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 .
Election/Restrictions
There are several species contained within applicant’s specification, but as multiple, independent species are claimed at this time, the examiner has held off restriction until such times multiple independent species are claimed. This is in the interest of compact prosecution since the examiner has no insight as to whether multiple independent species will be claimed in the future.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snaith et al. (US 2015/0249170).
Regarding claim 1, Snaith et al. discloses a photovoltaic device (see para [0010], [0037] comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode (see fig. 1, para [0687]);
an active layer disposed at least partially between the first and second electrodes, the active layer comprising (see abstract and para [0687]:
photoactive material comprising a perovskite material [0687];
mesoporous material comprising NiO (see para [0250], [0253], [0687], i.e., mesoporous scaffolding); and
an interfacial layer comprising ZnO (see para [0208], wherein the n-type transport layer reads on an interfacial layer (see applicant’s speechification, page 1, paragraph [0018] and [0022]).
As Snaith discloses choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e., selection of inverted with p-type as mesoporous scaffold, n-type transport layer and choice of materials), one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,331,292. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the cited patent is a specific embodiment of the instant claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14 and 23, of U.S. Patent No. 9,416,279. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited claims are a specific embodiment of the instant claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,520,512. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited claims are a specific embodiment of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights