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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending as filed September 6, 2024.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1, line 5, “the vapors” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 1, “the hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite” lacks antecedent basis (where parent claim 1 refers to a “hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite layer”, not the specific material of the layer).
Claim 2, line 2, in the cited formula using “1-x” and “x3”, “x” is not defined. For the purpose of examination it is treated as 0≤ x ≤ 1 as in claim 4, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, lines 5-7, as to “preferably selected from . . . even more preferably A corresponds to MA and/or FA”, 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 recites the broad recitation “A a monovalent organic cation or an alloy of monovalent organic cations”, and the claim also recites “preferably selected from . . . even more preferably A corresponds to MA and/or FA” 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. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that “preferably selected from . . . even more preferably A corresponds to MA and/or FA” is optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 3, as “preferably MA and/or FA”, 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 3 recites the broad recitation “A representing a monovalent organic cation or an alloy of monovalent organic cations”, and the claim also recites “preferably MA and/or FA” 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. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that “preferably MA and/or FA” is optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 4, line 1, “the hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite” lacks antecedent basis (where parent claim 1 refers to a “hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite layer”, not the specific material of the layer).
Claim 5, lines 1-2, “the layer comprising the inorganic precursors” lacks antecedent basis (where parent claim 1 refers to a “layer of inorganic precursors”).
Claim 10, line 2, as to “preferably a textured silicon substrate”, 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 10 recites the broad recitation “the substrate is a glass, plastic, metal or silicon substrate”, and the claim also recites “preferably a textured silicon substrate” 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. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that “preferably a textured silicon substrate” is optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 11, lines 2-5, as to “for example a perovskite-silicon tandem . . . triple junction photovoltaic cell”, 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 11 recites the broad recitation “at least one perovskite photovoltaic cell”, and the claim also recites “for example a perovskite-silicon tandem . . . triple junction photovoltaic cell” 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. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that “for example a perovskite-silicon tandem . . . triple junction photovoltaic cell” is optional, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: (1) claim 1, line 4, “an powder” should be “a powder’ for proper grammar. (2) claim 2, line 7, “MA” and “FA” should be spelled out as to what is required. (3) claim 3, line 3, “MA” and “FA” should be spelled out as to what is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grenet et al (US 2025/0089543, hereinafter Grenet ‘543).
Claim 1: Grenet ‘543 teaches providing an organic-inorganic perovskite layer comprising, forming a layer of inorganic precursors on a substrate, implantation of a close space sublimation (CSS) step from a powder of organic precursors, whereby the vapors of the powder of organic precursors react with the layer of inorganic precursors and a hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite layer is formed, where the powder of organic precursors is obtained by mechanosysthesis using the first and second group of po9wders to form a third group of powders as claimed. (note 0010-0012, 0028-0030).
For claim 2: Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0020-0024. For claim 3, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0027. For claim 4, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0025. For claim 5, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0026. For claim 6, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0027. For claim 7, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0216. For claim 9, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0028. For claim 10, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0033. For claim 11, Grenet ‘543 provides such features as claimed at 0035-0036).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwok et al (US 2018/0248118) in view of Grenet et al (US 2022/0195580, hereinafter Grenet ‘580).
Claim 1: Kwok teaches a method for producing an organic-inorganic perovskite layer/film (note 0006). The method includes forming a layer of inorganic precursors on a substrate (note 0006, depositing a precursor layer onto a substrate, 0046, 0057 precursor layer as metal halide layer 212, so inorganic). The process further includes implementation of a close space sublimation (also known as closed space sublimation, CSS) step from a layer of organic precursors (note the title, figures 2-3, 0040, 0047-0049, 0058-0060). The organic material can include MA (methyl ammonium) or FA (formamidinium), for example (note 0047). In the process the vapors of the organic precursors react with the layer of inorganic precursors to form a hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite layer (note 0051-0052 with the vapors/gases formed from the organic precursor and intercalate the precursor layer, and noting the resulting formation of hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite layer with the described formulas of 0062-0064, understood that a reaction between the organic and inorganic precursors would occur).
Kwock does not specifically teach that the organic precursors are provided as a powder obtained by mechanosynthesis as claimed.
However, Grenet ‘580 describes how close space sublimation can be used to deposit perovskite materials including organic or hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite materials (note 0011-0016). It is described that the organic or organic-inorganic perovskite material is provided from a target for deposition by sublimation (that is, this is the precursor for deposition) (note 0012-0015), It is indicated that the target can be formed from agglomerated or sintered particles to form a solid target, or the target can be from a bed of powder (note 0049-0050, and thus either way, the precursor can initially be provided as a powder). It is described that a target/precursor powder can be made by mechanosynthesis describing co-milling (grinding) a first group of particles of a first material (AX) and a second group of particles of a second material (BX) to obtain a powder of a third group of particles of a third material (ABX3) which forms the powder of organic containing precursor (note 0052-0054), where it is described that A can be a organic molecule of various materials or a mixture of such materials, such as FA and/or MA (note 0023-0026, 0038-0041), and B can be an inorganic element or mixture of such (note 0027) and X an anion of a halide for example (note 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwok to use a powder of the organic precursor to provide the close space sublimation where the powder is provided by mechanosynthesis as claimed as suggested by Grenet ‘580 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, because Kwok describes providing a close space sublimation with sublimation of a layer of organic precursor such as FA or MA, and Grenet ‘580 describes how organic or hybrid organic-inorganic precursor target material can be provided for sublimating by providing powder of the material that can be formed into an integral target/layer or used as a bed of powder, and further describes how such powder can be made by mechanosynthesis by co-milling (grinding) a first group of particles of a first material and a second group of particles of a second material until forming a third group of particles of a third material, where the third group forms the powder of the precsursor, and further indicates how the organic precursor can include materials such as FA and/or MA, and further while the example mechanosynthesis in Grenet uses hybrid organic-inorganic material, since it is also indicated that just organic material can be used as well as hybrid organic-inorganic material, and since it can be desired to use mixtures of MA and FA, it would be understood that the mechanosynthesis can be used to provide combinations starting from MA as the first material and FA as the second material and giving a combined MA and FA powder for example, or alternatively, given the use of hybrid organic-inorganic material for sublimation, as well, it would also be expected that such material (from AX, BX as described by Grenet in the example of the mechanosysnthesis) can be used to provide the organic precursor for the process of Kwok, as it would provide organic material that can sublimate and react with the inorganic layer.
Claim 2: As to the resulting hybrid organic-inorganic layer perovskite having the formula A’1-xABXx3 as claimed, it is understood that “x” can be 1, note the 35 USC 112 rejection above, which leaves the formula ABX3, which is described by Kwok as resulting. Note for example CH3NH3PbI3-xClx, for example (note 0062 in Kwok), where this would give A as MA, B as Pb and X as I and Cl, which meets the requirements of claim 2.
Claim 3: As to using the powder of AX, where A is MA and/or FA, for example and X is a plurality of halogen, for example, such as Cl and I, note as discussed above for claim 1, it would be optionally suggested that the organic precursor can be provided as an organic-inorganic precursor using the combination of AX and BX powders to form ABX3, and therefore, the formed powder would be expected to also have at least some particles of AX present, and from the description of A in Grenet ‘580, it can include MA and/or FA (note 0023-0025) and X can include Cl and I (note 0028, 0030) and Kwok indicates using multiple halides of Cl and I (0062-0063), so to select the described combination of AX materials would have been obvious.
Claim 4: As to providing the hybrid organic-inorganic perovskite has formula Cs1-xMAx(Pb) (I1-yBry)3, etc., note that as claimed, for simplification, x can be 1 and y can be 1 or o as claimed, leaving MAPbBr3 or MAPbI3 as options, for example. This would be suggested as the formed AMX3 structure of Kwok (A as MA, for example, M as Pb, for example, and X as Cl, I, for example) (note 0037, with an example with MAPbI3, for example, note 0063). Grenet ‘580 notes using a similar formed structure described as ABX3 (note 0021, where B is the Pb metal note 0027).
Claim 5: Kwok would suggest that the layer of inorganic precusors is a layer containing Pb and Cl, for example (note 0062, and note 0057, where M can be Pb and X can be I, Br, Cl, F and combinations thereof). Grenet ‘580 would further suggest how Cs would be an inorganic material that is desirably present (note 0026, 0031), suggesting an additional inorganic material of Cs would be desirably provided with the inorganic precursors of Kwok.
Claim 6: as to the powder of organic precursors as FA(I1-yBry) or MA(I1-yBry) as claimed, this would be suggested as discussed for claim 3 above, where from Kwok, I and Br can also be included in the system (note 0057) and Grenet ‘580 would indicate that instead of Cl and I, I and Br can be in precursors in combination as well in the 1-y and y configuration claimed (note 0028, 0030).
Claim 7: as to providing the powder of organic precursors as an integral target or bed of powders, Grenet ‘580 would suggest that the powders can be provided in either of these forms (note 0049, 0050, 0054).
Claim 8: As to forming the initial layer of inorganic precursors by thermal evaporation, for example, Kwok indicates that any suitable deposition process, such as evaporation can be used (note 0046, 0062), where it would be at least suggested that the material be thermally evaporated, since in order to provide evaporation of a material such as PbCl2 (note 0062) it would need to be heated to a temperature to allow such evaporation.
Claim 10: As to the substrate material, Kwok indicates that the substrate can be glass, plastic or metal (stainless steel), for example (note 0045).
Claim 11: As to the making of a single or multi-junction photovoltaic cell comprising at least one perovskite photovoltaic cell, comprising the production of an organic-inorganic perovskite layer according to the process of claim 1, this would be suggested by Kwok and Grenet ‘580, where Kwok indicates to use the formed organic-inorganic perovskite layer in solar cells, for example (note 0002, 0079), and Grenet ‘580 further indicates using formed hybrid-organic inorganic layers in a photovoltaic module/cell a with a heterojunction (so can be considered as at least a single junction (or also inclusive of multi-junction) perovskite photovoltaic cell) (note 0289-0298).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-11 as applied to claim Kwok in view of Grenet ‘580 above, and further in view of WO 2022/046887 (hereinafter ‘887).
Claim 9: As to providing the layer of inorganic precursors by close space sublimation, Kwok indicates providing the layer of inorganic precursors by any suitable thin film deposition process (note 0046).
‘887 describes forming perovskite films by close space sublimation (CSS) (note page 1, line 30 to page 2, line 30), where for example, a precursor (PbCl2) of an inorganic material can be applied to a substrate by CSS followed by an organic precursor (note page 20, lines 1-15, page 9, lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwok in view of Grenet ‘580 to apply the layer of inorganic precursors by CSS as suggested by ‘887 with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Kwok indicates that the layer of inorganic precursors by any suitable thin film deposition process, and ‘887 indicates how such inorganic precursors can be deposited by CSS.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/830,043 (reference application, hereinafter ‘043). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 7 of ‘043 provide all the required features of present claim 1. Present claim 2 is suggested by claim 2 of ‘043. Present claim 3 is suggested by claim 5 of ‘043. Present claim 4 is suggested by claim 3 of ‘043. Present claim 5 is suggested by claim 4 of ‘043. Present claim 6 is suggested by claim 5 of ‘043. Present claim 7 is suggested by looking to the specification to see what is provided by a CSS process as claimed, as is allowed by MPEP 804, and this would suggest providing the powder of organic precursors as an integral target. Present claim 9 is suggested by claim 1 of ‘043. Present claim 10 is suggested by claim 9 of ‘043. Present claim 11 is suggested by claim 10 of ‘043.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The US PG Publication for 18/830,043 is US 2025/0089543.
Dhere et al (US 2013/0327398) indicates how close-space sublimation (CSS) is also known as close-spaced sublimation or closed-space sublimation (note 0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights