DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/567,145, filed on 12/05/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/US2022/072777, filed on 06/06/2022, and which claims priority to provisional application number 63/197,652, filed on 06/07/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 11/06/2025 and 02/19/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-18 are currently pending.
Claims 16-18 are new.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 10, 12-14, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-18 are examined below.
The Office’s objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 11/06/2025 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
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*** rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (“Dion-Jacobson 2D-3D perovskite solar cells with improved efficiency and stability”) in view of ZHU (US 2020/0090876 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, and 18, JIANG teaches a composition and device comprising:
a first layer comprising a first perovskite having a 3-dimensional (3D) crystalline structure (3D perovskite layer); and
a plurality of second layers, each comprising a second perovskite having a 2-dimensional (2D) crystalline structure (2D perovskite layer; please see that in Fig. 1(a), that there are at least three DJ 2D perovskite layers, and that they uniformly cover the first layer),
wherein: the 3D crystalline structure comprises ABX3 ((FA0.85MA0.15)Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3, pg. 3), the 2D crystalline structure comprises AʹBX4, A comprises a first cation, B comprises a second cation, X comprises an anion, and Aʹ comprises a third cation having a 2+ charge (the ODA cation has a 2+ charge, forming a ODAPbI4 film).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JIANG does not disclose expressly that Aʹ comprises at least one of N,N-dimethyl-1,3-propane diammonium (DMePDA2+) or 3-(aminomethyl)pyridinium (3-AMPY2+) (claims 1, 14, 18), that the first perovskite comprises (FA0.85MA0.15)Pb(I0.85Br0.15)3 (claim 6)
ZHU teaches compositions having both 2D and 3D perovskites, and describes FA1-x-yMAxCsyPb(I1-zBrz)3 as an excellent 3D perovskite and also PbI4-anions combined with cations such as N,N-dimethylpropane-1,3-diammonium (DMePDA2+) (paras. 61 and 71). ZHU provides a number of examples using the diammonium cations.
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify JIANG and combine in the 2D and 3D perovskite materials because they are known options and are also described favorably in the prior art. ZHU describes FA1-x-yMAxCsyPb(I1-zBrz)3 as having faster carrier mobility and longer carrier lifetime (para. 61). ZHU also describes the 2D material classes as generating improved overall perovskite structures and result in markedly improved charge-carrier mobility and lifetime (para. 76).
Regarding claims 3, 7-9, and 11-13, modified JIANG teaches the composition of claim 1.
The device taught by the combined prior art references is substantially, if not entirely, identical to the device recited by these dependent claim (see rejection of claim 1 above). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. It is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP 2112.01).
Since the examiner does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). The applicant shall provide proof in its next reply that the device taught by the combined prior art references does not possess the claimed properties.
Regarding claim 10, modified JIANG teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the second layer uniformly covers the first layer (see Figs. 2g-2i where the 2D perovskite second layer uniformly and completely covers the 3D perovskite first layer).
PNG
media_image2.png
496
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 15-17, modified JIANG teaches a device comprising, in order: a glass substrate; a layer comprising fluorine-doped tin oxide; a layer comprising at least one of SnO2 or TiO2; a layer comprising a 3-dimensional (3D) perovskite; a layer comprising a 2-dimensional (2D) perovskite; a layer comprising a hole-transport material (HTL, spiro-OMeTAD); and a metal layer (gold) (Fig. 1b teaches all of the layers).
PNG
media_image3.png
311
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The examiner also cites LI ("Two-Dimensional Dion−Jacobson Hybrid Lead Iodide Perovskites with Aromatic Diammonium Cations") as related prior art, to teach 3-AMPY.
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