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
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/26/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand et al (PG pub 20190093010), and in view of CN102177592 (provided in IDS, English translation is provided), hereinafter as ‘592.
Regarding claim 1, Rand et al teaches a solar cell comprising:
a first conductive layer ITO [fig 6 para 91]], a first carrier transport layer HTL [fig 6 para 91], a perovskite absorption layer [fig 6 para 91], and a second conductive layer Al stacked along a first direction [fig 6 para 91;
the perovskite absorption layer including a bonding matrix 21 and a plurality of monocrystal perovskite particles 20 arranged in the bonding matrix, wherein the bonding matrix has a first side and a second side opposite to the first side [fig 2A 6 para 14 65];
Rand et al teaches at least some of the plurality of monocrystal perovskite particles has respective first convex surfaces and respective second convex surfaces (the perovskite has sphere shape [fig 1]). However, Rand et al does not teach the respective first convex surfaces protrude out of the bonding matrix on the first side and the respective second convex surfaces protrude out of the bonding matrix on the second side.
‘592 teaches a solar cell comprising nanoparticles 20 being embedded into the web 19. Also, ’592 teaches the diameter of the fine particles, granules or pellets 20 is greater than the thickness of the layer 19 and fig 4-6 shows the particles being protruded outside the opposite side of the web 19, it is considered that the respective first convex surfaces protrude out of the bonding matrix on the first side and the respective second convex surfaces protrude out of the bonding matrix on the second side [fig 4 6 para 48]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to embed or disperse the perovskite particles of Rand et al in the same way as taught by ‘592 such as that the respective first convex surfaces protrude out of the bonding matrix on the first side and the respective second convex surfaces protrude out of the bonding matrix on the second side for improving manufacturing cost and effective desired manufacturing process [para 17].
Regarding claim 2, modified Rand et al teaches distance between a respective
monocrystal perovskite particle and an adjacent monocrystal perovskite particle in the plurality of monocrystal perovskite particles is not greater than a maximum distance between any two points on a surface of the respective monocrystal perovskite particle [fig 4-6, ‘592]
Regarding claim 3, modified Rand et al teaches the diameter of particles being from 10 to 50 micron [para 27].
Regarding claim 5, modified Rand et al teaches distance between any point on
the first convex surface and a surface on the first side along the first direction is not greater than half of a maximum dimension of a single monocrystal perovskite particle along the first direction [fig 4-6, ‘592].
Regarding claim 6, modified Rand et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Rand et al does not teach thickness of the bonding matrix as claimed.
‘592 teaches the thickness of the web 19 being 5 o 20 micron [para 46]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the bonding matrix of modified Rand et al to be the same of ‘592 since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, modified Rand et al teaches the bonding matrix including a
light trapping surface facing the first carrier transport layer and/or facing the second conductive layer [fig 6].
Regarding claim 8, modified Rand et al teaches the light trapping surface is
provided with a first light trapping structure extending to outside of the bonding matrix along the first direction [para 102] (since the surface of the perovskite film is rough, it is considered there is uneven surface which is textured and it makes the surface protruding outside the perovskite layer).
Regarding claim 10, the first carrier transport layer is an electron transport layer or a hole transport layer [fig 6]
Regarding claim 12, modified Rand et al teaches a second carrier transport layer TPBi arranged between the perovskite absorption layer and the second conductive layer, and the second carrier transport layer is in contact with the perovskite absorption layer and the second conductive layer respectively [fig 6 para 72].
Regarding claim 14, modified Rand et al teaches in response to the first carrier
transport layer being a hole transport layer, the second carrier transport layer is an electron transport layer.
Regarding claim 15, modified Rand et al teaches the plurality of monocrystal
perovskite particles have regular polyhedron, including a sphere, and sizes and shapes of the plurality of monocrystal perovskite particles in the perovskite absorption layer are uniform [fig 4-6, ‘592].
Regarding claim 16, modified Rand et al teaches the plurality of monocrystal perovskite particles in the perovskite absorption layer is arranged into an ordered array in the bonding matrix with a fixed interval [fig 4-6, ‘592].
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand et al (PG pub 20190093010), and CN102177592, and further in view of Zhu et al (PG pub 20180005762)
Regarding claim 11, modified Rand et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Rand et al does not teach thickness of first transport carrier (HTL) as claimed.
Zhu et al teaches a solar cell comprising HTL having thickness of 10-1000nm [para 85]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the first transport carrier layer of modified Rand et al to be the same of Zhu et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, modified Rand et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Rand et al does not teach thickness of second transport carrier (ETL) as claimed.
Zhu et al teaches a solar cell comprising ETL having thickness of 50-500nm [para 78]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the second transport carrier layer of modified Rand et al to be the same of Zhu et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand et al (PG pub 20190093010), and CN102177592, and further in view of Zhu et al (PG pub 20230157039).
Regarding claim 17, modified Rand et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Rand et al does not teach a tandem cell as claimed.
Zhu et al teaches a tandem cell comprising 2 perovskite solar cell stacking in sequence and bonding layer SnOx/Au in between [fig 22A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to remove the 1.75ev perovskite solar cell (top cell) of Zhu et al by the solar cell of modified Rand et al for improving efficiency [para 3].
As for combination, the top cell is the solar cell of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18-19, modified Rand et al teaches the bottom cell is the narrow bandgap perovskite solar cell [fig 22A].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand et al (PG pub 20190093010), and CN102177592, and Zhu et al (PG pub 20230157039) further in view of Choi et al (Two terminal mechanical perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with transparent conductive adhesive”, 2019)
Regarding claim 20, modified Rand et al teaches the bonding layer as set forth above, but modified Rand et al does not teach the bonding layer being conductive adhesive.
Choi et al teaches a tandem cell comprising perovskite solar cell stacking on top of silicon solar cell and adhesive conductive bonding layer (TCA) in between [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the bonding layer of Choi et al between the two cells of modified Rand et al for excellent long-term stability [abstract].
Claim(s) 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rand et al (PG pub 20190093010), and CN102177592, and further in view of Choi et al (Two terminal mechanical perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with transparent conductive adhesive”, 2019)
Regarding claim 17-18, modified Rand et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Rand et al does not teach a tandem cell as claimed.
Choi et al teaches a tandem cell comprising perovskite solar cell stacking on top of silicon solar cell and bonding layer TCA in between [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to remove the perovskite solar cell (top cell) of Choi et al by the solar cell of modified Rand et al for excellent long-term stability [abstract]
As for combination, the top cell is the solar cell of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhu et al teaches the bonding layer is the conductive adhesive [abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726