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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 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.
Claims 1 and 3 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 “wherein the coating layer exhibits a light transmittance of 88 to 95% at a wavelength of 500 to 550nm when measured using a coating layer thickness of 20 to 30nm” in lines 10-11. It is unclear if “a coating layer” recited in line 11 is the same as or different from “a coating thickness” recited in line 2, such that “a coating layer thickness of 20 to 30nm” is the thickness of the coating layer of the claimed electron transporting layer or of a coating layer that is different from the coating layer of the claimed electron transporting layer. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation “wherein the coating layer exhibits a light transmittance of 88 to 95% at a wavelength of 500 to 550nm when measured using a coating layer thickness of 20 to 30nm” is construed as the inherent property of the coating layer of metal oxide.
Claims 1 and 3 claim an electron transporting layer and how it is formed by a coating agent comprising a dispersion that is not included in the electron transporting layer, and a property of a coating layer thickness that is not directed toward to the thickness of the coating layer of the claimed electron transport layer. Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (US 2017/0018372).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Fujimura discloses an electron transport layer (5) of an inverted perovskite solar cell (fig. 4) comprising a coating layer of metal oxide ([0053]) having a root mean square surface roughness of less than 50nm ([0044]).
Fujimura discloses an overlapping range, and does not disclose the exact range of 17.5nm to 24.0 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 17.5nm to 24.0nm in the range of less than 50nm disclosed by Fujimura, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Fujimura discloses the layer (2, fig. 1) having the property of blocking holes coming from the perovskite light absorbing layer (3, see fig. 1, [0030]), comprising metal oxide such as tin oxide and zinc oxide ([0031]), covering the perovskite layer (or light absorbing layer 3, fig. 1), and being more desirable to have a transmittance of 80% or more of the absorption wavelength. It is noted that metal oxide having the property of blocking holes is an electron transport material (see [0167] of evidentiary reference to Scher et al., US 2005/0126628).
Fujimura does not explicitly disclose the electron transporting layer (5) exhibits a property of a light transmittance of 88 to 95% at a wavelength of 500 to 550 nm when measured using a coating layer thickness of 20 to 30nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the electron transporting layer (5) of metal oxide such as tin oxide or zinc oxide (or oxides of Zn or Sn) to exhibits a property of light transmittance as claimed to allow more light being absorbed by the perovskite light absorbing layer (3), because Fujimura teaches it is desirable to form an electron transporting layer of metal oxide, or metal oxide having the property of blocking holes, having a transmittance of 80% or more. In addition, selection of overlapping portion of 88 to 95% in the range of 80% or more has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Furthermore, the recitations of how the electron transporting being formed, e.g. by coating agent comprising a dispersion as claimed, are directed toward the product-by-process. 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 electron transporting layer formed, by the coating agent comprising a dispersion as claimed or by other methods such as sputtering, in the end an electron transporting layer of metal oxide having a surface roughness of 17.5 nm to 24.0nm.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2012/0111409) in view of McManus et al. (“Highly Soluble Ligand Stabilized Tin Oxide Nanocrystals: Gel Formation and Thin Film Production”) as evidenced by Dielectric Constant provided by lsu.edu, and further in view of Fujimura (US 2017/0018372).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses an electron transporting layer of semiconductor oxide of a solar cell comprising a coating layer (13, fig. 3, [0007]) of TiO2, ZnO, SnO2, Nb2O5 ([0049], [0071], [0074], [0100-0101]) being formed by a coating agent (or semiconductor oxide ink composition) comprising a dispersion in which a surface-modified metal oxide is dispersed in an organic solvent (see [0062-0071]), wherein the solvent is selected to be isopropyl alcohol, 2-methoxyethanol, methylethylketone, isobutanol (or isobutyl alcohol), hexane, xylene, tetrahydrofuran,… ([0064]). Isopropyl alcohol, 2-methoxyethanol, methylethylketone, isobutanol (or isobutyl alcohol), hexane, xylene, tetrahydrofuran are solvents having dielectric constant of 20 or less (see evidentiary reference to Dielectric Constant provided by lsu.edu).
Kim et al. teaches modifying the surface of the nanoparticles by reacting metal oxide nanoparticles with acetic acid (see [0065]).
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose using acetic acid having formula 1 with R1 to R5 being independently a halogen atom and n is 0 to 5 – in the dispersion for the step forming the coating layer, such that the surface modified metal oxide comprises metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 3 to 5nm.
McManus et al. discloses modifying the surface of metal oxide particles (or SnO2 particles) with acetic acid such as trifluoroacetic acid (see abstract and conclusion), wherein the surface modified metal oxides metal oxides nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 3nm (see table 1) or 4nm (see page 4825, left column). Trifluoroacetic acid has the claimed formula 1 with n to be 0 and R1 to R3 to be a halogen atom, or fluorine (F); and 3nm is right within the claimed range of 3-5 nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modifying the metal oxide of Kim et al. by using acetic acid such as trifluoroacetic acid to obtain a surface modified metal oxide comprising metal oxide nanoparticles having an average particle diameter of 3nm or 4nm as taught by McManus et al.; because Kim et al. explicitly suggests using acetic acid to modify the surface of the metal oxide, and McManus et al. teaches extremely high quality thin films would be obtained from using the trifluoroacetic acid surface modified metal oxides (see abstract and conclusion of McManus et al.).
