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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 1 recites “a buffer layer … formed by multiple rounds of moisture-free atomic layer deposition” in lines 8-9. Applicant does not have support for the limitation in the originally filed disclosure. On the contrary, Applicant explicitly discloses the precursor for the atomic layer deposition process has water (or H2O, see [0016-0017]).
As amended, claim 1 recites “the series of buffer layers being pinhole-free and configured to … reject the holes from the perovskite layer for transfer to electron transport layer, and mitigate ion migration and water diffusion through the buffer layer” in lines 15-17. The description is nowhere to be found in the originally filed disclosure. Applicant does not describe the buffer layers reject holes from the perovskite layer to transfer to electron transport layer and mitigate ion migration and water diffusion through the buffer layer.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 14-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
As amended, claim 20 recites “the buffer layer comprises a plurality of atomic layer deposition formed layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), zinc oxide (ZnO), tin oxide (SnO), silicon dioxide (SiO2) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) each less than 30 nm thick, grown at temperatures below 150°C, formed using trimethyl-aluminum (TMA), dimethyl zinc (DMZ), tetrakis(dimethylamino) tin (TDMASn), Bis(diethylamino)silane (BDEAS) and titanium tetrachloride (TiCl4) as metal precursor sources” in lines 2-7. Applicant has no support for the claimed buffer layer in the originally filed disclosure. The description of a buffer layer comprising five layers of Al2O3, ZnO, SnO, SiO2, TiO2 is nowhere to be found in the originally filed disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 14-16, 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As amended, claim 1 recites the limitation “the series of buffer layers” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As amended, claim 1 recites “the series of buffer layers being pinhole-free and configured to conduct the photoexited electrons from the perovskite layer to the electron transport layer, reject the holes from the perovskite layer for transfer to electron transport layer” in lines 15-17. Electron transport layer is known to transport electrons and reject holes thereby holes are not being transferred to the electron transport layer. Therefore, it is unclear how the buffer layer rejects the holes from the perovskite layer for transfer to electron transport layer in the perovskite solar cell having configuration as claimed.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 14-16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action, the recitations “conduct the photoexcited electrons from the perovskite layer to the electron transport layer, reject the holes from the perovskite layer for transfer to the electron transport layer, and mitigate ion migration and water diffusion through the buffer layer” are construed as the characteristics/properties of the buffer layer.
Claim 16 depends on claim 1 and recites “the buffer layer comprises a plurality of atomic layers” in lines 1-2, while claim 1 recites “the series of buffer layers” in line 11. It is unclear if “a plurality of atomic layers” recited in claim 16 is the same as or different from “the series of buffer layers” recited in claim 1.
Claim 20 depends on claim 1 and recites “the buffer layer comprises a plurality of atomic layer deposition formed layer” in lines 2-3, while claim 1 recites “the series of buffer layers” in line 11. It is unclear if “a plurality of atomic layer deposition formed layer” recited in claim 20 is the same as or different from “the series of buffer layers” recited in claim 1.
Claim 20 also recites “a plurality of atomic layer deposition formed layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), zinc oxide (ZnO), tin oxide (SnO), silicon dioxide (SiO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2), each less than 30nm thick” (emphasis added) in lines 2-4. It is unclear what “a plurality of atomic deposition formed layer” is being referred to, e.g. a process including a plurality of atomic layers or a layer formed by atomic layer deposition process. For the purposes of this office action, the recitation is construed as a process of atomic layer deposition including a plurality of atomic layers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites the properties of the buffer layer. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter structurally of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 depends on claim 1 and recites “wherein the buffer layer is more permeable to electrons than to holes” in line 2, while claim 1 recites “the buffer layer … configured to conduct the photoexcited electrons from the perovskite layer to the electron transport layer, reject the holes from the perovskite layer for transfer to the electron transport layer” in lines 8-16. That is, claim 15 recites the same properties that are recited in claim 1; and therefore claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo et al. (“Progress, highlights and perspectives on NiO in perovskite photovoltaics”) in view of Chang et al. (“High-Performance, Air-Stable, Low-Temperature Processed Semitransparent Perovskite Solar Cells Enabled by Atomic Layer deposition) as evidenced by Liu et al. (“All-Inorganic CsPbI2Br Perovskite Solar Cells with High Efficiency Exceeding 13%”).
Regarding claim 1, Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell having a structure NiO/CsPbI2Br/ZnO/C60 (see fig. 1), comprising:
a nickel oxide hole transport layer (see NiO in fig. 1);
an electron transport layer (see C60 layer in fig. 1), which is inherently configured to accept photoexcited electrons (e.g. this is the inherent function of an electron transport layer in the perovskite solar cell);
a perovskite layer (see CsPbI2Br in fig. 1), which inherently configured, on photoexcitation, to generate the photoexcited electrons and the holes (e.g. this is the inherent function of the perovskite layer in the perovskite solar cell), wherein the holes are selectively transferred to the nickel oxide hole transport layer and the photoexcited electrons are selectively transferred to the electron transport layer (e.g. this is how a perovskite solar cell works, or an inherent characteristic of the perovskite solar cell);
a buffer layer (see ZnO in fig. 1) between the perovskite layer (CsPbI2Br) and the electron transport layer (C60, see fig. 1), and having a composition distinct from a composition of the electron transport layer (C60) and a composition of the nickel oxide hole transport layer (NiO);
wherein the buffer layer (ZnO) is an electron conducting material that is inherently configured to conduct the photoexcited electrons from the perovskite layer to the electron transport layer and reject the holes from the perovskite layer, and mitigate ion migration and water diffusion from entering the perovskite layer since the buffer layer is covering the perovskite.
Di Girolamo et al. describes the solar cell in fig. 1d is from Liu et al. (or ref. 48, see annotation of fig. 1 of Di Girolamo et al.). Liu et al. shows and describes the buffer layer (ZnO) is distinct from the electron transport layer (C60, see two layers in different shading in figs. 1a-b, and two separate steps of forming the layers in pages S2 and S3). In other words, the buffer layer (ZnO) is distinct from the electron transport layer (C6) as evidenced by Liu et al. Di Girolamo et al. discloses
Di Girolamo et al. teaches using doped nickel oxide would increase the efficiency of the solar cell (see fig. 1, or more specifically fig. 1b), and lithium doped nickel oxide hole transport layer (NiO) would significantly increase in the FF and Jsc of the perovskite solar cells (or PSCs, see fig. 2a and paragraph bridging the columns in page 7750).
Di Girolamo et al. does not explicitly show the nickel oxide hole transport layer (or NiO) in fig. 1, or more specifically fig. 1d, to be doped with lithium, or lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer in the perovskite solar cell shown in fig. 1, and more specifically fig. 1d; because Di Girolamo et al. teaches using doped nickel oxide hole transport layer would increase the efficiency of the solar cell (see fig. 1, or more specifically fig. 1b), and lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer (NiO) would significantly increase in the FF and Jsc of the perovskite solar cells (or PSCs, see fig. 2a and paragraph bridging the columns in page 7750).
Di Girolamo et al. does not teach the buffer layer being pinhole-free and formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) with a series of buffer layers (or atomic layer per cycle).
Chang et al. discloses a buffer layer (see ALD ZnO, fig. 1) being formed by ALD with a series of atomic buffer layers (see “Results and Discussion”), and also teaches it is important to deposit a uniform and pinhole-free cathode barrier layer (CBL) in the perovskite solar cells (PSCs) to prevent electrical shunting paths and deterioration of the device performance (see page 5123, left column).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the ZnO layer of Di Girolamo et al. (or the ZnO covering the perovskite layer) to be pinhole free by using a series of atomic layers as taught by Chang et al.; because Chang et al. teaches it is important to deposit a uniform and pinhole free ZnO cathode barrier layer to prevent electrical shunting paths and deterioration of the device performance and forming a series of atomic layers (e.g. or the application of ALD ZnO film) delivers several remarkable features including fine-tunability of the work function of the electrode, low deposition temperature, high charge selectivity, good electron-transporting ability and excellent film coverage (see abstract and conclusion).
Modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed perovskite solar cell, the barrier ZnO layer of modified Di Girolamo et al. will display the characteristics/properties of barrier layer as claimed, e.g. configured to conduct the photoexcited electrons from the perovskite layer to the electron transport layer, reject the holes from the perovskite layer for transfer to the electron transport layer, and mitigate ion migration and water diffusion through the buffer layer as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses all the structural limitations of a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Chang et al. teaches the buffer layer is configured to increase a power conversion efficiency and a stability of the perovskite layer (see abstract and conclusion of Chang et al.). In addition, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed solar cell, therefore the buffer layer of modified Di Girolamo et al. will display the characteristic/property/function of being configured to increase a power conversion efficiency and a stability of the perovskite layer with respect to a perovskite solar cell comprising the lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer, the perovskite layer, and the electron transport layer, and lacking the buffer layer as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Di Girolamo et al. teaches the lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer comprises between 0.1 to 10 mol% lithium (see fig. 2a). Di Girolamo discloses disposing the nickel oxide (NiO) on an indium tin oxide conductive layer (or ITO) over a glass substrate is an available and cost effective solution (see first column of page 7749), and using phenyl-C61-butyric-acid-methyl-ester (PCBM) has been demonstrated to show excellent operational stability (see first column of page 7753).
Di Girolamo et al. does not explicitly show the nickel oxide layer being disposed on an indium tin oxide conductive layer over a glass substrate, and using PCBM in fig. 1.
However, 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 Di Girolamo et al. by disposing the nickel oxide hole transport layer (NiO) on an indium tin oxide conductive layer (or ITO) over a glass substrate, and using PCBM in place of C60; because Di Girolamo et al. teaches disposing the nickel oxide hole transport layer on an indium tin oxide conductive layer over a glass substrate is an available and cost effective solution, and using PCBM has been demonstrated to show excellent operational stability. Furthermore, using PCBM (or C61 fullerene) in place of C60 fullerene would involve nothing more than use of known material, e.g. fullerene, for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Chang et al. discloses the buffer layer made of metal oxide layer of ZnO having a thickness of 1.98Å (or 0.198nm, see ALD growth of 1.98Å/cycle in the first paragraph of “Results and Discussion”). 0.198nm is less than 30nm.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above; wherein Di Girolamo et al. discloses disposing the nickel oxide (NiO) on an indium tin oxide conductive layer (or ITO) over a glass substrate is an available and cost effective solution (see first column of page 7749 of Di Girolamo et al.), and Chang et al. teaches a completed perovskite solar cell comprising a substrate having a conductive surface (see ITO-coated glass substrate in fig. 1) disposed beneath the hole transport layer (see PEDOT:PSS layer), a conductive layer (Ag NWs) the electron transport layer (ZnO), and an encapsulant (Al2O3-coated PET) over the conductive layer to (see fig. 1(a)).
Di Girolamo et al. does not show a complete perovskite solar cell in fig. 1d such that the perovskite solar cell further comprises a substrate having a conductive surface of ITO, IZO or FTO; a conductive layer over the electron transport layer; and an encapsulant over the conductive layer as claimed.
However, 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 modified Di Girolamo et al. by incorporating a substrate having a conductive surface (ITO-coated glass substrate) beneath the hole transport layer (or the lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer of modified Di Girolamo et al.), a conductive layer (Ag NWs) over the electron transport layer (or C60 of modified Di Girolamo et al.), and an encapsulant (Al2O3-coated PET) over the conductive layer (Ag NWs) to form a complete perovskite solar cell as taught by Chang et al.
Regarding claim 9, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Di Girolamo et al. teaches it is cost-effective solution to form the hole transport layer (NiO) is on an indium tin oxide (ITO) or fluorine doped tin oxide (ITO – or FTO) layer supported by substrate such as glass substrate (see first column of page 7749). Chang et al. teaches using PET as a substrate to provide flexibility (see page 5127, left column).
Modified Di Girolamo et al. does not explicitly teach using a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film as the support for the indium tin oxide or fluorine doped tin oxide.
However, 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 Di Girolamo et al. by using PET substrate in place of the glass substrate for supporting the indium tin oxide or fluorine doped tin oxide, because Chang et al. teaches using PET substrate would provide flexibility.
Regarding claim 15, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein the buffer is ZnO (see claim 1 above), which is an electron transfer material that is more permeable to electrons than to holes.
Regarding claim 18, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, the instant recitation of how the perovskite layer being formed/deposited in a pattern by an inkjet process is directed toward a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113. Regardless how the perovskite layer being formed, in a pattern by an inkjet process or by other processes, in the end a perovskite layer is still a perovskite layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Di Girolamo et al. (“Progress, highlights and perspectives on NiO in perovskite photovoltaics”) as applied to claim 6 above, in view of OH (US 2011/0030782).
Regarding claim7, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 6 above, wherein Chang et al. discloses the encapsulation comprising atomic layer deposition formed nanolaminate comprising Al2O3 and a polyolefin on top of the solar cell (see ALD Al2O3-coated PET in abstract and fig. 1).
Modified Di Girolamo et al. does not disclose forming aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon oxide (SiO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2) to be antireflective.
OH teaches disposing an antireflective layer (112, fig. 1) on the top of the solar cell and including the combination of Al2O3, SiO2 and TiO2 (see [0015] and [0057]) to decrease the reflectivity on the front surface of the solar cell and increase the selectivity of predetermined wavelength region (see [0057]).
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 Di Girolamo et al. by incorporating SiO2 and TiO2 in addition to Al2O3 to form an antireflective layer as taught by OH, because OH teaches such antireflective layer would decrease reflectivity on the front solar of the solar cell and increase the selectivity of predetermined wavelength region.
Claims 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Girolamo et al. (“Progress, highlights and perspectives on NiO in perovskite photovoltaics”) in view of Chang et al. (“High-Performance, Air-Stable, Low-Temperature Processed Semitransparent Perovskite Solar Cells Enabled by Atomic Layer Deposition”), and further in view Rajbhandari et al. (“Low temperature ALD growth optimization of ZnO, TiO2, and Al2O3 to be used as a buffer layer in perovskite solar cells”, cite in [0260] of Applicant’s disclosure).
Regarding claim 10, Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell having a structure NiO/CsPbI2Br/ZnO/C60 (see fig. 1), comprising:
a perovskite layer (see CsPbI2Br in fig. 1), which inherently configured to generate the photoexcited electrons and the holes upon illumination (e.g. this is the inherent function of the perovskite layer in the perovskite solar cell);
a nickel oxide hole transport layer (see NiO) adjacent to the perovskite layer (CsPbI2Br, see fig. 1), and inherently configured to receive holes from the perovskite layer (e.g. this is the function of the hole transport layer in solar cell);
an electron transport layer (see C60 layer in fig. 1), which is inherently configured to accept photoexcited electrons (e.g. this is the inherent function of an electron transport layer in the perovskite solar cell);
a buffer layer (see ZnO in fig. 1) between the perovskite layer (CsPbI2Br) and the electron transport layer (C60) and distinct from the electron transport layer (C60, see fig. 1; or figs. 1a-b, pages S2 and S3 of evidentiary reference to Liu et al.), and inherently configured to permit photoexcited electron transfer to the electron transport layer and impede hole transfer from the perovskite layer to the electron transport layer since ZnO is an electron transport material.
Di Girolamo et al. describes the solar cell in fig. 1d is from Liu et al. (or ref. 48, see annotation of fig. 1 of Di Girolamo et al.). Liu et al. shows and describes the buffer layer (ZnO) covering the perovskite layer is distinct from the electron transport layer (C60, see two layers in different shading in figs. 1a-b, and two separate steps of forming the layers in pages S2 and S3). In other words, the buffer layer (ZnO) is distinct from the electron transport layer (C60) and being disposed between the perovskite layer and the electron transport layer (C60) as evidenced by Liu et al..
The buffer layer (ZnO) of Di Girolamo et al. (or of Liu et al.) is configured to impede ion migration and water diffusion since the layer (ZnO) is physically cover the perovskite layer.
Di Girolamo et al. teaches using doped nickel oxide would increase the efficiency of the solar cell (see fig. 1, or more specifically fig. 1b), and lithium doped nickel oxide hole transport layer (NiO) would significantly increase in the FF and Jsc of the perovskite solar cells (or PSCs, see fig. 2a and paragraph bridging the columns in page 7750).
Di Girolamo et al. does not explicitly show the nickel oxide hole transport layer (or NiO) in fig. 1, or more specifically fig. 1d, to be doped with lithium, or lithiated nickel oxide hole transport layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used lithium-doped nickel oxide or lithiated hole transport layer in the perovskite solar cell shown in fig. 1, and more specifically fig. 1d; because Di Girolamo et al. teaches using doped nickel oxide hole transport layer would increase the efficiency of the solar cell (see fig. 1, or more specifically fig. 1b), and lithium-doped nickel oxide hole transport layer (NiO) would significantly increase in the FF and Jsc of the perovskite solar cells (or PSCs, see fig. 2a and paragraph bridging the columns in page 7750).
Di Girolamo et al. does not teach the buffer layer being pinhole-free.
Chang et al. discloses a buffer layer (see ALD ZnO, fig. 1) being formed by ALD with a series of atomic buffer layers (see “Results and Discussion”), and also teaches it is important to deposit a uniform and pinhole-free cathode barrier layer (CBL) in the perovskite solar cells (PSCs) to prevent electrical shunting paths and deterioration of the device performance (see page 5123, left column).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the ZnO layer of Di Girolamo et al. (or the ZnO covering the perovskite layer) to be pinhole free as taught by Chang et al.; because Chang et al. teaches it is important to deposit a uniform and pinhole free ZnO cathode barrier layer to prevent electrical shunting paths and deterioration of the device performance and forming a series of atomic layers (e.g. or the application of ALD ZnO film) delivers several remarkable features including fine-tunability of the work function of the electrode, low deposition temperature, high charge selectivity, good electron-transporting ability and excellent film coverage (see abstract and conclusion).
Chang et al. discloses the buffer layer (or ZnO layer) comprising a plurality of atomic layers (e.g. ALD process). Modified Di Girolamo et al. does not teach the buffer layer having a thickness of less than 30nm and comprising a plurality of atomic layers of at least one resistive oxide.
Rajbhandari et al. discloses a buffer layer (see ZnO(3nm)/Al2O3(1nm) in figs. 6 and 8) having a total thickness of 4nm formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) by adding a plurality of atomic layers of resistive oxide Al2O3 to a ZnO layer to increase the efficiency (see figs. 6 and 8). 4 nm is right within the claimed range of less than 30nm.
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 modified Di Girolamo et al. by forming the buffer layer having a thickness of 4nm and comprising a plurality of atomic layers of resistive oxide Al2O3 being added to the ZnO layer as taught by Rajbhandari et al., because Rajbhandari et al. teaches combining Al2O3 to ZnO would increase the efficiency of the solar cell.
Regarding claim 11, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a photoexcitable structure as in claim 10 above, wherein Di Girolamo et al. teaches it is cost-effective solution to form the hole transport layer (NiO) is on an indium tin oxide (ITO) or fluorine doped tin oxide (ITO – or a substrate having a conductive surface beneath the lithiated nickel oxide hole transport layer, and Chang et al. teaches a conductive layer (see Ag NWs in fig. 1) over the electron transport layer (C60), and an encapsulation layer (see ALD Al2O3 coated PET in fig. 1) over the conductive layer (Ag NWs).
Regarding claim 12, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a photoexcitable structure as in claim 10 above, wherein the at least one resistive oxide is a metal oxide of aluminum oxide (or Al2O3, see claim 10 above or figs. 6 and 7 of Rajbhandari et al.).
Regarding claim 16, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a photoexcitable structure as in claim 1 above, wherein Chang et al. discloses the buffer layer (or ZnO layer) comprising a plurality of atomic layers (e.g. ALD process).
Modified Di Girolamo et al. does not teach the buffer layer having a thickness of less than 30nm and comprising a plurality of atomic layers of at least one resistive oxide.
Rajbhandari et al. discloses a buffer layer (see ZnO(3nm)/Al2O3(1nm) in figs. 6 and 8) having a total thickness of 4nm formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) by adding a plurality of atomic layers of resistive oxide Al2O3 to a ZnO layer to increase the efficiency (see figs. 6 and 8). 4 nm is right within the claimed range of less than 30nm.
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 modified Di Girolamo et al. by forming the buffer layer having a thickness of 4nm and comprising a plurality of atomic layers of resistive oxide Al2O3 being added to the ZnO layer as taught by Rajbhandari et al., because Rajbhandari et al. teaches combining Al2O3 to ZnO would increase the efficiency of the solar cell.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Di Girolamo et al. (“Progress, highlights and perspectives on NiO in perovskite photovoltaics”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Grancini et al. (“One-Year stable perovskite solar cells by 2D/3D interface engineering”).
Regarding claims 14 and 21, modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Di Girolamo et al. teaches the perovskite (CsPbI2Br) comprises halogen. Modified Di Girolamo et al. discloses the same buffer layer as claimed (see claim 1 above), therefore the buffer layer of modified Di Girolamo et al. will display the characteristic of impermeable to the at least one halogen and water. See MPEP 2112.
Modified Di Girolamo et al. does not teach the perovskite layer comprises a 2D perovskite.
Grancini et al. discloses a perovskite layer comprising 2D perovskite to provide a protective window against moisture so that the perovskite solar cell is stable with zero loss in performances for a long time with low-cost (see title, abstract, and conclusion in page 6).
Therefore, 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 Di Girolamo et al. by using the perovskite layer comprising 2D perovskite as taught by Grancini et al., because Grancini et al. teaches such 2D perovskite would provide a window against moisture so that the solar cell is stable with zero loss in performances for a long time with low-cost.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Di Girolamo et al. (“Progress, highlights and perspectives on NiO in perovskite photovoltaics”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Irwin et al. (US 2015/0243444).
Regarding claim 20, Di Girolamo et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein the buffer layer of zinc oxide (ZnO) is located between the charge transport layer (C60) and the perovskite layer (CsPbI2Br) and the buffer layer of ZnO is formed by atomic layer deposition, which inherently comprises a plurality of atomic layer deposition formed layer. Chan teach each atomic layers has a thickness of less than 30nm (see 1.98Å/cycle in the first paragraph of “Results and Discussion” of Chang et al.).
Modified Di Girolamo et al. does not teach the buffer layer comprises a formed layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), zinc oxide (ZnO), tin oxide (SnO), silicon dioxide (SiO2) and
Irwin et al. teaches forming a buffer layer (see interfacial layer such as IFL2, IFL3, IFL4) on the surface of the photoactive material (PAM 1 or PAM 2, see fig. 7) to enhance charge transport and/or collection between two layers, help prevent or reduce the likelihood of charge recombination, and physically and electrically homogenize its substrates to create variations in substrate roughness, dielectric constant, adhesion, creation or quenching of defects (e.g. charge traps, surface state); employing one or more interfacial layers (or IFLs) for the thin coat IFLs, wherein the materials for the interfacial layers are oxides of Al, Sn, Ti, Si, and Zn and combination thereof (see figs. 11, 13, 15-16, 20, [0031-0035]),
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 Di Girolamo et al. by using the buffer layer (or interfacial coating) comprising more than one metal oxide layers including oxides of aluminum (Al), zinc (Zn), tin (Sn), silicon (Si) and titanium (Ti) as taught by Irwin et al., because Irwin teaches combining multiple layers of different metal oxides would enhance charge transport and/or collection between layers, help prevent or reduce the likelihood of charge recombination, and physically and electrically homogenize its substrate to create variations in substrate roughness, dielectric constant, adhesion, creation or quenching of defects (e.g. charge traps, surface state).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, 18 and 20-21 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 Di Gerolamo does not teach pin-hole free layer, but teaches a ZnO with pin holes. 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
Prosecution Insights