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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 8 and 13 are amended.
Claims 11-12 and 18-19 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 13-17, and 20 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 8-10, 13-17, and 20 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 8 recites “the perovskite solar cell is chalcopyrite structure” in line 5, which is not supported by the specification or previously presented claims. The Applicant’s specification, which discloses “As can be seen from FIG. 4, typical diffraction peaks representing the chalcopyrite structure appear in the X-ray diffraction patterns of samples 1 and 2, indicating that the AgGa(Se, S)2 film is a good quality chalcopyrite nanofilm” [0037], do not support the recitation. All claims which depend on clam 8 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites “the perovskite solar cell is chalcopyrite structure” in line 6, which is not supported by the specification or previously presented claims. The Applicant’s specification, which discloses “As can be seen from FIG. 4, typical diffraction peaks representing the chalcopyrite structure appear in the X-ray diffraction patterns of samples 1 and 2, indicating that the AgGa(Se, S)2 film is a good quality chalcopyrite nanofilm” [0037], do not support the recitation. All claims which depend on clam 13 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 8-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU (WO 2022073518 A1, see US publication US 20230371292 A1 as an English translation of WO 2022073518 A1 since US 20230371292 A1 corresponds to the application that was the national stage entry of WO 2022073518 A1), with evidence provided by MATSUSHITA (Electrical, Optical and Schottky Properties of AgGa(S1-xSex)2 System).
Regarding claim 8, XU teaches a hole transport layer of a perovskite solar cell (see the hole transport layer 310 of the tandem cell with perovskite absorbing layer) (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding the claimed “comprising silver, gallium, selenium and sulfur, wherein a composition of the hole transport layer is AgGa(Se, S)2, and a molar ratio between silver, gallium, selenium and sulfur is 1:1:2-X:X, 0<X<2”, XU discloses the hole transporting layer 310 is made of the semiconductor material with the p-type delafossite structure, wherein a general chemical formula of the semiconductor material with the p-type delafossite structure is ABαCx, wherein A may include Ag+, B may include Ga3+, α ranges from 0.9 to 1.1, and C is one or more of S, Se, and x ranges from 1.95 to 2.6 ([0064]-[0066]). Based on the disclosure, the composition of the hole transporting layer 310 may include AgGa(S, Se)2 (When C is both of S and Se, α is 1.0, and x is 2.0). 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 AgGa(S, Se)2 material for the hole transporting layer in the device of XU, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Modified XU teaches the perovskite solar cell is chalcopyrite structure (The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses that “Figure 1 shows the powder X-ray diffraction patterns of the AgGa(S1-xSex)2 system obtained at room temperature. It was confirmed that all crystals have a single chalcopyrite phase” [P5546]; Therefore, AgGa(S, Se)2 material for the hole transporting layer is chalcopyrite structure), and energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2 (Since modified XU’s composition is the same composition with Applicant’s specification (Modified XU teaches AgGa(S, Se)2 material; Applicant’s specification discloses the composition of the hole transport layer 104 is AgGa(Se, S)2 [0025]), modified XU’s composition is considered to inherently provide the same predictable property regarding “wherein an energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2”, and the property regarding “wherein an energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2” would obviously have been present in modified XU’s composition. “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), and the energy band of the hole transport layer is controlled by adjusting a ratio between sulfur and selenium (The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses AgGa(S1-xSex)2, wherein the optical band gap at room temperature determined from these extrapolated lines in this inset shows a slight concave decrease from 2.68 eV at x = 0 to 1.77 eV at x = 1 with increasing composition x; Therefore, the energy band of the XU’s hole transport layer has a capability of being controlled by adjusting a ratio between sulfur and selenium).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
XU teaches an energy gap of the hole transport layer is at least 1.75 eV (The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses AgGa(S1-xSex)2, wherein the optical band gap at room temperature determined from these extrapolated lines in this inset shows a slight concave decrease from 2.68 eV at x = 0 to 1.77 eV at x = 1 with increasing composition x and Fig. 2 shows that the band gap of AgGa(S1-xSex)2 with x=0.5 is about 2.05 eV).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
XU teaches the hole transport layer has a thickness ranged from 30 nm to 100 nm ([0012] a thickness of the hole transporting layer is from 5 nm to 100 nm; 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.).).
Regarding claim 13, XU teaches a perovskite solar cell (see the tandem cell with perovskite absorbing layer) (see Figs. 1-3), comprising a first electrode (see the first transparent conducting layer 106), a hole transport layer (see the hole transport layer 310), a perovskite layer (see the perovskite absorbing layer 320), an electron transport layer (see the electron transporting interface layer 331 & leakage repairing layer 332 & electron transporting layer 333) and a second electrode (see the second transparent conducting layer 341) stacked in sequence (see Fig. 3). Regarding the claimed “wherein the hole transport layer comprises silver, gallium, selenium and sulfur, a composition of the hole transport layer is AgGa(Se, S)2, and a molar ratio between silver, gallium, selenium and sulfur is 1:1:2-X:X, 0<X<2”, XU discloses the hole transporting layer 310 is made of the semiconductor material with the p-type delafossite structure, wherein a general chemical formula of the semiconductor material with the p-type delafossite structure is ABαCx, wherein A may include Ag+, B may include Ga3+, α ranges from 0.9 to 1.1, and C is one or more of S, Se, and x ranges from 1.95 to 2.6 ([0064]-[0066]). Based on the disclosure, the composition of the hole transporting layer 310 may include AgGa(S, Se)2 (When C is both of S and Se, α is 1.0, and x is 2.0). 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 AgGa(S, Se)2 material for the hole transporting layer in the device of XU, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Modified XU teaches the perovskite solar cell is chalcopyrite structure (The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses that “Figure 1 shows the powder X-ray diffraction patterns of the AgGa(S1-xSex)2 system obtained at room temperature. It was confirmed that all crystals have a single chalcopyrite phase” [P5546]; Therefore, AgGa(S, Se)2 material for the hole transporting layer is chalcopyrite structure), and energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2 (Since modified XU’s composition is the same composition with Applicant’s specification (Modified XU teaches AgGa(S, Se)2 material; Applicant’s specification discloses the composition of the hole transport layer 104 is AgGa(Se, S)2 [0025]), modified XU’s composition is considered to inherently provide the same predictable property regarding “wherein an energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2”, and the property regarding “wherein an energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2” would obviously have been present in modified XU’s composition. “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), and the energy band of the hole transport layer is controlled by adjusting a ratio between sulfur and selenium (The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses AgGa(S1-xSex)2, wherein the optical band gap at room temperature determined from these extrapolated lines in this inset shows a slight concave decrease from 2.68 eV at x = 0 to 1.77 eV at x = 1 with increasing composition x; Therefore, the energy band of the XU’s hole transport layer has a capability of being controlled by adjusting a ratio between sulfur and selenium).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
XU teaches wherein the perovskite layer is organic-inorganic metal halide perovskite (FAXMAyCsz)Pb(IαBrβClγ)3, X+Y+Z=1 and α+β+γ=1 ([0107] A component of the absorption layer is CsxFA1-xPb(BryI1-y)3.; When x = 0, Y= 0, the component of the absorption layer is FAPb(I)3 (which correspond to the (FAXMAyCsz)Pb(IαBrβClγ)3, when X=1, Y=0, Z=0, α=1, β=0, and γ=0)).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
XU teaches wherein a material of the electron transport layer is at least one selected from carbon 60 derivatives, Bathocuproine BCP, titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) ([0091] the leakage repairing layer 332 may be a C60 or fullerene derivative (PCBM) thin film layer).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
XU teaches an energy gap of the hole transport layer is at least 1.75 eV (The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses AgGa(S1-xSex)2, wherein the optical band gap at room temperature determined from these extrapolated lines in this inset shows a slight concave decrease from 2.68 eV at x = 0 to 1.77 eV at x = 1 with increasing composition x and Fig. 2 shows that the band gap of AgGa(S1-xSex)2 with x=0.5 is about 2.05 eV).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
XU teaches the hole transport layer has a thickness ranged from 30 nm to 100 nm ([0012] a thickness of the hole transporting layer is from 5 nm to 100 nm; 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.).).
Regarding claim 20, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 13.
XU teaches the first electrode and the second electrode are transparent electrodes (see the first transparent conducting layer 106 and the second transparent conducting layer 341).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/22/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that the prior art does not teach “the perovskite solar cell is chalcopyrite structure, an energy band of the hole transport layer is defined as Eg, and Eg satisfies Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2; and the energy band of the hole transport layer is controlled by adjusting a ratio between the sulfur and the selenium” in the claim, is not persuasive.
The evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses that “Figure 1 shows the powder X-ray diffraction patterns of the AgGa(S1-xSex)2 system obtained at room temperature. It was confirmed that all crystals have a single chalcopyrite phase” [P5546]; Therefore, AgGa(S, Se)2 material for the hole transporting layer is chalcopyrite structure, which correspond to the claimed “the perovskite solar cell is chalcopyrite structure”. The claimed “Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2” is the material property for AgGa(S, Se)2 material. Modified XU’s composition teaches AgGa(S, Se)2 material as required by the claimed. Therefore, the property regarding “Eg = 2.26*(1-X) + 1.76 X, 0<X<2” would obviously have been present in modified XU’s composition. And, the evidence provided by MATSUSHITA discloses AgGa(S1-xSex)2, wherein the optical band gap at room temperature is determined from the ratio of S and Se. Therefore, the energy band of the AgGa(S, Se)2 material has a capability of being controlled by adjusting a ratio between sulfur and selenium.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified and/or new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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