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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 as amended in applicant’s response dated 28 October 2025 are presently under consideration.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the prior office action. These rejections are thus withdrawn.
Upon further search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, the prior art grounds of rejection are maintained and otherwise updated to show where the new claim limitations are taught disclosed or made obvious.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have raised new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments where applicable are addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a two-dimensional layered material, which is selected from graphene, Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx, V2CTx, Nb2CTx, Ti2CTx” which appears to be defining a closed Markush group and thus should recite “graphene, Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx, V2CTx, Nb2CTx, and Ti2CTx. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 6 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 at step (1) “heating V2O5 to 600°C and keeping warm for 3h, then heating to 1000°C and keeping warm for 5h” but applicant’s instant specification and originally filed claims do not have sufficient written support for the newly amended language of “keeping warm for 3h” and “keeping warm for 5h” as amended. Applicant’s originally filed claim 6 and para [0031] of the specification have written support for “heating V2O5 to 600°C for 3h,… then heating to 1000°C for 5h” but not the added language “keeping warm”. As such claim 6 is rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites at step (1) “heating V2O5 to 600°C and keeping warm for 3h, then heating to 1000°C and keeping warm for 5h” where the term “warm” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “warm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s not clear what temperature range is encompassed by “keeping warm” for 3h and “keeping warm” for 5h after performing heating to 600°C or to 1000°C respectively. It’s not clear if the claim means “keeping warm” as holding at the heated temperature (600°C or 1000°C) for the recited period of time (3h, 5h) or if keeping warm encompasses temperatures below the initial heated temperature.
As such, the scope of claim 6 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 112599675A, reference made to attached English machine translation), and further in view of TAN et al (CN 110600614A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in further view of XU et al (WO 2022/077981A1, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1 Wang discloses perovskite tandem solar cells based on a tunneling junction composite layer of two-dimensional layered metal carbides and metal nitrides:
wherein the tunneling junction composite layer is prepared by using two-dimensional layered metal nitride and a two-dimensional layered material (Abstract, bottom of page 3 of translation, Figs. 1-2 see: middle layer 104 comprising a MXene layer 1042 between wide band gap perovskite light absorbing layer 103 and narrow band gap perovskite light absorbing layer 105, MXene is a two-dimensional transition metal carbide/nitride or carbon nitride and thus is considered including a two-dimensional layered metal nitride and a two-dimensional layered material),
a selective contact layer is arranged on one side of the tunneling junction composite layer (Abstract, bottom of page 3 of translation, Figs. 1-2 see: middle layer 104 includes n-type selection contact layer 1041 on one side of MXene layer 1042), and a transport layer is arranged on the other side of the tunneling junction composite layer (Abstract, bottom of page 3 of translation, Figs. 1-2 see: middle layer 104 includes p-type selection contact layer 1043);
Wang teaches where the two-dimensional layered metal carbide and metal nitride materials follow the chemical formula is Mn+1Xn where M is a transition metal (e.g., Ti, V, Nb, Mo, etc.) and X is C, N or both (middle of page 3 of translation) but does not explicitly disclose where the two-dimensional layered material is selected from graphene, Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx, V2CTx, Nb2CTx, Ti2CTx wherein Tx represents surface groups of O and Cl.
It’s not clear in Wang that the n-type selection contact layer 1041 is a dense layer. However, Wang does teach forming such an n-type selection contact layer 1041 by atomic layer deposition (Page 2 of translation see step 4) and that such an intermediate layer should have a good solvent barrier property (See background section on page 1 of translation).
TAN discloses a tandem perovskite solar cell comprising a tunneling junction with a dense n-type semiconductor material on one side such as a compact layer of SnO2 deposited by ALD that acts as a solvent barrier and protects the deposited perovskite subcell from damage during deposition of the additional perovskite subcell (TAN, Abstract, pages 2-3 of translation, Fig. 1a see: tunnel junction including a dense n-type semiconductor material on one side thereof).
TAN and Wang are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of tandem perovskite solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Wang in view of TAN such that the n-type selection contact layer 1041 is a dense layer as in TAN (TAN, Abstract, pages 2-3 of translation, Fig. 1a see: tunnel junction including a dense n-type semiconductor material on one side thereof) as TAN teaches this dense layer thus acts as a solvent barrier and protects the deposited perovskite subcell from damage during deposition of the additional perovskite subcell (TAN, Abstract, pages 2-3 of translation, Fig. 1a see: tunnel junction including a dense n-type semiconductor material on one side thereof) which Wang desires in the function of the intermediate layer (See background section on page 1 of translation).
Furthermore XU teaches a tandem perovskite solar cell comprising an MXene as a connection layer between adjacent perovskite absorber layers where the MXene material is Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx where Tx includes terminal functional groups O and Cl (XU, see bottom of page 2 of translation and paragraphs bridging pages 6-7 of translation and Fig. 18 see: a perovskite light-absorbing layer 41 and a perovskite light-absorbing layer 42 with intermediate connection layer 8 contains a seventh MXene therebetween) XU further teaches the functional groups allow adjustment of the work function or energy level of the MXene material (XU, see bottom of page 2 of translation).
XU and modified Wang are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of laminated perovskite solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Wang in view of XU such that the two-dimensional layered material of Wang further is selected from Ti3C2Tx and/or Mo2CTx where Tx includes terminal functional groups O and Cl as taught by XU (XU, see bottom of page 2 of translation and paragraphs bridging pages 6-7 of translation and Fig. 18 see: a perovskite light-absorbing layer 41 and a perovskite light-absorbing layer 42 with intermediate connection layer 8 contains a seventh MXene therebetween) as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of known MXene materials and functional groups for their intended use in an interconnected layer in the known environment of a laminated perovskite solar cell to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 2 modified Wang discloses the perovskite tandem solar cell according to claim 1, the dense layer is prepared by n-type semiconductor materials (TAN, Abstract, pages 2-3 of translation, Fig. 1a see: tunnel junction including a dense n-type semiconductor material on one side thereof), and the transport layer is prepared by p-type semiconductor materials (Abstract, bottom of page 3 of translation, Figs. 1-2 see: middle layer 104 includes p-type selection contact layer 1043); or, the dense layer is prepared by p-type semiconductor materials, and the transport layer is prepared by n-type semiconductor materials.
Regarding claim 3 modified Wang discloses the perovskite tandem solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a structure of the perovskite tandem solar cell is p-i-n type, which comprises a conductive substrate (Wang, Fig. 1 see: transparent electrode substrate 101), a p-type hole transport layer (Wang, Fig. 1 see: first charge transport layer 102 such as NiOx (page 4 of translation)), a wide band gap perovskite film (Fig. 1 see: wide band gap perovskite light absorbing layer 103), a n-type electron transport layer (Wang, Fig. 1, page 4 of translation see: thermal evaporation to prepare a layer of C60), a n-type dense layer (Wang, Fig. 1, page 4 of translation see: ALD formed SnO2 (equivalent dense layer by modification of TAN)), a tunneling junction composite layer (Figs. 1, 2 see: MXene layer 1042), a p-type hole transport layer (p-type selection contact layer 1043, Fig. 2), a narrow band gap perovskite film (narrow band gap perovskite light absorbing layer 105, Fig. 1), a n-type electron transport layer (second charge transport layer such as C60/BCP, Fig. 1 page 4 of translation) and a metal back electrode (metal electrode 107, Fig. 1) from bottom to top; or, a structure of the perovskite tandem solar cell is n-i-p type, which comprises a transparent conductive substrate, a n-type electron transport layer, a wide band gap perovskite film, a p-type hole transport layer, a p-type dense layer, a tunneling junction composite layer, a n-type electron transport layer, a narrow band gap perovskite film, a p-type hole transport layer and a metal back electrode from bottom to top.
Regarding claim 4 modified Wang discloses the perovskite tandem solar cell according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 4 recitations directed to the preparation of Ti3C2Tx two-dimensional layered structure material, XU teaches a similar method of manufacturing Ti3C2Tx two-dimensional layered structure material on page 7 at steps S12-S13. Furthermore, it is noted that said process limitations in claim 4 are not given patentable weight as claim 4 is a product claim. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Therefore, since the Ti3C2Tx two-dimensional layered structure material as recited in claim 4 is the same as the Ti3C2Tx two-dimensional layered structure material of modified Wang, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the Ti3C2Tx two-dimensional layered structure material of modified Wang was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wang discloses the perovskite tandem solar cell according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 5 recitations directed to the preparation of Mo2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material, it is noted that said process limitations in claim 5 are not given patentable weight as claim 5 is a product claim. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Therefore, since the Mo2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material as recited in claim 5 is the same as the Mo2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material of modified Wang, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the Mo2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material of modified Wang was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang discloses the perovskite tandem solar cell according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 6 recitations directed to the preparation of V2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material, it is noted that said process limitations in claim 6 are not given patentable weight as claim 6 is a product claim. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
Therefore, since the V2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material as recited in claim 6 is the same as the V2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material of modified Wang (XU, see bottom of page 2 of translation see: MXene is Mn+1XnTx wherein M can be V, and X is C where n=1 the material is thus V2CTx), as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the V2CTx two-dimensional layered structure material of modified Wang was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-8 of the response filed 28 October 2025 that the prior art of record does not include graphene as part of the two-dimensional layer material as claimed in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive as they are not commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claims. Claim 1 recites “a two-dimensional layered material, which is selected from graphene, Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx, V2CTx, Nb2CTx, Ti2CTx” and thus is not required to have graphene but can be one of Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx, V2CTx, Nb2CTx, and Ti2CTx. As recited above XU teaches such MXene materials including Ti3C2Tx, Mo2CTx where Tx includes terminal functional groups O and Cl (XU, see bottom of page 2 of translation and paragraphs bridging pages 6-7 of translation and Fig. 18). Applicant’s arguments to claim 1 are therefore moot.
Applicant’s further arguments and remarks depend from the arguments rebutted above and thus are also moot.
Conclusion
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). 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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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 571-272-1307. 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726