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.
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 02/02/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-14, 16-18, 23 and 26-28 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 11/06/2025, Applicant has amended claim 1, cancelled claims 2-3, 15 and 24-25, and added new claims 26-28. Claim 12-14 and 16-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.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Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 11/06/2025 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 26 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 26 recites the limitation "the at least three layers of sub-perovskite films" in lines 1-2 or 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to change the limitation to “the several layers of sub-perovskite films”.
Alternatively, it is suggested to recite that “the perovskite layer comprises at least three layers of sub-perovskite films”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 4-7, 9-11, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 110473969 A) (refer to English translation as provided on 11/06/2025) in view of Schumann et al. (US 2017/0365418 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses a perovskite solar cell (fig. 3), comprising:
a bottom electrode (electrode layer 500, fig. 3; although fig. 3 shows electrode layer 500 as the top electrode, it would be a bottom electrode in the reverse order),
a perovskite layer (perovskite layer 300, fig. 3) and
a top electrode (transparent conductive layer 100, fig. 3) (although fig. 3 shows transparent conductive layer 100 as the bottom electrode, it would be a top electrode in the reverse order),
wherein the perovskite layer (300) comprises several layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) arranged in stack along a direction from the bottom electrode (500) to the top electrode (100) (see fig. 3), and
band gaps of several layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) sequentially vary from large to small in the direction from the bottom electrode (500) to the top electrode (100) (see fig. 3) (the bandgap of the first perovskite material layer is smaller than the band gap of the second perovskite material layer”, page 2; see also example 2 that shows the bandgaps are different).
Shen further discloses example (example 1) in which the thickness of the second layer (320) is 500 nm (see example 1, page 6), which is within the claimed range of 300 nm to 2 µm. Shen further discloses, in that specific example (example 1), the thickness of the first layer is 100 nm (example 1). Accordingly, disclosed example (example 1) shows that the ratio of the thickness of the first layer (310) and the thickness of the second (320) is 100:500 or 0.2:1.
However, Sheen in a broader disclosure shows that the thickness ratio could be 0.2-1.2:1 (see page 3 or 5 of translation). Thus, in a broader disclosure, the thickness of the first layer (320) is in a range of 50 nm (0.2*500) to 600 nm (1.2*500).
MPEP clearly states that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP §2123 (I).
MPEP clearly states that “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 (I).
Therefore, claimed range (300 nm to 2 micron) overlaps with the disclosed range of the broader disclosure (50-600 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)).
Shen further discloses that the top electrode (100) is a transparent electrode (see example 1). However, Shen does not explicitly disclose that the bottom electrode (500) is a transparent electrode.
Schumann discloses a perovskite solar cell (see Title) comprising a transparent first electrode (fig. 3, [0172] and [0170]) and a transparent second electrode (7) (see fig. 3) ([0172]) such that light can be received from both sides of the solar cell (fig. 3 and [0172]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the transparent layer as taught by Schumann to from bottom electrode layer (500) of Shen such that light can be received from both sides, as shown by Schumann, which further enhances light conversion efficiency as more light can be harvested.
Thus, Shen as modified by Schumann discloses the bottom electrode (electrode 500 of Shen as modified by Schumann to include transparent layer) is a transparent electrode.
Regarding claim 4, Shen further discloses that the sub-perovskite films have a number of layers of 2 (layers 310 and 320, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Shen further discloses that a band gap difference between two adjacent layers of the sub-perovskite films is 0.17 eV (see example 1, 1.57 eV-1.4 eV = 0.17 eV), which is within the claimed range of 0.01 eV-0.5 eV.
Regarding claim 6, Shen further discloses that the several layers of sub-perovskite films include at least one wide-band-gap layer (layer 320 which is formed with a bandgap of 1.57 eV, example 1) and one narrow-band-gap layer (layer 310 which is formed with a bandgap of 1.4 eV, example 1). She further discloses the wide-band-gap layer (320) has a bandgap Gw of 1.57 eV (example 1), which is within the claimed range of 1.2 eV-2.0 eV, and the narrow-band-gap layer (310) has a band gap Gn of 1.4 eV (example 1), which is within claimed range of 0.8 eV-1.8 eV.
Regarding claim 7, 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, Shen further discloses that the sub-perovskite films comprise a material represented by structural formula ABX3 (see example 1), 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 example 1).
Regarding claim 10, Shen further discloses that the perovskite solar cell is a thin film cell (paragraph bridging pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Shen 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 23, Shen further discloses that the perovskite layers have bandgaps with an offset (difference) of 0.4 eV (page 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 26, Shen further discloses that the several layers of sub-perovskite films include at least one wide-band-gap layer (layer 320 which is formed with a bandgap of 1.57 eV, example 1) and one narrow-band-gap layer (layer 310 which is formed with a bandgap of 1.4 eV, example 1).
Shen further discloses example (example 1) in which the thickness of the wide bandgap layer (320) is 500 nm (see example 1, page 6), which is within the claimed range of 400 nm to 2 µm. Shen further discloses the thickness of the narrow bandgap layer is 100 nm (example 1). Accordingly, disclosed example (example 1) shows that the ratio of the thickness of the narrow bandgap layer (310) and the thickness of the wide bandgap layer (320) is 100:500 or 0.2:1.
However, Sheen in a broader disclosure shows that the thickness ratio could be 0.2-1.2:1 (see page 3 or 5 of translation). Thus, in a broader disclosure, the thickness of the narrow band gap layer (320) is in a range of 50 nm (0.2*500) to 600 nm (1.2*500).
MPEP clearly states that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP §2123 (I).
MPEP clearly states that “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 (I).
Therefore, claimed range (400 nm to 2 micron) overlaps with the disclosed range of the broader disclosure (50-600 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)).
Shen further discloses that a ratio of thickness of the narrow bandgap layer (310) to a thickness of wide bandgap layer is 1.2:1 (page 5 of translation), which implies that the narrow bandgap layer (310) can have a thickness 600 nm (1.2*500). Therefore, the thickness (500 nm) of the wide bandgap layer (320) is smaller than the thickness (600 nm) of the narrow bandgap layer (310).
Although figure 3 of Shen shows only two layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320), Shen in a broader disclosure shows that the device can be formed with multiple layers with different bandgaps in order to absorb light with different wavelengths or bandgaps (page 4, 1st paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used a third layer with different bandgaps such that light with different bandgaps can be harvested, as desired by Shen.
With respect to the thickness of the third layer, it is noted that Shen discloses that the layers can have 1:1 thickness ratio (page 3 or page 5 of translation), and thus it would be obvious to form the third layer with same thickness as the first or second layer, which overlaps or fall within the claimed range (see above). 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)).
Alternatively, instant application fails to show whether the claimed thickness of the third layer is critical. In absence of evidence of criticality, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of the thickness of the third layer as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over Shen (CN 110473969 A) (refer to English translation as provided on 11/06/2025).
Regarding claim 27, Shen discloses a perovskite solar cell (fig. 3), comprising:
a bottom electrode (transparent conductive layer 100, fig. 3),
a perovskite layer (perovskite layer 300, fig. 3) and
a top electrode (electrode layer 500, fig. 3),
wherein the perovskite layer (300) comprises several layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) arranged in stack (see fig. 3), and
band gaps of two adjacent layers (310 and 320) of several layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) are different (“perovskite layer 300 a multi-layer continuous and perovskite material layers with different band gap”, page 3 of translation), and
the several layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) comprises a wide bandgap layer (second layer 320 has higher bandgap and thus interpreted to read on instant claimed wide bandgap) (“the bandgap of the first perovskite material layer is smaller than the band gap of the second perovskite material layer”, page 2) and a narrow bandgap layer (first layer 310 has lower bandgap and thus interpreted to read on instant claimed narrow bandgap) (“the bandgap of the first perovskite material layer is smaller than the band gap of the second perovskite material layer”, page 2).
Shen further discloses example (example 1) in which the thickness of the wide bandgap layer (320) is 500 nm (see example 1, page 6), which is within the claimed range of 400 nm to 2 µm. Shen further discloses the thickness of the narrow bandgap layer is 100 nm (example 1). Accordingly, disclosed example (example 1) shows that the ratio of the thickness of the narrow bandgap layer (310) and the thickness of the wide bandgap layer (320) is 100:500 or 0.2:1.
However, Sheen in a broader disclosure shows that the thickness ratio could be 0.2-1.2:1 (see page 3 or 5 of translation). Thus, in a broader disclosure, the thickness of the narrow band gap layer (320) is in a range of 50 nm (0.2*500) to 600 nm (1.2*500).
MPEP clearly states that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP §2123 (I).
MPEP clearly states that “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 (I).
Therefore, claimed range (400 nm to 2 micron) overlaps with the disclosed range of the broader disclosure (50 -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)).
Shen further discloses that a ratio of thickness of the narrow bandgap layer (310) to a thickness of wide bandgap layer is 1.2:1 (page 5 of translation), which implies that the narrow bandgap layer (310) can have a thickness 600 nm (1.2*500). Therefore, the thickness (500 nm) of the wide bandgap layer (320) is smaller than the thickness (600 nm) of the narrow bandgap layer (310).
Regarding claim 28, Shen discloses a perovskite solar cell (fig. 3), comprising:
a bottom electrode (electrode layer 500, fig. 3; although fig. 3 shows electrode layer 500 as the top electrode, it would be a bottom electrode in the reverse order),
a perovskite layer (perovskite layer 300, fig. 3) and
a top electrode (transparent conductive layer 100, fig. 3) (although fig. 3 shows transparent conductive layer 100 as the bottom electrode, it would be a top electrode in the reverse order),
wherein the perovskite layer (300) comprises two layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) arranged in stack along a direction from the bottom electrode (500) to the top electrode (100) (see fig. 3), and
band gaps of two layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320) sequentially vary from large to small in the direction from the bottom electrode (500) to the top electrode (100) (see fig. 3) (the bandgap of the first perovskite material layer is smaller than the band gap of the second perovskite material layer”, page 2).
Shen further discloses example (example 1) in which the thickness of the second layer (320) is 500 nm (see example 1, page 6), which is within the claimed range of 300 nm to 2 µm. Shen further discloses the thickness of the first layer is 100 nm (example 1). Accordingly, disclosed example (example 1) shows that the ratio of the thickness of the first layer (310) and the thickness of the second (320) is 100:500 or 0.2:1.
However, Sheen in a broader disclosure shows that the thickness ratio could be 0.2-1.2:1 (see page 3 or 5 of translation). Thus, in a broader disclosure, the thickness of the first layer (320) is in a range of 50 nm (0.2*500) to 600 nm (1.2*500).
MPEP clearly states that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See MPEP §2123 (I).
MPEP clearly states that “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 (I).
Therefore, claimed range (400 nm to 2 micron) overlaps with the disclosed range of the broader disclosure (50 -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)).
Although figure 3 of Shen shows only two layers of sub-perovskite films (310 and 320), Shen in a broader disclosure shows that the device can be formed with multiple layers with different bandgaps in order to absorb light with different wavelengths or bandgaps (page 4, 1st paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have used a third layer with different bandgaps such that light with different bandgap can be harvested, as desired by Shen.
With respect to the thickness of the third layer, it is noted that Shen discloses that the layers can have 1:1 thickness ratio (page 3 or page 5 of translation), and thus it would be obvious to form the third layer with same thickness as the first or second layer, which overlaps or fall within the claimed range (see above). 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)).
Alternatively, instant application fails to show whether the claimed thickness of the third layer is critical. In absence of evidence of criticality, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of the thickness of the third layer as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
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 pages 2-3 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Park or Kim does not disclose that "the perovskite layer comprises several layers of sub-perovskite films arranged in stack along a direction from the bottom electrode to the top electrode, band gaps of the several layers of sub-perovskite films sequentially vary from large to small in the direction from the bottom electrode to the top electrode across the perovskite layer, each of the several layers of sub-perovskite films has a thickness in a range from 300 nm to 2 µm, and the bottom electrode is a transparent electrode", as required by amended claim 1.
This argument is directed to the claims as amended and is moot in view of the withdrawal of the rejection. A new ground of rejection as presented above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights