DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/559,809, filed on 11/09/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/IL2022/050495, filed on 05/12/2022, and which claims priority to provisional application number 63/187,586, filed on 05/12/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 03/12/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 53-55 and 59-76 are currently pending.
Claims 1-52 and 56-58 are canceled.
Claims 73-76 are new.
Claims 59-61 are amended.
Claims 53-55 and 62-72 are withdrawn.
Claims 59-61 and 73-76 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 03/12/2026 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The applicant amends the claims and asserts that DOKKHAN does not show the features of the claims, but does not explain the differences that the applicant considers dispositive. The applicant argues that the instant invention is different than the DOKKHAN device, but does not yet fully explain what are specific differences between the devices or what features from the claims are missing or non-obvious from the DOKKHAN device. The examiner respectfully requests additional information and explanation of the applicant’s position, perhaps including how it is interpreting certain words or phrases different than the examiner.
PNG
media_image1.png
645
958
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 61 and 73 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 73 recites “the topmost layer” instead of “a topmost layer”.
Claim 61 recites “comprising the substrate”, but claim 73 already recited a substrate, and the redundant recitation of the substrate is confusing and not necessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 59-61 and 73-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 73 recites that “said spaced-apart columnar structures extend perpendicularly or angularly outwards from … all layers of the multilayered or stacked device”, but the examiner concludes that the specification and drawings do not indicate what orientation this requires for the columnar structures. All depending claims are also rejected as they each incorporate the indefinite recitations of claim 73.
Claim 59 recites “a layer of said perovskite film”. The perovskite film earlier recited in claim 73 is presumably already a layer. With the newly written claim 73, this recitation in claim 59 is not ideal and is somewhat confusing, since it is not clear whether the recited components of claim 59 are all in addition to those already recited in claim 73, i.e., if this a new/second layer of said perovskite film separate from the perovskite film already recited in claim 73?
Claim 75 recites “a substrate thereof”, but a substrate was already previously recited in claim 73. The examiner cannot determine with certainty if this recitation in claim 75 refers to a different substrate or the same substrate from claim 73, and thus the claim scope is unclear and indefinite. Claim 75 is also very confusing because claim 73 recites that the substrate is a part of the “multilayered or stacked device”, yet claim 73 requires that “each of the spaced-apart columnar structures extends the thickness of the multilayered or stacked device” from the substrate. It seems that perhaps the applicant is attempting to claim that the columnar structure extends the entire thickness of the device, except through the substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 60, 61, and 73-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DOKKHAN (“A study of the morphology and optoelectronic properties of microgel/perovskite composite films”).
Regarding claim 73, DOKKHAN teaches a multilayered or stacked device (Fig. 3.1 illustrates that the device is a stack of multiple layers of material for form the solar cell; for the purpose of claim 73, the “multilayered or stacked device” is interpreted to read only on the meso-TiO2/perovskite/microgels) comprising:
a substrate (meso-TiO2, Fig. 3.1);
a perovskite film as the topmost layer or an inner layer (Fig. 3.1 illustrates that the perovskite layer is an inner layer surrounded by other layers such as charge transport layers and electrodes) comprising
spaced-apart columnar structures of at least one polymeric material and being free of a perovskite material (PNVF-NVEE microgels “MGs” forming spherical islands on a glass substrate spaced apart by distance W, Fig. 3.1; PNVF-NVEE does not include any perovskites),
said spaced-apart columnar structures having a height being at least a thickness of the perovskite film (side view of Figure 3.24 illustrates the idealized geometry of the perovskite film having microgels of a diameter equal to the layer thickness, i.e., the islands have a height being at least a thickness of the film; there is no perovskite material within the MG structures; see also Fig. 4.2),
wherein the perovskite film is a topmost layer or an inner layer (Fig. 3.1 illustrates that the perovskite layer is an inner layer surrounded by other layers such as charge transport layers and electrodes), and
wherein the polymeric islands extend outwards from the perovskite film, from the substrate or any of the layers of the multilayered structure (the polymeric islands of the PNVF-NVEE microgels extend outwards from at least the HTM downwards directionally and also from the meso-TiO2 layer upwards and perpendicularly).
PNG
media_image2.png
254
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3.1
PNG
media_image3.png
515
730
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
664
479
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 60, DOKKHAN teaches the device according to claim 73, the device having the structure HTL/perovskite/ETL/metal contact, wherein "HTL" is a hole transport material layer, "perovskite" is a perovskite material, "ETL" is an electron transport material layer, and "metal contact" is a physical contact made of a metallic material (Figure 3.1 teaches all of the claimed layers and material types).
Regarding claim 61, DOKKHAN teaches the device according to claim 73, wherein the device comprises the substrate (glass/ITO), a compact metal oxide layer (bl-TiO2) and a mesoporous metal oxide layer (meso-TiO2), wherein the perovskite film is provided on the mesoporous metal oxide layer (Fig. 3.1 illustrates the required arrangement and types of layers).
Regarding claim 74, DOKKHAN teaches the multilayered or stacked device according to claim 73, wherein the device is a transparent or a semitransparent photovoltaic cell (since the gold back contact does not fully cover the rear surface then the solar cell will be at least partially transparent).
Regarding claim 75, DOKKHAN teaches the multilayered or stacked device according to claim 73, wherein each of the spaced-apart columnar structures extends the thickness of the multilayered or stacked device from a substrate thereof (since the “multilayered or stacked device” is interpreted to read only on the meso-TiO2/perovskite/microgels; the examiner asserts that each of the spaced-apart columnar structures (MGs) extends the thickness of the multilayered or stacked device from a substrate (meso-TiO2) thereof).
Regarding claim 76, DOKKHAN teaches the multilayered or stacked device according to claim 73, wherein the perovskite film is the topmost layer (the “multilayered or stacked device” is interpreted to read only on the meso-TiO2/perovskite/microgels; so the perovskite layer is the topmost layer as the other layers are disregarded and considered separate from the “multilayered or stacked device”).
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.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOKKHAN (“A study of the morphology and optoelectronic properties of microgel/perovskite composite films”).
Regarding claim 59, DOKKHAN teaches the device according to claim 73, comprising an electrode (ITO electrode), an electron transport layer (ETL) (meso-TiO2), a mesoporous oxide layer (meso-TiO2), a perovskite layer (perovskite layer), a hole transport layer (HTL) (“HTM”) and an electrode layer (Au gold layer electrode) (see Figure 3.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
254
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3.1
DOKKHAN does not disclose expressly in a single embodiment also that the electrode is fluorine-doped.
However, DOKKHAN teaches in other known device embodiments that FTO is a well-known and commonly used transparent cathode (Figures 2.24 and 2.25 and section 2.9.1).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify DOKKHAN and replace the ITO electrode with an FTO electrode because they are extremely well-known equivalents in the solar cell art, and because this modification would only constitute a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain entirely predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights