DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/710,315, filed May 15, 2024.
Claims 1-6 and 14-23 are pending following a preliminary amendment.
This is a 371 filing for PCT/CN2022/094410, which also claims priority to CN document 202111370294.3.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on October 27, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 27, 2025.
Claims 1-6 and 14-19 are considered on the merits herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEOK et al (US PG PUB 2015/0228415), in view of ROBINSON et al (US PG PUB 2018/0175112).
Regarding claim 1, SEOK et al teaches a solar cell (figure 3), comprising:
a first carrier transport layer (metal oxide film and metal oxide particle), a perovskite light absorption layer (light absorption structure body, paragraph [0042] teaches the layer includes perovskite), a second carrier transport layer (hole conductive layer), and an upper transparent electrode layer (first electrode, taught to be made of a transparent conductive oxide, paragraph [0143], wherein upper is a relative location open to interpretation.),
wherein the first carrier transport layer (metal oxide thin film, metal oxide particle) comprises a base layer (metal oxide thin film) and resistance-increasing nano structures (metal oxide particle, paragraph [0218] teaches the particles to be nanometer scale, rendering nano structures, as shown in figure 3) distributed on the base layer (see figure 3) and integrally formed with the base layer (see figure 3 wherein the lowest level of particles is shown to be part of the thin film), and wherein the resistance-increasing nano structures (metal oxide particle) extend from the base layer (metal oxide thin film) into the perovskite light absorption layer (light absorption layer) (wherein extension is shown in figure 3).
SEOK et al fails to disclose the use the perovskite stack within a tandem cell utilizing a crystalline silicon solar cell and a serial connection structure layer.
ROBINSON et al teaches a photovoltaic device comprising a perovskite region, just as in SEOK et al, in the abstract. ROBINSON et al teaches the use of a tandem stack comprising a top perovskite section (110) with a transparent upper electrode (101) on top of a crystalline silicon solar cell (120, paragraph [0102] teaches the silicon to be crystalline), connected via the intermediate region (130, analogous to the serial connection structure as it provides the connection between the two regions (paragraph [0099]). Paragraph [0008] details the use of a silicon solar cell and perovskite solar cell together to allow absorption of a wider range of incident photons and more effective conversion than if a single junction were to be used via reduction in thermal losses.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a serial connection and silicon solar cell with the perovskite of SEOK et al, as shown in ROBINSON et al, so as to allow absorption of a wider range of incident photons and more effective conversion than if a single junction were to be used via reduction in thermal losses.
Regarding claim 2, modified SEOK et al teaches a surface of the first carrier transport layer (metal oxide particle) facing the perovskite light absorption layer (light absorption structure body) has a textured structure (particles providing a structure) in SEOK et al (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, SEOK et al is teaches the use of particles, but fails to expressly show each of the resistance-increasing nano structures is a fiber-like structure, a bar-shaped structure, or a nanotube structure. SEOK et al does teach the particles form a porous network, made of TiO2, to function as an electron transporting material, including TiO2, in paragraphs [0095] and [0154]. ROBINSON et al teaches forming a porous network of TiO2 particles for electron transport in paragraphs [0142] and [0143] and figures 3a-3e, but also shows the use of different shape particles including fiber-like (rice like shaped particles) and/or bar-shaped structures (elongated particles) to form the scaffolding (figures 3a-3e). It would have been obvious to utilize the charge transporting, bar or fiber-like particles of ROBINSON et al, as the charge transporting particles of SEOK et al as the use of different shapes allows for the same functionality and therefore predictable result. The selection of a different shape particle providing the same function and renders obvious the ability to change the shape and non-critical. The selection of shape to perform the function is a matter of engineering choice and well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art, absent a show of criticality of unexpected benefit.
Regarding claim 4, SEOK et al teaches a length of each of the resistance-increasing nano structures ranges from 50 nm to 1500 nm (SEOK et al, paragraph [0153], the overlapping ranges of SEOK et al render the claimed range obvious).
Regarding claim 5, SEOK et al teaches a diameter of each of the resistance-increasing nano structures ranges from 100 nm to 1000 nm (SEOK et al, paragraph [0153], the overlapping ranges of SEOK et al render the claimed range obvious).
Regarding claim 6, SEOK et al teaches the resistance-increasing nano structures cover 5% to 70% of a surface of the base layer (SEOK et al teaches the porosity of the metal oxide particles to be 30-65% in paragraph [0040], rendering obvious the premise that coverage of 30-65% of the base layer by the nanostructures. The overlapping range of SEOK et al renders obvious the claimed instant range.).
Regarding claim 14, SEOK et al teaches the resistance-increasing nano structures cover 10% to 60% of a surface of the base layer (SEOK et al teaches the porosity of the metal oxide particles to be 30-65% in paragraph [0040], rendering obvious the premise that coverage of 30-65% of the base layer by the nanostructures. The overlapping range of SEOK et al renders obvious the claimed instant range.).
Regarding claim 15, SEOK et al teaches a thickness of the base layer ranges from 10 nm to 200 nm (SEOK et al teaches the use of a 50nm metal oxide thin film in paragraph [0321]) .
Regarding claim 16, SEOK et al teaches the first carrier transport layer comprises one of TiO2, SnO2, ZnO, PEDOT, PEDOT:PSS, P3HT, P30HT, P30DDT, PTAA, or NiO (paragraphs [0052], [0154] and [015y] teach the use of Zn, Sn, Ti and Ni oxides).
Regarding claim 17, SEOK et al teaches the perovskite light absorption layer (light absorption structure body) covers the first carrier transport layer (metal oxide thin film and particle layers) and fills gaps of the resistance-increasing nano structures (metal oxide particle) of the first carrier transport layer (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, ROBINSON et al teaches the serial connection structure layer (intermediate layer) is a conductive material layer (paragraph [0026]) or a tunnel junction layer (paragraph [0099]).
Regarding claim 19, while SEOK et al fails to expressly teach the second electrode (that which would be equivalent to the upper transparent electrode layer stacked in sequence) to be transparent, ROBINSON et al makes clear the claimed structure via figures 1 and 3d, rendering a stack of the crystalline silicon solar cell (120), the serial connection structure layer (130), the first carrier transport layer (111/115), the perovskite light absorption layer (113), the second carrier transport layer (112), and the upper transparent electrode layer (101, transparent per [0091]) are stacked in sequence. The utilization of the components of SEOK et al within the tandem/multijunction device of ROBINSON et al is obvious as this combination is expressly shown to be effective at power generation using both the perovskite cell of SEOK et al and ROBINSON et al with the silicon cell of ROBINSON et al.
Moreover, in an alternative interpretation, it would have also been obvious to utilize a transparent electrode material as the second electrode of SEOK et al, as shown in ROBINSON et al in paragraph [0184], so as to maximize light impingement. In making the claimed substitution, SEOK et al would teach the first carrier transport layer (metal oxide thin film/metal oxide particle), the perovskite light absorption layer (light absorption structure body), the second carrier transport layer (hole conductive layer), and the upper transparent electrode layer (second electrode, transparent via substitution). Therefore, when combined with the serial connection structure layer and silicon cell of ROBINSON et al, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, the combination also teaches the claimed structure in this interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHENG et al and CHEN et al cited in the restriction requirement are further relevant to claim 1.
ROQAN et al (US PG PUB 2020/0168822) teaches electron transport nanobars, fibers or pillars in perovskite materials relevant to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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 at (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 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 1/8/2026