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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 has a broader range for b than that claimed in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidaminov (US 2021/0125790 A1) in view of Stoddard (Enhancing Defect Tolerance and Phase Stability of High-Bandgap Perovskites via Guanidinium Alloying).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 8, Saidaminov discloses a perovskite material having the formula (I) ([0013], note that the formula ABX3 will have the a+b+c=1):
AaA'bA''cSn(y)Pb(1-y)X3 (I)
wherein A comprises of a monovalent cation
A' comprises of a monovalent organic cation having an ionic radius greater than 2.53 Å;
A'' comprises of a monovalent inorganic cation;
X comprises one or more halide anions;
0<a<1;
0.15<b<0.5;
0<c<1;
a+b+c=1; and 0<y<1.
However, Saidaminov does not disclose that A consists of a monovalent organic cation and is selected from methyl ammonium (MA, CH3NH3 +), formamidinium (HC(NH)2)2+), and ethyl ammonium (CH3CH2NH3+) or that A' consists of a monovalent organic cation selected from ethyl ammonium (EA), imidazolium,
guanidinium, and dimethyl ammonium or that A” comprises of a monovalent inorganic cation, and that the composition of A, A’, and A” is respectively 0<a<1; 0.15<b<0.5; and 0<c<1; and wherein a+b+c=1.
Saidaminov discloses that the mixture of cations for A can comprise a mixture of two or more of methyl ammonium (MA, CH3NH3 +), formamidinium (HC(NH)2)2+), Cs ethyl ammonium (CH3CH2NH3+), guanidinium, and dimethyl ammonium ([0013]) and wherein B comprises a mixture of Pb and Sn ([0013]) and X comprises a mixture of halide ions ([0013]).
Stoddard discloses a triple cation perovskite wherein the triple cation is formed of FA0.33GA0.19Cs0.47 wherein A is formamidinium (a=0.33), A’ is guanidinium (b=0.19), and A” Cesium (c=0.47) and discloses that this triple cation formulation results in one of the highest open circuit voltages for high bandgap perovskites (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination A, A’, A” of Saidaminov so that they are the composition as disclosed by Stoddard because Stoddard discloses that this triple cation formulation results in one of the highest open circuit voltages for high bandgap perovskites.
Regarding claim 5, Saidaminov discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Saidaminov discloses wherein X comprises one or more halide anions selected from I and Br ([0013]).
Stoddard discloses that a mixture of I and Br can be coupled with the triple cation FA0.33GA0.19Cs0.47 (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the combination of the halides of modified Saidaminov so that it included I and Br because Saidaminov discloses it is appropriate to do so and because Stoddard discloses that a mixture of I and Br can be coupled with the triple cation FA0.33GA0.19Cs0.47 which is the cation mixture of modified Saidaminov.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saidaminov (US 2021/0125790 A1) in view of Stoddard (Enhancing Defect Tolerance and Phase Stability of High-Bandgap Perovskites via Guanidinium Alloying) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above and in further view of Hao (Anomalous Band Gap Behavior in Mixed Sn and Pb Perovskites Enables Broadening of Absorption Spectrum in Solar Cells).
Regarding claim 6, modified Saidaminov discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Saidaminov does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.2 < y <0.7.
Hao discloses that when Sn(y)Pb(1-y) with y between 0 and 1 is used in a perovskite material of ABX3 structure it can significantly extend the solar absorption spectrum of the perovskite based systems (Conclusion and Abstract and Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ratio of Sn/Pb in the perovskite solar cell of modified Saidaminov to be in a ratio as disclosed by Hao because it can significantly extend the solar absorption spectrum of the perovskite based systems and in certain instances increase the efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoddard (Enhancing Defect Tolerance and Phase Stability of High-Bandgap Perovskites via Guanidinium Alloying) in view of Hao (Anomalous Band Gap Behavior in Mixed Sn and Pb Perovskites Enables Broadening of Absorption Spectrum in Solar Cells).
Regarding claim 1-6, and 8, Stoddard discloses a triple cation perovskite wherein the triple cation is formed of FA0.33 GA0.19Cs0.47Pb(I 0.66Br0.34)3 wherein A is formamidinium (a=0.33), A’ is guanidinium (b=0.19), and A” Cesium (c=0.47) and discloses that this triple cation formulation results in one of the highest open circuit voltages for high bandgap perovskites (Abstract).
However, Gholipour does not disclose that there is a mixture of Pb and Sn such that the composition comprises Sn(y)Pb(1-y) with 0<y<1.
Hao discloses that when Sn(y)Pb(1-y) with y between 0 and 1 is used in a perovskite material of ABX3 structure instead of solely Pb it can significantly extend the solar absorption spectrum of the perovskite based systems (Conclusion and Abstract and Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the replace Pb of Stoddard with a mixture of Pb and Sn as disclosed by Hao because it can significantly extend the solar absorption spectrum of the perovskite based systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has found the claimed ranges for A' and A" to be important for achieving unexpected beneficial results. As explained on page 17 of the specification as filed, it is of interest to ensure that A' is present in sufficient quantity such that it does not act as a passivating agent and has further found that when A' has an ionic radius greater than 2.53 Å and is present in an amount between 15% and 50% of the total A, A', and A'' cations, the resulting material exhibits unexpected stability due to the proper intercalation of these large ions.
As noted in the prior art of Stoddard larger cations such as guanidinium (GA) lead to improvements of Voc and stability (see pg. 1264, Structural Characterization of Spin-Coated Films), and Stoddard discloses the claimed amount of GA in the triple cation perovskite.
Applicant additionally argues that Saidaminov proposes using smaller ions, such
as Cd and Cl, to stabilize new perovskite materials. This is apparent from, for example,
paragraph [0123] of Saidaminov.
Saidaminov discloses in an additional embodiment a perovskite compound having a formula ABX3, wherein A comprises at least two of formamidinium (FA), cesium (Cs), methylammonium (MA), guanidinium (GA), dymethylammonium (DMA), and ethylammonium (EA); wherein B comprises a mixture of lead (Pb) and tin (Sn); and wherein X comprises a mixture of bromide (Br), iodide (I) and chloride (Cl) ([0013]).
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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726