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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. With respect to claim 14, the recitation of “the second layer has a thickness of 20 nm or more and 400nm” renders the claim as indefinite. It is unclear as to whether the second layer must be exactly 400 nm or 20 nm or more. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the claim was intended to read as 20 nm or more and 400 nm or less. Interpretations will be based on this assumption.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“Redox Chemistry Dominates the Degradation and Decomposition of Metal Halide Perovskite Optoelectronic Devices;” hereinafter Zhao) in view of Cao et al. (“Stabilization mechanisms of aluminum-titanium bilayer cathodes in organic solar cells;” hereinafter Cao)
With respect to claim 1, Zhao discloses a photoelectric conversion element, comprising: a substrate (see SI-9 “MAPbI3 perovskite LEDs were fabricated using indium-tin-oxide (ITO) coated glass substrates with a sheet resistance of ~15 Ω/sq.”); a first electrode [ITO] arranged on the substrate; a photoelectric conversion film [MAPbI3] arranged on the first electrode and containing a perovskite crystal having a composition expressed by a composition formula: ABX3 where, A represents a monovalent cation of an amine compound, B represents a divalent cation of a metal element, and X represents a monovalent anion of a halogen element; an electron transport layer [TPBi] arranged on the photoelectric conversion film; and a second electrode [Al] arranged on the electron transport layer, wherein: Zhao fails to disclose the second electrode includes: a first layer arranged on the electron transport layer and containing at least one first metal selected from the group consisting of titanium, tin, zinc, cerium, indium, and niobium and an oxide of the first metal; and a second layer arranged on the first layer and containing a second metal and an oxide of the second metal; and the second layer includes: a first region existing on the first layer side; a second region existing on the first region and having a lower oxygen concentration than the first region; and a third region existing on the second region and having a higher oxygen concentration than the second region.
In the same field of endeavor, Cao teaches a second electrode includes: a first layer arranged on the electron transport layer and containing at least one first metal selected from the group consisting of titanium, tin, zinc, cerium, indium, and niobium and an oxide of the first metal (see Figure 4 and Page 143305-3 ¶[2]); and a second layer arranged on the first layer and containing a second metal [Al] and an oxide of the second metal [Al2O3]; and the second layer includes: a first region existing on the first layer side; a second region existing on the first region and having a lower oxygen concentration than the first region; and a third region existing on the second region and having a higher oxygen concentration than the second region (see Figure 4). Implementation of a multilayer second electrode as taught by Cao allows for the elimination of large cracks, suppression of interdiffusion of adjacent species and suppresses further oxygen intrusion, thereby enhancing the overall stability of the electrode (See Cao Page 143305-3 ¶[4]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Zhao and Cao discloses wherein the second metal has a higher electrical conductivity than that of the first metal (see Cao Page 143305-1 ¶[2] Aluminum vs Titanium).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Zhao and Cao discloses wherein the second metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, molybdenum, nickel, copper, and silver (see Cao Page 143305-1 ¶[2] Aluminum).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Zhao and Cao discloses the element according to claim 1, wherein the first region and the third region have bonding between the second metal and oxygen (see Cao Figure 3 and 4).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Cao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,520,652 B2; hereinafter Berry)
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Zhao and Cao fails to disclose wherein the second electrode further includes a third layer arranged on the second layer and containing a third metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Berry teaches the second electrode [190] further includes a third layer [230] arranged on the second layer [220] and containing a third metal (see Column 9, lines 1-16). Implementation of a third layer as taught by Berry provides increased conductivity (see Berry Column 9, lines 1-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Zhao and Cao discloses wherein the third metal contains a metal which is less likely to oxidize than the second metal (see Column 9, lines 1-18; copper, silver, and gold).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Zhao and Cao discloses wherein the first region has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 30 nm or less, the second region has a thickness of 10 nm or more and 398 nm or less, and the third region has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 30 nm or less (see Cao Page 143305-1 and Figure 2)
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Zhao and Cao discloses wherein the first layer has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 50 nm or less, and the second layer has a thickness of 20 nm or more and 400 nm (see Cao Page 143305-1 and Figure 2)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 10-11, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, wherein an abundance proportion of the second metal in the third region increases from a surface of the third region towards the second region; and an abundance proportion of the oxygen in the third region decreases from the surface towards the second region.
With respect to claim 12, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, wherein an abundance proportion of the second metal is higher in the second region than in both of the first region and the third region.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that features are not discussed (i.e., “property of increased rectification, increased parallel resistance, and increased fill factor, resulting in an increased conversion efficiency in a solar cell”), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant asserts unexpected properties, however no properties are expressed in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “property of increased rectification, increased parallel resistance, and increased fill factor, resulting in an increased conversion efficiency in a solar cell”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the relationship of oxygen concentration (note, claim 1 was not amended and therefore assertations that the “the first region, the second region, and the third region of the amended claims have the following oxygen concentration relationship…” are not found to be valid, however such oxygen concentrations preexist any amendments of this submission therefore will be considered). Applicant argues that Zhao in view of Cao does not discuss this relationship. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cao discloses variable concentrations of oxygen within multiple layers to manipulate the higher oxygen scavenging capability and prevents oxygen diffusion (See Cao Page 143305-3 ¶[4]). Arguments regarding Berry are considered irrelevant as Berry is not utilized within the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Gotanda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0260918 A1) discloses an organic photoelectric conversion device
- Dhakal (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0008755 A1) discloses a perovskite photovoltaic device.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM 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, STEVEN LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
