DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al., Nano Lett., 2018, 18, 3969-3977, which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claim 1, Gong teaches a perovskite solar cell comprising a perovskite layer comprising first and second surfaces that are opposite each other in the thickness direction, a hole transport layer provided on the first surface and a multi-layer electron transport layer provided on the second surface, the multi-layer electron transport layer having a doping material and at least sub-layers having a conduction band bottom energy level lower than that of the hole transport layer and a valence band top energy level lower than that of the hole transport layer. Abstract, Figure 2, Figure 3(e) and Page 3972.
With respect to claim 2, Gong teaches the difference between the conduction band bottom energy levels of the sub-layer of the ETL closest to the second surface and the perovskite layer is 0.2, which is within the claimed range. Figure 3(e).
With respect to claim 3, Gong teaches the valence band top energy level of the sub-layer of the ETL closest to the second surface is lower than that of the perovskite layer. Figure 3(e).
With respect to claim 4, Gong teaches the difference between the Fermi levels of the sub-layer of the ETL closest to the second surface and the perovskite layer is less than 1.5 eV. Figure 3(e).
With respect to claim 5, Gong teaches the difference between the conduction band bottom energy level and the Fermi level of the sub-layer of the ETL closest to the second surface is less than 1.5 eV. Figure 3(e).
With respect to claim 6, Gong teaches the difference between the conduction band bottom energy level and the valence band top energy level of the ETL closest to the second surface is greater than 1.5 eV. Figure 3(e).
(3)
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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al., Nano Lett., 2018, 18, 3969-3977, which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, although Gong teaches an ETL bi-layer, Gong also teaches the gradual introduction of fluorine into SnO2 to tailor the ETL/perovskite band offset to increase the built-in electric field to maximize VOC and charge collection. Abstract. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize three or more sub-layers of fluorine-doped tin oxide because Gong teaches this multi-layer approach allows for a tailored band offset, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, when Gong is modified to contain 3 sub-layers to tailor the band offset, as explained above, each sub-layer is fluorine-doped tin oxide, which satisfies the requirements of a tin oxide layer doped with a non-metallic element (fluorine), an oxide layer comprising Sn, and a SnO2 layer comprising a fluorine doping material. Abstract and Figure 2.
(4)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al., Nano Lett., 2018, 18, 3969-3977, which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0194102).
With respect to claim 13, Gong teaches the solar cell but is silent as to whether it is comprised within a module.
However, Huang, which deals with perovskite modules, teaches a perovskite module contains a plurality of perovskite solar cells interconnected electrically to obtain improved open circuit voltage. Paragraph 34.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose Gong’s perovskite solar cell in a module with other similarly constructed solar cells that are then interconnected because Huang teaches doing so obtains improved open circuit voltage.
(5)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759