DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 10/30/2025 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-7, 9-18 and 23-25 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 08/19/2025, Applicant has amended claim 1, cancelled claims 20-22, and added new claims 23-25. Claim 12-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 08/19/2025 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (EP 3 136 450 A1) (cited in IDS dated 05/22/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a perovskite solar cell (figure 1A and [0034-0064]), comprising:
a bottom electrode (first electrode 10, fig. 1 and [0034]),
a perovskite layer (photoactive layer 30 that includes a perovskite double layer including first and second perovskite layers 35 and 37, [0035] and fig. 1A) and
a top electrode (second electrode 50, [0034] and fig. 1A),
wherein the perovskite layer (30) comprises several layers (double layer or two layers) of sub-perovskite films (first and second perovskite layers 35 and 37, [0035] and fig. 1A) arranged in stack,
band gaps of two adjacent layers (35 and 37) of several layers of sub-perovskite films are different (see [0036]- layer 35 is, for example, made of HC(NH2)2PBI3, and layer 37 is, for example, made of CH3NH3PbI3; see also [0037] that discloses HC(NH2)2PBI3 has a bandgap of 1.45 eV, and has a bandgap of 1.52 eV), and
each of the several layers of sub-perovskite films (35 and 37, [0035] and fig. 1A) has a thickness in a range from 300 nm to 2 µm (first layer 35 has a thickness of 1 µm, [0043], and the second layer 37 has a thickness of 300 nm, [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Park further discloses that the first layer (35) is made of FAPbI3 or HC(NH2)2PBI3, ([0036], which a bandgap of 1.45 eV ([0037]) and the second layer (37) is made of MAPbI3 or CH3NH3PbI3, ([0036]), which has a bandgap of 1.52 eV ([0037]). Thus, Park discloses that the bandgaps of the several layers of the sub-perovskite films (35 and 37) sequentially vary from large to small (1.52 eV to 1.45 eV) in the direction from the top electrode (50) to the bottom electrode (10) ([0036-0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Park further discloses that the sub-perovskite films have a number of layers of 2 (layers 35 and 37, [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Park further discloses that a band gap difference between two adjacent layers of the sub-perovskite films is 0.01 eV-0.5 eV (see [0037], the difference would be 1.52 eV-1.45 eV = 0.07 eV, which is within claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Park further discloses that the several layers of sub-perovskite films include at least one wide-band-gap layer (layer 37 made of CH3NH3PbI3) and one narrow-band-gap layer (layer 35 made of HC(NH2)2PBI3) ([0035-0037]). Park further discloses the wide-band-gap layer (37) has a bandgap Gw of 1.52 eV ([0037]), which is within the claimed range of 1.2 eV-2.0 eV, and the narrow-band-gap layer (35) has a band gap Gn of 1.45 eV ([0037]), which is within claimed range of 0.8 eV-1.8 eV.
Regarding claim 7, Park further discloses that the sub-perovskite films (35 and 37) are evaporated films (see examples that discloses the use of evaporation to form the films, [0066-0100]).
Alternatively, the limitation to "evaporated film" is directed to formation of a product by a process, which does not further define the structure of the claimed device. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP §2113. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There is no difference evident between the sub-perovskite films of the instant claims and those taught by the prior art as described above.
Regarding claim 9, Park further discloses that the sub-perovskite films comprise a material represented by structural formula ABX3 (RMX3 or R’M’X’3, [0035-0036]), wherein: A (R in the disclosed formula) represents first one or more mixed cations; B (M or M’ in the disclosed formula) represents second one or more mixed cations; and X represents one or more mixed halide anions (see [0035-0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Park further discloses that the perovskite solar cell is a thin film cell (see [0166] that discloses that the device is a thin film device).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses a power consuming device (perovskite solar cell that consumes or absorbs light or radiation), comprising the perovskite solar cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 24, Park discloses a perovskite solar cell (figure 1A and [0034-0064]), comprising:
a bottom electrode (first electrode 10, fig. 1 and [0034]),
a perovskite layer (photoactive layer 30 that includes a perovskite double layer including first and second perovskite layers 35 and 37, [0035] and fig. 1A) and
a top electrode (second electrode 50, [0034] and fig. 1A),
wherein the perovskite layer (30) comprises several layers (double layer or two layers) of sub-perovskite films (first and second perovskite layers 35 and 37, [0035] and fig. 1A) arranged in stack,
band gaps of two adjacent layers (35 and 37) of several layers of sub-perovskite films are different (see [0036]- layer 35 is, for example, made of HC(NH2)2PBI3, and layer 37 is, for example, made of CH3NH3PbI3; see also [0037] that discloses HC(NH2)2PBI3 has a bandgap of 1.45 eV, and has a bandgap of 1.52 eV),
each of the several layers of sub-perovskite films (35 and 37, [0035] and fig. 1A) has a thickness in a range from 200 nm to 2 µm (first layer 35 has a thickness of 1 µm, [0043], and the second layer 37 has a thickness of 300 nm, [0044]), and
the thickness of the one of the two adjacent layers is greater than the thickness of another one of the two adjacent layers (first layer 35 has a thickness of 1 µm, [0043], and the second layer has a thickness of 300 nm, [0044]).
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.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (EP 3 136 450 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Shen (CN 110473969 A) (refer to English translation as provided).
Regarding claim 23, Park does not disclose that the bandgap difference between the first and second layers is 0.4-0.5 eV.
Shen discloses a perovskite based solar cell (figure 3 or 4) wherein the perovskite layer (300) comprises multiple layers (310 and 320 in fig. 3; 330, 340 and 350 in figure 5). Shen further discloses that the perovskite layers have bandgaps with an offset (difference) of 0.4 eV (page 5 of translation) in order to improve the performance of the perovskite cell (page 3 of translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the first and second perovskite layers of Park with materials such that the bandgaps are offset by 0.4 eV as taught by Shen in order to improve the perovskite cell performance.
Claims 1, 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0211791 A1) in view of Park et al. (EP 3 136 450 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a perovskite solar cell (organic-inorganic hybrid solar cell as shown in fig. 1, [0036-0124]), comprising:
a bottom electrode (first electrode 102, fig. 1 and [0104]),
a perovskite layer (first light absorbing layer 104 and second light absorbing layer 105, each being made of perovskite material, fig. 1, [0047-0070] and [0104]) and
a top electrode (second electrode 108, fig. 1 and [0104]),
wherein the perovskite layer (104 and 105) comprises several layers of sub-perovskite films (104 and 105) arranged in stack (see fig. 1), and
band gaps of two adjacent layers (104 and 105) of several layers of sub-perovskite films (104 and 105) are different (first layer 104 is made, for example, of MAPbI3, and the second layer is made of FAPbI3, [0088], and thus have different bandgaps) (see also [0037] of Park that discloses FAPbI3 has a band gap of 1.45 eV and MAPbI3 has a bandgap of 1.52 eV).
Kim further discloses that the second layer (105) of the several layers of sub-perovskite films (104 and 105) has a thickness of 1-600 nm ([0097]). Thus, the claimed range (300 nm to 2 µm) overlaps with the disclosed range (1-600 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Kim further discloses that each of the first light absorbing layer (104) is made of MAPbI3 ([0088]) with a thickness, for example, of 1-100 nm ([0094] and [0099]).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §2123 (II).
Thus, one reading Kim as a whole would have readily appreciated that the first light absorbing layer can be formed with thicknesses that is outside the disclosed examples.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of the first light absorbing layers (104) is in a range from 300 nm to 2 µm.
Park discloses a perovskite based solar cell (fig. 1A) wherein perovskite layer (30, fig. 1A and [0035]) comprises a FAPbI3 layer (first layer 35, [0035-0036]) and a MAPbI3 layer (second layer 37, [0035-0036]). Kim further discloses that the MAPbI3 based layer (37) is formed with a thickness of 300 nm or less ([0044]) such that the absorbance of the photoactive layer is increased, which subsequently improves the photocurrent ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the thickness of 300 nm as taught by Park to form the first MAPbI3 based layer of Kim such that the absorbance is increased that subsequently improves photocurrent, as shown by Park ([0018]).
Thus, Kim as modified by Park discloses that each of the first and third light absorbing layers has a thickness of 300 nm, which is within the claimed range of 300 nm - 2 µm.
Regarding claim 3, Kim further discloses that the bottom electrode (102) is a transparent electrode ([0109]), and band gaps of the several layers of the sub-perovskite films (104 and 105) sequentially vary from large to small (1.52 eV to 1.45 eV) in the direction from the bottom electrode (102) to the top electrode (108) (first layer 104 is made of MAPbI3, [0088], that has a bandgap of 1.52 eV as evidenced by [0037] of Park, and second layer 105 is made of FAPbI3, [0088], that has a bandgap of 1.45 eV as evidenced by [0037] of Park)
Regarding claim 25, Kim discloses a perovskite solar cell (organic-inorganic hybrid solar cell as shown in fig. 1, [0036-0124]), comprising:
a bottom electrode (first electrode 102, fig. 1 and [0104]),
a perovskite layer (first light absorbing layer 104, second light absorbing layer 105 and third light absorbing layer 106, each being made of perovskite material, fig. 1, [0047-0070] and [0104]) and
a top electrode (second electrode 108, fig. 1 and [0104]),
wherein the perovskite layer (104+105+106) comprises at least three layers of sub-perovskite films (104, 105 and 106) arranged in stack (see fig. 1), and
band gaps of two adjacent layers (104 and 105, or 105 and 106) of several layers of sub-perovskite films (104, 105 and 106) are different (first/third layer 104/106 is made, for example, of MAPbI3, and the second layer is made of FAPbI3, [0088], and thus have different bandgaps) (see also [0037] of Park that discloses FAPbI3 has a band gap of 1.45 eV and MAPbI3 has a bandgap of 1.52 eV).
Kim further discloses that the second layer (105) of the several layers of sub-perovskite films (104, 105 and 106) has a thickness of 1-600 nm ([0097]). Thus, the claimed range (300 nm to 2 µm) overlaps with the disclosed range (1-600 nm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Kim further discloses that each of the first and third light absorbing layers (104 and 106) are made of MAPbI3 ([0088]) each with a thickness, for example, of 1-100 nm ([0094] and [0099]).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §2123 (II).
Thus, one reading Kim as a whole would have readily appreciated that each of the first and third light absorbing layers can be formed with thicknesses that is outside the disclosed examples. However, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of each of the first and third light absorbing layers (104 and 106) is in a range from 200 nm to 2 µm.
Park discloses a perovskite based solar cell (fig. 1A) wherein perovskite layer (30, fig. 1A and [0035]) comprises a FAPbI3 layer (first layer 35, [0035-0036]) and a MAPbI3 layer (second layer 37, [0035-0036]). Kim further discloses that the MAPbI3 based layer (37) is formed with a thickness of 300 nm or less ([0044]) such that the absorbance of the photoactive layer is increased, which subsequently improves the photocurrent ([0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a thickness of 300 nm as taught by Park to form the first and third MAPbI3 based layers of Kim such that the absorbance is increased that subsequently improves photocurrent, as shown by Park ([0018]).
Thus, Kim as modified by Park discloses that each of the first and third light absorbing layers has a thickness of 300 nm, which is within the claimed range of 200 nm to 2 µm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On page of Remarks, Applicant argues that Hu does not disclose each of the sub-perovskite films having a thickness from 300 nm to 2 micron (claim 1), or the perovskite layer comprises several layers wherein the thickness of each layer of sub-perovskite films is different from others (claim 24), or that the perovskite layer comprises three layers each having a thickness from 200 nm to 2 micron (claim 25).
This argument is directed to the claims as amended and is moot in view of new ground of rejection as presented above.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721