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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 as amended in applicant’s response dated 23 January 2026 are presently under consideration.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejections of record which are thus withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art rejections of record, but upon further search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, new prior art was discovered and new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
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 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairfield et al (Structure and chemical stability in perovskite– polymer hybrid photovoltaic materials, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019, 7, 1687–1699), and further in view of Yuan et al (Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells: unveiling the trade-off between transparency and efficiency, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 19696).
Regarding claim 1 Fairfield discloses a perovskite-based photovoltaic cell comprising a perovskite layer comprising at least one polyacrylic acid in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight, with respect to the total weight of precursors of the perovskite layer (Fairfield, Abstract, lefthand column of page 1689, see: adding a polyacrylic acid (PAA) polymer to a methylammonium lead iodide perovskite solar cell active layer where the mass ratio of the perovskite precursors to polymer was kept at 15:1 and thus present at 6.7wt% (1/15) with respect to the total weight of the perovskite precursors, see also Fig. 2 on page 1690 a ratio of 6:1 (16.7 wt%) and lefthand column of page 1696, Fig. 7 a ratio of 20:1 (5 wt%)).
Furthermore Fairfield teaches the device photovoltaic performance and stability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite (see last paragraph of section “Photovoltaic performance and stability” on right hand of page 1696 and Fig. 7), with said stability increasing and photovoltaic performance decreasing as the mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite is increased, the precise mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite in the device of Fairfield to obtain the desired balance between device photovoltaic performance and stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 1 Fairfield recites a perovskite-based photovoltaic cell and Fairfield is silent to the level of transparency of the disclosed perovskite-based photovoltaic cell as a semi-transparent photovoltaic cell or wherein the perovskite layer has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm.
However, Yuan teaches such a perovskite based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell wherein the perovskite layer has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm (Yuan, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1 and Fig. 3 see: Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (Pero-SCs) based on wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite with AVT >20% for 370 nm to 740 nm). Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and transparency (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion).
Yuan and Fairfield are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of 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 photovoltaic cell of Fairfield in view of Yuan such that the photovoltaic cell of Fairfield is semitransparent as taught by Yuan (see Abstract) and has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm through the inclusion of Br to widen the absorption bandgap and through adjustment of the thickness of the perovskite layer as in Yuan (Yuan, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1 and Fig. 3 see: Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (Pero-SCs) based on wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite with AVT >20% for 370 nm to 740 nm) as Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and AVT (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion) allowing the photovoltaic cell to be utilized in buildings, automobiles, and wearable electronics needing surfaces to possess dual functions, acquiring visible transparency and harnessing solar energy as in Yuan (see introduction).
Furthermore, as Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and AVT (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion) one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the average visual transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite in the device of Fairfield to obtain the desired balance between device photovoltaic performance and transparency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2 modified Fairfield discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said perovskite is selected from organometallic trihalides having general formula ABX3 wherein:
A represents a monovalent organic cation or A represents a monovalent inorganic cation or mixtures thereof;
B represents a divalent metal cation;
X represents a halide anion (Fairfield, Abstract, see: the perovskite solar cell is a methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI3) perovskite) and see Yuan (wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite).
Regarding claim 3 modified Fairfield discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said perovskite is selected from: methylammonium lead iodide (CH.sub.3NH.sub.3PbI.sub.3), (Fairfield, Abstract, see: the perovskite solar cell is a methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI3) perovskite) and MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite, see Yuan (wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite).
Regarding claim 4 modified Fairfield discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said polyacrylic acid has general formula(I):
PNG
media_image1.png
118
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein n is an integer comprised between 10 and 60000 (Fairfield, see supporting information on page 2 see: 250k polyacrylic acid and as the monomer MW is 72.06 g/mol, n = 250k/72.06 = ~3469).
Regarding claim 5 modified Fairfield discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said polyacrylic acid has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) comprised between 700 Da and 4000000 Da (Fairfield, see supporting information on page 2 see: 250k Da MW polyacrylic acid).
Regarding claim 6 modified Fairfield discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, comprising:
a glass substrate covered with a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO), fluorine-doped tin oxide (SnO2:F) (FTO), or oxide of indium tin (ITO) which constitutes the anode (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: ITO coated substrate considered to be glass);
a layer base on a hole transport material (Hole Transport Layer - HTL), a layer of poly[bis(4-phenyl(2,4,6- trimethylphenyl) amine (PTAA), a layer of poly[bis(4- butylphenyl)bisphenylbenzidine] (Poly-TPD), or a layer of a mixture of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: PEDOT:PSS on ITO substrate);
optionally a layer based on a material useful for improving the wettability, a layer of poly[9,9-bis(3’-(A,A-dimethyl)-A- ethylammonium-propyl-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9-dioctylfluorene)]- diodide (PFN-I), or a layer of poly[9,9-bis(3’-(A,A-dimethyl)-A- ethylammonium-propyl-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9-dioctylfluorene)] (PFN);
a photoactive layer comprising the perovskite layer of claim 1 (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: MAPbI3 perovskite with PAA polymer additive formed over PEDOT:PSS layer);
a layer based on an electron transport material (Electron Transport Layer - ETL), (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: PCBM layer formed over perovskite absorber layer);
optionally, a layer base on a hole blocking material (Hole Blocking Layer - HBL), (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: BCP layer formed over PCBM layer); and
a metallic contact known as back contact which constitutes the cathode (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: gold back contact layer).
Regarding claim 7 modified Fairfield discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1 and Yuan teaches, wherein the electrical energy generated by said at least one perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell is transported using a system of wiring which is connected with said perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell (Yuan, see “Characterization” page 19701, see: J–V curves were tested using a 2400 (Keithley) system under simulated AM 1.5 G solar light with power of 100 mW cm-2 and thus was connected to a wiring system for measuring the generated electrical energy).
Regarding claim 9 modified Fairfield discloses use of a perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell in accordance with claim 1 and Yuan further teaches in: building integrated photo voltaic (BIPV); photovoltaic windows; greenhouses; photo- bioreactors; noise barriers; lighting engineering; design; advertising; or automobile industry (Yuan, see introduction see the photovoltaic cell to be utilized in buildings, automobiles, and wearable electronics needing surfaces to possess dual functions, acquiring visible transparency and harnessing solar energy).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fairfield et al (Structure and chemical stability in perovskite– polymer hybrid photovoltaic materials, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2019, 7, 1687–1699), in view of Yuan et al (Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells: unveiling the trade-off between transparency and efficiency, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 19696) and further in view of You et al (Low-Temperature Solution-Processed Perovskite Solar Cells with High Efficiency and Flexibility, ACS Nano 2014, 8, 2, 1674–1680).
Regarding claim 8 Fairfield discloses a process for the preparation of a perovskite -based photovoltaic cell, the process including the following steps:
(a) preparing a glass substrate covered with a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer (anode) (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: ITO coated substrate considered to be glass);
(b) depositing a layer based on a hole transport material (Hole Transport Layer - HTL) on the substrate obtained in said step (a) (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: PEDOT:PSS on ITO substrate),
(c) optionally, depositing on the layer based on a hole transport material (Hole Transport Layer - HTL) obtained in said step (b) a layer based on a material useful for improving the wettability,
(d) preparing a mixture comprising precursors of perovskite and at least one polyacrylic acid, said polyacrylic acid being present in said mixture in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight, with respect to the total weight of the perovskite precursors (Fairfield, lefthand column of page 1689, see: adding a polyacrylic acid (PAA) polymer to a methylammonium lead iodide perovskite solar cell active layer where the mass ratio of the perovskite precursors to polymer was kept at 15:1 and thus present at 6.25 wt% (1/16) with respect to the total weight of the perovskite precursors),
(e) depositing the mixture obtained in said step (d) on the layer based on a hole transport material (Hole Transport Layer - HTL) obtained in said step (b), or on the layer based on a material useful for improving the wettability obtained in said step (c), obtaining a photoactive layer (Fairfield, page 1689 section ‘device fabrication’, see: MAPbI3 perovskite with a polyacrylic acid (PAA) polymer additive formed over PEDOT:PSS layer),
(f) depositing a layer based on an electron transport material (Electron Transport Layer - ETL), on the photoactive layer obtained in said step (e) (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: PCBM layer formed over perovskite absorber layer),
(g) optionally, depositing on the layer based on an electron transport material (Electron Transport Layer - ETL) obtained in said step (f), a layer based on a hole blocking material (Hole Blocking Layer - HBL) (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: BCP layer formed over PCBM layer), and
(h) depositing a metal contact known as back contact which constitutes the cathode, on the layer based on an electron transport material (Electron Transport Layer - ETL) obtained in said step (f), or on the layer based on a hole blocking material (Hole Blocking Layer - HBL) obtained in said step (g) (Fairfield, page 1689 section device fabrication, see: gold back contact layer).
Furthermore Fairfield teaches the device photovoltaic performance and stability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite (see last paragraph of section “Photovoltaic performance and stability” on right hand of page 1696 and Fig. 7), with said stability increasing and photovoltaic performance decreasing as the mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite is increased, the precise mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, mass ratio of the polymer (PAA) to the precursors of the perovskite in the device of Fairfield to obtain the desired balance between device photovoltaic performance and stability (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8 Fairfield recites a method of manufacturing a perovskite-based photovoltaic cell and Fairfield is silent to the level of transparency of the disclosed perovskite-based photovoltaic cell as a semi-transparent photovoltaic cell or wherein the perovskite layer has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm.
However, Yuan teaches such a perovskite based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell wherein the perovskite layer has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm (Yuan, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1 and Fig. 3 see: Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (Pero-SCs) based on wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite with AVT >20% for 370 nm to 740 nm). Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and transparency (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion).
Yuan and Fairfield are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of 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 photovoltaic cell of Fairfield in view of Yuan such that the photovoltaic cell of Fairfield is semitransparent as taught by Yuan (see Abstract) and has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm through the inclusion of Br to widen the absorption bandgap and through adjustment of the thickness of the perovskite layer as in Yuan (Yuan, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1 and Fig. 3 see: Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (Pero-SCs) based on wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite with AVT >20% for 370 nm to 740 nm) as Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and AVT (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion) allowing the photovoltaic cell to be utilized in buildings, automobiles, and wearable electronics needing surfaces to possess dual functions, acquiring visible transparency and harnessing solar energy as in Yuan (see introduction).
Furthermore, as Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and AVT (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion) one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the average visual transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite in the device of Fairfield to obtain the desired balance between device photovoltaic performance and transparency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).Modified Fairfield does not clearly recite where wherein all of said steps (b), (c), (e), (f) and (g), are carried out at a temperature lower than 120°C.
However, You teaches a method of forming MAPbI3 perovskite solar cells where all layers including PEDOT:PSS and PCBM layers are solution processed under 120°C (You, see Abstract). You notes this allows a wider selection of electrode materials and solution-processed interfacial materials that can be incorporated into the perovskite photovoltaic cell (You, see right hand column of introduction on page 1674).
You and modified Fairfield are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of 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 method of manufacturing the photovoltaic cell of Fairfield in view of You such that all of said steps (b), (c), (e), (f) and (g) in Fairfield are carried out at a temperature lower than 120°C (You, see Abstract) as You notes this allows a wider selection of electrode materials and solution-processed interfacial materials that can be incorporated into the perovskite photovoltaic cell (You, see right hand column of introduction on page 1674).
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SU et al (US 2016/0079552), and further in view of Yuan et al (Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells: unveiling the trade-off between transparency and efficiency, J. Mater. Chem. A, 2018, 6, 19696).
Regarding claim 1 SU discloses a perovskite-based photovoltaic cell, wherein the perovskite layer comprises at least one polyacrylic acid (SU, [0019], Fig. 1 see: perovskite material layer 13 including added polymer such as polyacrylic acid) and the claim 1 recitation “in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight, with respect to the total weight of precursors of the perovskite layer” is directed to a method of manufacturing the claimed perovskite layer.
The examiner notes that the determination of patentability is determined by the recited structure of the apparatus and not by a method of making said structure. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is made does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
The recitation “in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight, with respect to the total weight of precursors of the perovskite layer” is thus interpreted to mean in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight, with respect to the total weight of the perovskite material layer where SU discloses in para [0021] that the polymer additive (polyacrylic acid) is present in an amount from 1 to 10 wt % in the perovskite material layer and preferably in a range of 1 to 3 wt % both of which either overlap at an endpoint or substantially overlaps applicant’s claimed range of “in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight, with respect to the total weight of precursors of the perovskite layer”. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 1 SU recites a perovskite-based photovoltaic cell and SU is silent to the level of transparency of the disclosed perovskite-based photovoltaic cell as a semi-transparent photovoltaic cell or wherein the perovskite layer has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm.
However, Yuan teaches such a perovskite based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell wherein the perovskite layer has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm (Yuan, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1 and Fig. 3 see: Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (Pero-SCs) based on wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite with AVT >20% for 370 nm to 740 nm). Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and transparency (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion).
Yuan and SU are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of 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 photovoltaic cell of SU in view of Yuan such that the photovoltaic cell of SU is semitransparent as taught by Yuan (see Abstract) and has an average visible transmittance greater than 20 percent measured in the range between 400 nm and 800 nm through the inclusion of Br to widen the absorption bandgap and through adjustment of the thickness of the perovskite layer as in Yuan (Yuan, Abstract, Fig. 1, Table 1 and Fig. 3 see: Semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (Pero-SCs) based on wide-bandgap MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite with AVT >20% for 370 nm to 740 nm) as Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and AVT (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion) allowing the photovoltaic cell to be utilized in buildings, automobiles, and wearable electronics needing surfaces to possess dual functions, acquiring visible transparency and harnessing solar energy as in Yuan (see introduction).
Furthermore, as Yuan teaches the average visible transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite can be varied by varying the inclusion of Br in the MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer as well as varying the thickness of the perovskite layer to optimize a balance between conversion efficiency and AVT (Yuan, see Abstract, Table 1, Conclusion) one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the average visual transmittance (AVT) of the perovskite in the device of SU to obtain the desired balance between device photovoltaic performance and transparency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2 modified SU discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said perovskite is selected from organometallic trihalides having general formula ABX3 wherein:
A represents a monovalent organic cation or A represents a monovalent inorganic cation or mixtures thereof;
B represents a divalent metal cation;
X represents a halide anion (SU, paras [0016]-[0018] see: organic-inorganic perovskite materials of Formula (I) is preferably CH.sub.3NH.sub.3PbI.sub.3-nCl.sub.n, wherein n is an integer of 0 to 3) and Yuan teaches MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer.
Regarding claim 3 modified SU discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said perovskite is selected from: methylammonium lead iodide (CH.sub.3NH.sub.3PbI.sub.3), methylammonium lead bromide (CH.sub.3NH.sub.3PbBr.sub.3), methylammonium lead iodide bromide (CH.sub.3NH.sub.3PbI.sub.xBr.sub.3-x) (Yuan, MAPbI3-xBrx perovskite layer).
Regarding claim 4 modified SU discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said polyacrylic acid has general formula(I):
PNG
media_image1.png
118
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein n is an integer comprised between 10 and 60000 (SU, [0019] see: polyacrylic acid with a molecular weight preferably of 5K to 10K and as the monomer MW is 72.06 g/mol, n = ~69 (5K/72.06) to ~139 (10K/72.06)).
Regarding claim 5 modified SU discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said polyacrylic acid has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) comprised between 700 Da and 4000000 Da (SU, [0019] see: polyacrylic acid with a molecular weight preferably of 5K to 10K).
Regarding claim 6 modified SU discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, comprising:
a glass substrate covered with a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO), fluorine-doped tin oxide (SnO2:F) (FTO), or oxide of indium tin (ITO) which constitutes the anode ([0015], [0035], Fig. 1 see: first electrode substrate 11 such as an FTO or ITO substrate considered to be a TCO on a glass carrier);
a layer base on a hole transport material (Hole Transport Layer - HTL), a layer of poly[bis(4-phenyl(2,4,6- trimethylphenyl) amine (PTAA), a layer of poly[bis(4- butylphenyl)bisphenylbenzidine] (Poly-TPD), or a layer of a mixture of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) ([0014], [0035], Fig. 1 see: hole transport layer 14 such as PEDOT:PSS);
optionally a layer based on a material useful for improving the wettability, a layer of poly[9,9-bis(3’-(A,A-dimethyl)-A- ethylammonium-propyl-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9-dioctylfluorene)]- diodide (PFN-I), or a layer of poly[9,9-bis(3’-(A,A-dimethyl)-A- ethylammonium-propyl-2,7-fluorene)-alt-2,7-(9,9-dioctylfluorene)] (PFN);
a photoactive layer comprising at least one perovskite and at least one polyacrylic acid (SU, [0019], [0035], Fig. 1 see: perovskite material layer 13 including added polymer such as polyacrylic acid);
a layer based on an electron transport material (Electron Transport Layer - ETL), ([0013], [0035], Fig. 1 see: electron transport layer 12);
optionally, a layer base on a hole blocking material (Hole Blocking Layer - HBL);
a metallic contact known as back contact which constitutes the cathode ([0015], [0035], Fig. 1 see: second electrode 15 such as gold, silver, aluminum).
Regarding claim 7 modified SU discloses the perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell according to claim 1 and Yuan teaches, wherein the electrical energy generated by said at least one perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell is transported using a system of wiring which is connected with said perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell (Yuan, see “Characterization” page 19701, see: J–V curves were tested using a 2400 (Keithley) system under simulated AM 1.5 G solar light with power of 100 mW cm-2 and thus was connected to a wiring system for measuring the generated electrical energy).
Regarding claim 9 modified SU discloses use of a perovskite-based semi-transparent photovoltaic cell in accordance with claim 1 and Yuan further teaches in: building integrated photo voltaic (BIPV); photovoltaic windows; greenhouses; photo- bioreactors; noise barriers; lighting engineering; design; advertising; or automobile industry (Yuan, see introduction see the photovoltaic cell to be utilized in buildings, automobiles, and wearable electronics needing surfaces to possess dual functions, acquiring visible transparency and harnessing solar energy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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