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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of these errors or inconsistencies:
Fig. 10A labels the x-axis as “PCF”, which should be “PCE”.
The data points in Fig. 11 all have the same shading, and therefore date trends cannot be distinguished from one another.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite a 2D perovskite layer, that layer having a dimensionality of 2 or more. This is understood in light of the instant disclosure, specifically in view of paragraphs [0031], [0032] of the instant specification and instant Figures 4A-4C.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities: they recite “hole layer extraction layer” and “hole layer extraction”. Presumably this should read “hole extraction layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Damp heat-stable perovskite solar cells with tailored-dimensionality 2D/3D heterojunctions” to Azmi, and further in view of US 12,029,052 to Horiuchi. Supporting information is provided by “Supplementary materials for Damp heat-stable perovskite solar cells with tailored dimensionality 2D/3D heterojunctions” to Azmi II.
Claim 11 recites a solar cell module comprising plural solar cells formed on a substrate and electrical connections that electrically connect in series the plural solar cells. After a thorough review of US 63/280,697, to which the instant application claims priority, the examine could not identify this subject matter in the provisional application. Therefore claims 11-19 have an effective filing date of 11/17/2022.
Azmi and Azmi II were published online on 2/17/2022, and therefore intervenes between the filing date of the provisional and the effective filing date of the claims. Further, as Azmi lists authors who are not listed as inventors on the instant application, it is available for prior art under 102(a)(1), according to MPEP §2154.02(b).
Regarding claims 11-19, Azmi teaches a solar cell including
A substrate (“Glass” in Figs. 3A, 3B)
A 3D perovskite layer (“3D perovskite” in layer 3B, “n = ∞” portion of Fig. 1A)
A 2D perovskite layer (“2D OLAI” in Fig. 3B, portions above 3D perovskite layer in Fig. 1A) directly located on the 3D perovskite layer
Wherein the 2D perovskite layer is anchored to the 3D perovskite layer with oleylammonium-iodide (OLAI) molecules (right column of p. 1)
Wherein each of the 2D and 3D perovskite layer include the same perovskite material (the perovskite unit cell in Fig. 1A is the same in the 2D and 3D layers; the elemental analysis of Fig. 1E show Pb, C, and I are present in all layers; also see “Perovskite Cs0.03(FA0.90MA0.10)0.97PbI3 layers” in Azmi II).
Azmi does not teach a solar cell module that converts solar energy into electrical energy comprising plural solar cells each having the limitations above formed on the substrate, and electrical connections that electrically connect in series the plural solar cells. Horiuchi teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to increase the output voltage of an element that converts solar energy into electrical energy by forming a plurality of similar cells as a module (C1/L40-45, C42/L52-54). Horiuchi teaches a module is formed by a plurality of solar cells formed on a same substrate (such as “a” and “b” in Fig. 1), with an electrical connection (8) to connect the plural cells in series (C41/L34-48, C42/L42-54).
Per claim 12, the dimensionality of the 2D perovskite layer is 2 or more (Fig. 1A, left and middle column of p. 74 of Azmi).
Per claims 13-15, the 2D perovskite layer includes at least two perovskite planes (“n=2” in right portion of Fig. 1A) forming a single first sub-layer, and the two perovskite planes directly facing each other.
The 2D perovskite layer includes a second perovskite sub-layer (“n=1” in right portion of Fig. 1A) that is separated from the single first sub-layer by a layer of OLAI molecules.
The 3D perovskite layer includes plural perovskite planes free of OLAI molecules, and the plural perovskite planes are separated from the 2D perovskite layer by the OLAI molecules.
Per claims 16-18, the solar cell further comprises a p-type layer which includes an indium tin oxide, ITO, layer (Figs. 3A, 3B) formed directly on the substrate and a hole extraction layer (“2PACz”) formed directly on the ITO layer, wherein the hole extraction layer includes ([2-(9H-carbazol-9-yl)ethyl]phosphonic acid (Fig. 2, middle column of p. 74).
The 3D perovskite layer is formed directly on the 2PACz layer.
The solar cell further comprises an n-type layer (“C60”/”BCP” of Fig. 1A, “C60/BCP” of Fig. 1B), which includes an electron selective layer which includes C60 (see middle column of p. 73) formed directly on the 2D perovskite layer, and a buffer layer (BCP) formed directly on the electron selective layer which includes bathocuproine (left column of p. 75).
Per claim 19, the perovskite material is Cs0.03(FA0.90MA0.10)0.97PbI3 (see citation of Azmi II above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 20 are allowed. The prior art does not teach the limitations of claim 1. The closest prior art is “Crystalline liquid-like behavior: Surface-induced secondary grain growth of photovoltaic perovskite thin film”/”Supplementary materials for Crystalline liquid-like behavior: Surface induced secondary grain growth of photovoltaic perovskite thin film” to Xue (included in Applicant’s 5/17/2024 IDS). The reference teaches a 3D perovskite layer with oleylammonium-iodide molecules anchored thereto (Fig. 1 or Fig. 2 of the article). There may be trace amounts of a 2D perovskite present (4.1 Device Optimization of the supplementary materials), they are disfavored and there is no motivation to modify Xue so that “a 2D perovskite layer is anchored to the 3D perovskite layer with oleylammonium-iodide (OLAI) molecules, and wherein each of the 2D and 3D perovskite layer includes the same perovskite material” (emphasis added). US 2022/0194969 teaches a 2D perovskite anchored to a 3D perovskite layer specifically with a phenylalkylamine (Figs. 48-52, ¶0865, 0866, 0869-0873).
Similarly, the method of claim 20 is not taught in the prior art, as Xue does not teach a positive step of “passivating a top surface of the 3D perovskite layer with oleylammonium-iodide, OLAI molecules to form a 2D perovskite passivation layer (emphasis added). As noted, Xue only teaches disfavored formation of 2D perovskite at grain boundaries with non-oleylammonium molecules (also see Fig. S16).
Claims 2-10 are also allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm 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, 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights