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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 depends on claim 1 and recites the broad recitation of a genus of diphosphine, and the claim also recites a species of “1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane” as recited in claim 1, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 a genus of “diphosphine”, while claim 1 recites a species “1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane. As such, claim 2 is improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter.
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.
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) 1-2, 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snaith et al. (US 2016/0380125) or Chen et al. (“Global Control of CH3NH3PbI3 Formation with Multifunctional Ionic Liquid for Perovskite Hybrid Photovoltaics”), in view of Mikoshiba et al. (US Patent 6,384,321).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4 and 11,
Snaith et al. discloses a solar cell comprising:
a front contact (FTO, fig. 1a) comprising a first electrically conductive material (FTO);
a first semiconductor layer (see compact TiO2 and mesoporous Al2O3, fig. 1a);
a second semiconductor layer (CH3NH3PbX3 and capping layer CH3NH3PbX3) comprising absorber layer comprising a metal perovskite;
a photovoltaic heterojunction (see the junction between two different materials of mesoporous Al2O3 and CH3NH3PbX3) on the front contact (FTO) and between the first semiconductor layer (Compact TiO2) and a second semiconductor layer (capping CH3NH3PbX3, see fig. 1a);
a hydrophobic molecule (or non-polar passivating agent molecule, [0125-0200]) bonded to the metal halide perovskite ([0108]), wherein the hydrophobic molecule coordinates with the lead or tin in the metal halide perovskite ([0040], [0117-0118], [0162], [0368]);
a back contact (Ag, fig. 1a) comprising a second electrically conductive material (Ag) on the absorber layer (CH3NH3PbX3, see fig. 1a); and
a hole transport layer (see hole transporter, fig. 1a) disposed between the absorber layer (CH3NH3PbX3) and the back contact (Ag, fig. 1a).
Snaith et al. discloses the passivating agent comprising non-polar organic molecules – or hydrophobic molecules (see [0011], [0043], [0124], [0200]) such as diaryl alkyl phosphine, triphenylphosphine, trimethylphosphine or tricyclohexylphosphine (see [0195]). Snaith et al. also teaches the passivating agents can bind to and screen the electrostatic charge from the under-coordinated halide ions and de defect sites to resolve the issue of recombination resulting in a disadvantageous charge density, and inhibit fast and efficient charge extraction under working conditions (see [0013]).
Chen et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell comprising:
a front contact (FTO, see Fabrications of PSCs in the Supporting Information) comprising a first electrically conductive material (FTO);
a first semiconductor layer (TiO2 layers, see Fabrication of PSCs in the Supporting Information);
a second semiconductor layer (MAPbI3 by reacting PbI2 and CH3NH3I, see abstract and Fabrication of PSCs in the Supporting Information) comprising absorber layer comprising a metal perovskite (or MAPbI3);
a photovoltaic heterojunction (see the junction between two different materials of TiO2 and MAPbI3) on the front contact (FTO) and between the first semiconductor layer (TiO2) and a second semiconductor layer (MAPbI3);
a hydrophobic molecule (or 1-butyl-3-methylimidazolium, or BMI), wherein the hydrophobic molecule coordinates with the lead in the metal halide perovskite (see abstract);
a back contact (Au electrode, see Fabrication of PSCs in the Supporting Information) comprising a second electrically conductive material (Au) on the absorber layer (MAPbI3, see Fabrication of PSCs in the Supporting Information); and
a hole transport layer (see HTM such as spiro-OMeTAD in Supporting Information) disposed between the absorber layer (MAPbI3) and the back contact (Au electrode, see Fabrication of PSCs in Supporting Information).
Chen et al. teaches using ionic liquid with the hydrophobic molecule to coordinate with the lead in the perovskite (see the title and abstract of Chen et al.).
Snaith et al. discloses the passivation agent with hydrophobic molecule interact with an ion in the metal halide perovskite to form a chemical bond, and selected from a halogen bond donor compound and an organic compound comprising at least one heteroatom with a lone pair (see [0125-0127] of Snaith et al.).
Snaith et al. does not explicitly disclose using 1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane for the diaryl alkyl phosphine, nor do Chen et al. teaches using the ionic liquid with hydrophobic molecule comprising 1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane.
Mikoshiba et al. discloses an electrolyte comprising 1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane (see claims 3 and 14) that is capable of interact with halogen-containing, or an ion in the metal halide perovskite (see claims 3 and 14, also see claims 1 and 11). It is noted that electrolyte is ionic liquid (see [0017] of evidentiary reference to Iwasaki, US 2008/0286643).
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 Snaith et al. or Chen et al. by using 1,3-bis(diphenylphosphino)propane taught by Mikoshiba et al. as the diaryl alkyl phosphine passivating agent interact with an ion in the metal halide perovskite in the solar cell of Snaith et al. or as the ionic liquid in the solar cell of Chen et al., because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material 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 claims 5 and 12, modified Snaith et al. or modified Chen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claims 4 and 11 above, and teaches the hole transport layer comprises (see spiro-OMETAD, [0051-0054], [0263-0264], [0319] of Snaith et al., or spiro-OMETAD in Fabrication of PSCs in Supporting Information of Chen et al.).
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) 6, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Snaith et al. (US 2016/0380125) or modified Chen et al. as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in view of Snaith ‘517 (WO 2013/171517).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 16, modified Snaith et al. or modified Chen et al. discloses a solar cell as in claims 1 and 11 above, wherein Snaith et al. suggests using any perovskite disclosed in WO 2013/171517 (see [0203]).
Modified Snaith et al. or modified Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose using the perovskite comprises FAPbI3 as claimed in claim 6 and 13, or perovskite ABX3 with A being formamidine (FA) as claimed in claim 16.
Snaith ‘517 (or WO 2013/171517) discloses the perovskite comprising (H2N=CH-NH2)PbI3 (see page 18). (H2N=CH-NH2)PbI3 is FAPbI3, or FAPbI3 is the short-hand writing of (H2N=CH-NH2)PbI3 .
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 Snaith et al. or modified Chen et al. by using FAPbI3, or perovskite ABX3 with A being FA, as taught by Snaith ‘517, because Snaith et al. explicitly suggests doing so and such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 11-13, and 16 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 Lin and Snaith do not anticipate the claimed invention, nor
Applicant argues Snaith in view of Aspira Scientific or Terai do not teach the claimed invention, because Aspira Scientific is air sensitive and one skilled would be concerned about handling the molecules and teaching dppp is equivalent material to triphenylphosphine and trimethylphosphine is insufficient equivalent material to passivate the perovskite.
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 on 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