DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1 and 7, was entered on 3/6/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Koech teaches a fundamentally different approach because Koech teaches that more metal oxide precursor is present than metal oxide. This is not persuasive. While the examiner agrees that the examples of Koech teach more metal oxide precursor than metal oxide (and that these examples teach molar ratios outside the claimed range), Koech is not limited to the specific examples listed. Rather, Koech broadly teaches that SnO2 particles are included in the mixture to form the layer in order to adjust electron extraction and transport properties of the film. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, at a minimum, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with different SnO2 molar concentrations to arrive at a desired electron extraction and transport property with the predictable expectation of success.
That said, applicant’s disclosure contains clear evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed molar ratio at Table 1. However, that evidence is more specific than any of the current claims. An amendment which was commensurate in scope with the evidence provided (i.e. wherein the precursor is magnesium acetate, the metal oxide is tin oxide and the metal oxide is spherical) would overcome the rejection on record and place the claims in condition for allowance.
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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsubo et al. (JP 2016003302, machine translation) in light of Koech et al. (“Tin Oxide Modified Titanium Dioxide as Electron Transport Layer in Formamidinium-Rich Perovskite Solar Cells,” 2021, Energies 14, p. 7870).
Claims 1-5 and 7-8: Ostubo teaches a composition for forming a charge transporting layer in an electronic device (Abst.; top of p. 8), comprising: magnesium acetate as a metal oxide precursor (§ 1.4 on p. 5); and water as a solvent (§ 1.3 on p. 5).
While Ostubo teaches that the composition can further include additional metal compounds (middle of p. 5, e.g.), it fails to teach including a metal oxide directly. Koech teaches a process of forming a charge transport layer in an electronic device (Abst.) and explains that SnO2 particles are included in the mixture to form the layer in order to adjust electron extraction and transport properties of the film (Abst.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included SnO2 particles in the composition of Ostubo in order to have adjusted the electron extraction and transport properties of the film with the predictable expectation of success.
Neither Ostubo nor Koech teaches a specific ratio. However, as discussed above, Koech teaches that the tin oxide particles are included to adjust the electron extraction and transport properties of the film. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a ratio of 0.0045-0.0455 depending on the desired properties with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 9: Koech teaches that the particles have a diameter of less than 20 nm (§ 2.1).
Claim 10: Ostubo teaches a method of forming an organic solar cell (bottom of p. 1) (i.e. claimed photoelectric conversion element) comprising top and bottom electrodes (top of p. 2) and a charge transport layer (top of p. 2; top of p. 8) which is a metal oxide layer formed by heating (i.e. claimed firing) of the composition of claim 1 (§ 2, middle of p. 6).
Prior Art
Dagar et al. (“Highly efficient perovskite solar cells for light harvesting under indoor illumination via solution processed SnO2/MgO composite electron transport layers,” 2017, Nano Energy 49, pp. 290-299) is also cited for teaching a similar process and composition wherein a charge transport layer is formed from a two separate solutions of a tin oxide precursor and magnesium acetate.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights