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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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 1, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Optical analysis of CHNH3SnxPb1-xI3 absorbers: a road map for perovskite-on-perovskite tandem solar cells” to Anaya et al. (hereinafter, “Anaya at __”; cited and provided by Applicants).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 9 and 14, Anaya discloses a method of making a tin-based perovskite layer (Anaya at “Abstract”) comprising:
Preparing a first solution by dissolving a tin-based perovskite compound (11219 L col) into DMF (which does not contain DMSO) and then DMSO is further added after mixing to dilute the solution, this meets “immediately” after as there is no discussion of time (Id.) such that a “predetermined” mixing time is employed too. The mixed solution (mixing meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “stirring”) which was diluted via mixing with the DMSO is then spin-coated (meeting pumped/potential energy for claim 14 is met).
Turning to claim 10, A is CHNH3 (methylammonium ion), X is I. Note that the usage of “general formula” allows for doping of the Sn via Pb though x can be 1 so no Pb need be present (11215 L col).
As to claim 15, D1 thickness can be 270 nm (11220 L col).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anaya as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-5, Anaya implies that the application to the substrate is done immediately after the mixing which meets “less than 2 hours/1hour/5 minutes”.
Claims 2-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Anaya as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of “Origin fo Sn(II) oxidation of tin halide perovksites” to Pascual et al. (hereinafter, “Pascual at __”; cited and provided by Applicants).
As to claims 2-5, to the extent Anayay does not cover the time frames claimed, Pascual discloses that DMS forms from addition of DMSO and it results in oxidation of tin to tin dioxide (Pascual at 1069 R col). Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention would have found it obvious to perform the DMSO addition immediately before coating as per Pascual in the process of Anaya in order to avoid formation of too much tin oxide (Id.).
As to claim 12, FAI addition is disclosed (Pascual at 1068 L col).
Claims (10 alternatively) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anaya as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of “Toward highly efficient and stable Sn2+ and mixed Pb2+/Sn2+ based halide perovskite solar cells through device engineering” to Lim et al. (hereinafter, “Lim at __”; cited and provided by Applicants).
With respect to claim 11, Anaya discloses that stannous iodide can be utilized (11219 L col) with DMF as the solvent and MAI as the solute with ions thereof but does not disclose adding tin fluoride..
Lim discloses in a method of making a tin based perovskite on 3260 R col that SnF2 can also be added. This also serves as an alternative to claim 10 for AFI instead of MAI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Anaya in view of the addition of SnF2 of Lim. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being SnF2 in the grain boundaries which suppresess defect density (Id.).
As to claim 12, FAI can also be added (Id.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anaya as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of “Efficient and Reproducible Monolithic Perovskite/Organic Tandem Solar Cells with Low-Loss Interconnecting Layers” to Chen et al. (hereinafter, “Chen at __”)
Regarding claim 13, Anaya does not expressly state usage of a buffer tank.
Chen, in a method of forming perovskites, discloses when spin coating that a buffer tank can be added (Chen at 1603).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Anaya with the buffer tank of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being the control of the pressure drop which increases the pumping rate (Chen at 1603).
Claims 1-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020520086 (hereinafter, “JP ‘086 at __”; cited and provided by Applicants) in view of Anaya and optionally Percual.
Regarding claims 1-5, JP ‘086 discloses a method of making a perovskite (Sn is a possible selection for the metal for the perovskite and it is selected from a finite group of elements which has been held to be prima facie obvious, see KSR v Teleflex 550 U.S. 398 (2007); JP ‘086 at [0079]) comprising:
Preparing a first solution by dissolving a tin-based perovskite compound in a solvent that does not comprise DMSO (DMF, [0081], which is also selected from a finite group, while this is particularly drawn to lead, tin is in the Markush group in [0028] which covers the possible metals so this is a substitution of known equivalents in the art, see MPEP 2144.06) and then applying the first solution to a base ([0082], mixing meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “stirring”). No time between the solution dissolution and application to the substrate is given so this is considered to meet “immediately”. To the extent it is not, Pascual discloses that DMS forms from addition of DMSO and it results in oxidation of tin to tin dioxide (Pascual at 1069 R col). Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention would have found it obvious to perform the DMSO addition immediately before coating as per Pascual in the process of JP ‘086 in order to avoid formation of too much tin oxide (Id.).
However, JP ‘086 does not expressly state that the solution is further mixed with DMSO before applying to a base.
Anaya in a method of making a tin based perovskite discloses that DMSO can be added as a dilutent after mixing the first perovskite with DMF (Anaya at 11219 L col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of JP ‘086 in view of the DMSO dilution after mixing of Anaya. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being production of dense and smooth films (Id.).
As to claims 6-8, the mixing for the first solution can take 72 hours (JP ‘086 at [0081]).
Concerning claim 9, as mixing is occurring stirring is considered to be met.
As to claim 10, SnF2 can be added to yield CsSnI3:SnF2, Cs is an alkali metal (JP ‘086 at [0023]) and X is chlorine with DMF as the solvent.
As to claims 11 and 12, MA & FAI can also be added to that discussed in claim 10 (JP ‘086 at [0083] which is also selected from a finite group).
Turning to claim 14, a pump is utilized in spin-coating (JP ‘086 at [0082]).
As to claim 15, D1 thickness can be 270 nm (Anaya 11220 L col).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘086 in view of Anaya (and optionally Percual) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chen.
Regarding claim 13, JP ‘086 nor Anaya (nor Percual) expressly state usage of a buffer tank.
Chen, in a method of forming perovskites, discloses when spin coating that a buffer tank can be added (Chen at 1603).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of JP ‘086 and Anaya (optionally with Percual) with the buffer tank of Chen. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being the control of the pressure drop which increases the pumping rate (Chen at 1603).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“20.8% Slot-Die Coated MAPbI3 Perovskite Solar Cells by Optimal DMSO-Content and Age of 2-ME Based Precursor Inks” to Li et al. (hereinafter, “Li at __”)Li discloses a method of producing a tin-based perovskite layer (Li at “2.3 Perovskite Solar Cell Fabrication”) comprising:
Preparing a first solution by dissolving a lead-based (not tin-based) perovskite compound (Li at “2.2 Perovskite Preparation”) of MAI and PbI2 with 2-ME which is stirred overnight and then DMSO is added before coating onto the substrate.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights