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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
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(s) 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (NiOx-seeded self-assembled monolayers as highly hole-selective passivating contacts for efficient inverted perovskite solar cells”, Cite No. 2 of Non-Patent Literature Documents in IDS 12/9/2024) in view of Egbo et al. (“Room temperature sputtered Cu doped NiO1+d: p-type conductivity, stability of electrical properties and p-n heterojunction”).
Regarding claim 1, Sun et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell comprising
an electron transport layer (see C60/BCP layer, figs. 1(a)-(b));
a perovskite layer (see perovskite layer, figs. 1(a)-(b)); and
a hole transport layer (see NiOx/MeO-2PACz, figs. 1(a)-(b)) comprising an inorganic substance serve as hole transport material (NiOx) and an organic layer comprising carbazole derivative (MeO-2PACz) formed on the hole transport layer (see figs. 1(a)-(b), 3(g)-(h));
wherein the inorganic substance serving as the hole transport material (NiOx) is a material mainly based on nickel oxide (NiO) and is doped with trivalent nickel (see Ni 3p described in figs. 4, table 2, page 6, e.g. NiOx is a self-doped p-type material).
Sun et al. discloses inorganic hole substance serving as the hole transport material is a material mainly based on nickel oxide (NiOx), wherein the material of the hole transport material (NiOx) is deposited through sputtering (see page 2 and conclusion). Sun et al. does not teach using nickel oxide being doped with copper, wherein the material of the hole transport material is deposited through magnetron sputtering.
Egbo et al. discloses copper doped nickel oxide (or Cu doped NiO1+d) being formed by magnetron sputtering (or RFMS) would provide low resistivity (see “This work” in table 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perovskite solar cell of Sun et al. by using nickel oxide being doped with copper that is deposited through magnetron sputtering as taught by Egbo et al., because Egbo et al. teaches the electrical conductivity and the stability of p-type conductivity of nickel oxide (or NiOx/NiO1+d) would significantly improve by Cu doping (see abstract and conclusion and table 2).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Sun et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Sun et al. teaches MeO-2PACz is [2-(3,6-dimethoxy-9H-carbazol-9-yl)ethyl]phosphonic acid (see page 2, the last paragraph of the first column) which has a molecular formula as claimed in claims 2-3 with R1 and R2 are methoxy.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sun et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Sun et al. teaches the electron transport layer (C60/BCP) comprises a fullerene with 60 carbon atoms (C60 fullerene).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sun et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Sun et al. teaches the perovskite layer comprises a layer of a material of Cs0.05(FA0.83MA0.17)0.95Pb(I0.82Br0.18)3 (see “Results and Discussion”), which reads on the claimed ABX3 structure as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sun et al. (“NiOx-Seeded Self-Assembled Monolayers as Highly Hole-Selective Passivating Contacts for Efficient Inverted Perovskite Solar Cells”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Forrest et al. (US 2016/0204367).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sun et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Sun et al. teaches the 2PACz is a SAM layer, and the thickness of the SAM layer is usually below 2nm (see left column of page 2).
Modified Sun et al., or more specifically Sun et al. does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the hole transport layer is more than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm, and a thickness of the organic layer comprising the carbazole derivative is more than or equal to 0.01 nm and less than or equal to 5 nm.
Forrest et al. discloses a SAM layer (115, fig. 1, [0060]) disposed on an anode buffer (110, fig. 1, [0059]) such as nickel oxide ([0026]). Forrest et al. exemplifies the thickness of the nickel oxide to be 8nm, and the thickness of the phosphonic acid SAM layer (BPA or OPA) to be 0.5nm (see [0037]). As such, the thickness of the hole transport layer is found to be 8.5nm. 8.5 nm is right within the claimed range of more than or equal to 1nm and less than or equal to 100nm, and 0.5nm is right within the claimed range of more than or equal to 0.01nm and less than or equal to 5nm. Forrest et al. also teaches optimizing the thickness of the SAM layer for peak device performance, wherein the thickness of the SAM layer is in a range from about 0.1nm to about 5nm (see [0072] and [0095]). About 0.1nm to about 5nm is right within the claimed range of more than or equal to 0.01nm and less than or equal to 5nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Sun et al. by forming the SAM layer of phosphonic acid, e.g. 2PACz, having a thickness of 0.5nm or in the range from about 0.1nm to about 5nm, and the nickel oxide (e.g. NiOx) having a thickness of 8nm such that the thickness of the hole transport layer to be 8.5nm or from about 8.1nm to about 13nm for optimization to obtain a peak performance of the device as taught by Forrest et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-8 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.
Applicant argues previously cited references do not teach using nickel oxide being doped with copper by magnetron sputtering as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726