Modified Kim et al. does not teach the coating layer of the electron transport layer has a root mean square (RMS) surface roughness of 17.5 nm to 24.0nm as claimed.
Fujimura discloses a coating layer of an electron transport layer (5) of an inverted perovskite solar cell (figs. 2 and 4) has an arithmetic mean roughness Ra (or root mean square surface roughness) of less than 50nm to allow the loss of current, generated in the light absorbing layer, in the solar cell is reduced; thus, the conversion efficiency of the solar cell can be increased ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electron transport layer of modified Kim et al. by forming the coating layer of the electron transport layer to have a root mean square surface roughness of less than 50nm and using the electron transport layer for an inverted perovskite solar cell as taught by Fujimura; because Fujimura discloses such configuration (or flat electron transport layer) would reduce the loss of current generated in the light absorbing layer, thereby increasing the conversion efficiency of the solar cell.
Modified Kim et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the electron transporting layer as claimed and also teaches using the same material, e.g. surface modified metal oxide such as tin oxide, zinc oxide, niobium oxide as claimed. Therefore, the electron transport layer comprising a coating layer of Kim et al. will display the characteristic/property of “exhibiting a light transmittance of 88 to 95% at a wavelength of 500 to 550 nm when measured using a coating layer thickness of 20-30nm” as claimed. See MPEP 2112.
In addition, recitation of how to form the electron transporting layer by using “a coating agent comprising dispersion in which a surface modified metal oxide is dispersed in an organic solvent, wherein the organic solvent has a dielectric constant of 20 or less” is a process limitation that does not further define the structure of the device. The determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. Regardless how the electron transporting layer is formed by using coating agent with surface-modified metal oxide disperse in an organic solvent having a dielectric constant of 20 or less, or other solvent, or by other methods such as sputtering, in the end an electron transporting layer of metal oxide is still an electron transporting layer of metal oxide (with no solvent).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the electron transporting layer as in claim 1 above, wherein Kim et al. discloses an electron transport layer comprising a coating layer as claimed in claim 1 above, and teaches using 0.1 to 20 parts by weight of a semiconductor oxide relative to 100 parts by weight of the total composition comprising the semiconductor oxide and a solvent in the semiconductor oxide ink composition (see [0030]).
Kim et al. discloses an overlapping range, and does not explicitly disclose the exact range of 0.50 wt% to 3.00 wt%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 0.5 wt% to 3.00 wt% in the range of 0.1 to 20 parts by weight disclosed by Kim et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
In addition, the recitation in the instant claim is a process limitation that does not further define the structure of the device. The determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production. See MPEP 2113. Regardless how the electron transporting layer comprising a coating layer is formed by using 0.5 wt% to 3.00 wt% of surface modified metal oxide and a balance of an organic solvent, or by other methods, in the end the electron transporting layer comprising a coating layer of metal oxide is still the electron transporting layer comprising a coating layer of metal oxide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 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 McManus describes a coating layer formed by the dip coating method has a low roughness of 5 to 7Å, which is significantly smaller than the claimed range of 17.5nm to 24.0nm. Applicant points to the description of McManus in right column of page 4820 that describes a structure in which “bridging between particles occurs”, and then concludes that such description indicates agglomeration between particles occurs like the comparative example 3 disclosed by Applicant, in which 1570 parts by weight of TFA and 500 parts by weight of ultrapure water were used to result in an increased roughness of 24.8nm and decreased light transmittance of 90.2% (see table 2 in page 24 of Applicant’s disclosure). Applicant then goes on and alleges the excellent effects of the present invention cannot be obtained.
The examiner replies that Applicant’s conclusion appears to be contradictory to what McManus discloses. McManus describes the size of the trifluoroacetate surface modified tin oxide depends on sintering temperature (see fig. 5(d)), and the trifluoroacetate surface modified tin oxide exhibits a constant size (or linear growth) of 4nm up to 400oC, after 400oC the size is growth up to 23nm due to the trifluoroacetate is being removed and the crystals behave closely mirror to that of hydrous tin oxide (or the surface of the tin oxide nanoparticles are not modified by trifluoroacetate, see fig. 5(d) and page 4825). Comparative example 3 shows the excellent effect of light transmittance of 90.2% is right within the claimed range of 88 to 95%, or the excellent effect of the claimed invention of 88 to 95% is fully obtained in the comparative examples (see table 2 of Applicant’s disclosure). Regardless, the comparative example 3 disclosed in Applicant’s disclosure is not the same as Kim’s nor McManus’ disclosures.
Applicant argues neither Kim nor McManus discloses the property of light transmittance of 88 to 95% at a wavelength of 500 to 550 nm when measure using a coating layer thickness of 20 to 30nm (or a thickness of a coating layer that is not the coating layer of the claimed electron transporting layer). The examiner replies that McManus shows and describes a dispersion of trifluoroacetate surface modified tin oxide are highly transparent, and substantially around 90% (see fig. 4 (a) and page 4823, first paragraph of the right column). Fujimura teaches the overlapping range of the claimed light transmittance and roughness. 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