the thin n-type low-work function TMO layer forming a hole-selective contact structure (Since holes move selectively into the barrier (TiO2, ZnO) layer and the HTM (MoOx, WOx, V2O5) layer, the barrier (TiO2, ZnO) layer and the HTM (MoOx, WOx, V2O5) layer forms a hole-selective contact structure) (see Fig. 3J); a conductive film comprising a Transparent Conductive Oxide (TCO) (see the TCO layer; see Fig. 3J), a passivation and wetting agent film underlying a perovskite absorber layer of the first absorber cell (see the barrier layer between the substrate and TCO layer, which provides passivation and wetting for the next layer and underling the perovskite layer; see Fig. 3J), the passivation and wetting agent film selected from a poly(9, 9-bis(3'-(N, N- dimethylamino)propyl)-2, 7-fluorene-2, 7-ylene-ethynylene) (PFN) monolayer, a Self-Assembled Monolayer (SAM) layer or a dipole layer ([0032] the passivating barrier layer material includes of Al2O3, SiO2; see the barrier layer of Al2O3, SiO2, which is a dipole layer) (see Fig. 3J). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the perovskite solar cell structure as shown in Fig. 3J of KUANG in the device of KIRNER, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Regarding the claimed “the n-type high-work function transition metal oxide layer is deposited by a coarse deposition technique up to a thickness between 20 and 50 nm”, modified KIRNER teaches the n-type high-work function transition metal oxide layer (see the discussion above). Regarding “deposited by a coarse deposition technique”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in 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. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Modified KIRNER does not explicitly disclose the claimed “up to a thickness between 20 and 50 nm”. However, BAG discloses a perovskite solar cell, wherein HTL with a thickness between 50 nm – 200 nm is suitable for high efficiency solar cell (see the Conclusions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the thickness between 50 nm – 200 nm for the HTM (MoOx, WOx, V2O5) layer in the device of modified KIRNER as taught by BAG, because the thickness between 50 nm – 200 nm for the HTM are suitable for high efficiency solar cell. Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).
Modified KIRNER teaches a material of the thin n-type low-work function transition metal oxide layer is n-type doped (TiO2, ZnO are naturally n-typed doped semiconductors). Regarding the claimed “in which a dopant concentration is less than 1020 at.cm-3”, since modified KIRNER teaches the same material as the Applicant’s specification material (see the material: TiO2, ZnO), modified KIRNER’s material is considered to inherently provide the same natural dopant concentration less than 1020 at.cm-3, and the natural dopant concentration less than 1020 at.cm-3 would obviously have been present in modified KIRNER’s material. “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). See MPEP 2112.).
Regarding the claimed “the n-type doped Si layer contains a P dopant concentration between 2 x1020 and 4 x1020 at.cm-3”, ZHEGEN discloses a silicon based solar cell, wherein a phosphorus-doped N-type a-Si layer is deposited [0007]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the phosphorus dopant material for the n-type doped Si layer in the device of modified KIRNER as taught by ZHEGEN, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Regarding the claimed “dopant concentration between 2 x1020 and 4 x1020 at.cm-3”, KOROVIN discloses that when the concentration of dopants increases, the open circuit voltage and the recombination of electron-hole pairs both increases (see Conclusions). As the open circuit voltage and the recombination of electron-hole pairs are variables that can be modified by adjusting said dopant concentration, the precise dopant concentration would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed dopant concentration cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dopant concentration in the apparatus of modified KIRNER to obtain the desired balance between the open circuit voltage and the recombination of electron-hole pairs (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified KIRNER teaches a material of the n-type high-work function transition metal oxide layer is chosen among MoOx, VOx, WOx and a combination of at least two of these materials (see MoOx, WOx, V2O5 in [0029] of KUANG).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified KIRNER teaches the material of the thin n-type low-work function transition metal oxide layer is chosen among ZnO, TiOx and combination of at least two of these materials (see TiO2, ZnO in [0032] of KUANG).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified KIRNER teaches a passivation and wetting agent film underlying a perovskite absorber layer of the first absorber cell (see the barrier layer between the substrate and TCO layer, which provides passivation and wetting for the next layer and underling the perovskite layer; see Fig. 3J of KUANG).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/23/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights