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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (KR 2020-0007241) (“Woo), in view of William et al. (KR 10-2246585) (“William”), with motivation provided by Liu et al., "Efficient Investigation of High‐Performance Perovskite Solar Cells Based on Shadow‐Mask Kits with Uniform Patterning and Antishadowing Capabilities", Advanced Materials Technology, August 2021, 2001207, pgs. 1-8 (“Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Woo teaches at least in figure 6:
a step of preparing a substrate (101) on which a first conductive charge transport layer (132) is formed.
Woo does not teach:
a step of positioning a mask having an opening pattern on the substrate; and
a step of forming a perovskite layer on the substrate and the mask.
William teaches:
a step of positioning a mask (figure 4 the top layer with holes in hit) having an opening pattern on the substrate (bottom of figure 4); and
a step of forming a perovskite layer (Woo 132; William ¶ 0034) on the substrate and the mask (figure 4 shows the perovskite layer being formed by means of the mask.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to combine William with Woo and form the perovskite layer with a mask as shown by William because it is standard in the art. For evidence of this statement Examiner proffers Liu. Where Liu teaches “the metal shadow-mask represents a feasible technique and has been widely applied in the fabrication of solar cells because they can guarantee simple, robust, and low-cost film pattern definition without damaging the underlying materials.” Pg. 1 at col. 2.
Regarding claims 2, 8, William teaches:
wherein the step of forming the perovskite layer is performed at a pressure lower than an atmospheric pressure (¶ 0095, where the perovskite layer is formed in an argon partial pressure of 20mTorr).
Regarding claims 4, 10, William teaches:
further comprising a step of separating the perovskite layer for a plurality of unit cells by removing the mask and remaining the perovskite layer on the substrate (This is shown in figure 4, and/or it is obvious based upon the plurality of mask shown that one would, or could, use a plurality of mask for the manufacturing of the device including a separate mask for the perovskite layer).
Regarding claims 5, 11, the prior art teaches:
wherein the mask includes an edge mask pattern, a contact mask pattern, and a separator mask pattern, the edge mask pattern is formed on one end and the other end of the substrate, and the contact mask pattern and the separator mask pattern are formed to be spaced apart from each other at a center side of the substrate (based upon the device shown in Woo figure 6, and based upon masks (e.g. shadow masks) shown in William figure 6, and based upon the motivations shown in Liu it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would make mask with the claimed features. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would need to make such a mask to form the device of Woo. Additionally, or alternatively, it would have been obvious to make the claimed mask as the device of Woo has the same claimed features and would obviously need a mask to make said features.).
Regarding claims 6, and 12, the prior art teaches:
a step of forming a second conductive charge transport layer (Woo 133) on the substrate (Woo 101) and the mask before the step of removing the mask (a mask of William), and
a step of separating the second conductive charge transport layer for a plurality of unit cells by remaining the second conductive charge transport layer on the substrate during the step of removing the mask (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reuse a mask for different layers if the layer being applied has the same features as the layer above it. This would reduce processing time as one would not have to replace and align each mask. However, one could just as easily change mask if there is too much buildup of the previous layers on the mask such that one could potentially contaminate one layer with the layers buildup on the masks. Therefore, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based upon how one of ordinary skill in the art chooses to process the device as stated above.).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art teaches:
a step of preparing a substrate (Woo 101 is prepared);
a step of positioning a mask (William figure 4) having an opening pattern on the substrate (William figure 4 shows openings in the mask); and
a step of forming a first conductive charge transport layer (Woo 131) and a perovskite layer (Woo 132) on the substrate (Woo 101) and the mask (William figure 4; see rational in claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art teaches:
a step of positioning a first mask (William figure 4) on a substrate (Woo 101) and forming a first electrode layer (Woo 110) separated by a plurality of unit cells using the first mask (As shown in Woo figure 1 there are a plurality of “unit cells”; William figure 4 shows a mask with a plurality of unit cells);
a step of positioning a second mask on the first electrode layer (Woo 110) and forming a first conductive charge transport layer (Woo 131) (it would be obvious that there would be a second mask as the shape of Woo 131 is different than the shape of Woo 110),
a light absorption layer (132) made of a perovskite compound (¶ 0044), and
a second conductive charge transport layer (Woo 133),
each of which is separated for the plurality of unit cells (Woo figure 6 shows at least two “unit cells”), using the second mask (as stated in claim 6 above, it would be obvious to use the same mask, the second mask, for these layers as they have the same layout); and
a step of positioning a third mask on the first electrode layer (Woo 110) and forming a second electrode layer (Woo 140) separated for the plurality of unit cells using the third mask (it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a third mask as Woo 140 is different in layout than Woo 130. Further, the decision to have the second electrode connected or not it a matter of design choice and/or design requirement for one of ordinary skill in the art. If one is making an array then one would want to connect the second electrode as shown in Woo. If one is making individual discrete devices, whether they are individually controlled or to be diced and separated later, is a matter of choice for one of ordinary skill it the art based upon what the market, or their boss, dictates. It would have been obvious to do this because making an array and discrete devices would be a matter of changing the top, third, mask. Where the third mask would either interconnect all the devices or not. This type of design would make manufacturing of discrete or arrays easier as the rest of the process is the same, and would postpone the decision until close to the end of manufacturing based upon market conditions.).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art teaches:
Claim 14 is a modification of claim 5 that retain the edge mask pattern throughout stack of masks. As stated in claim 13 above, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if they were designing for discrete, individual, devices.
Regarding claims 15-18,
Claims 15-18 claim more details of the different mask levels. These mask structures would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art based upon the rational contained in claims 6, and 13-14 above. It is obvious that when one builds up the structure of Woo figure 6 that one would want to mask the same spot to make sure that material is not placed there. For example, in figure 6 there is 140 between the 130 unit cells. If one did not mask that at each layer then part of 130 would be in the trench between 140. This type of masking is routinely done in the art. The converse of not masking the layer(s), is that if the material is not wanted it will have to be removed which will take more processing steps, time, money, and effort. Thus,
Claim(s) 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo, in view of William, with motivation provided by Liu, in view of Gnosh et al. (US 2017/0342543 A1) (“Gnosh”).
Regarding claims 3, 9, the prior art does not teach:
wherein the step of positioning the mask having the opening pattern includes bringing the substrate and the mask into close contact with electrostatic force.
Gnosh teaches:
wherein the step of positioning the mask having the opening pattern includes bringing the substrate and the mask into close contact with electrostatic force (¶ 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Gnosh with the prior art as Gnosh teaches the equipment, or machinery, that one of ordinary skill in the art would use to form the device of the prior art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to combine these references as one of ordinary skill in the art would have knowledge of the machinery used to manufacture the device of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights