DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed September 10, 2024, is entered. Applicant amended claim 6. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-8 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by a chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of halide perovskite” should be “of a halide perovskite”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains several numerical values that should be subscripts and contains several abbreviations, such as for MA and FA, that are not properly introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by the chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises” in line 2 should be “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 should have the conjunction “and” before the last clause. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by the chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a solvent selected form DPNDE solution comprise” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by the chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: “a spin-coating speed” should be “wherein, a spin-coating speed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by the chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: “an annealing” should be “wherein, an annealing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by the chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by chelating layer” should be “by the chelating layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
(3)
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 1-8 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 recites the limitation "the perovskite solar cell modified by chelating layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is unclear as to whether the halide perovskite surface is comprised within the recited perovskite solar cell or is a perovskite in addition to the perovskite solar cell. Claim 1 is also unclear as to whether the perovskite solar cell and/or the halide perovskite is implicitly required to contain metal ions and/or specifically Pb (II) metal ions to coordinate with pyridine.
Claim 1 also contains the same “DPNDI” abbreviation for two differently identified ligands, making the claim scope unclear as to whether the ligand is a napthalenetetracarboxylic diimide or a naphthaloyldiimide.
Claim 1 requires passivating surface defects “of perovskite” and is unclear as to whether this is the perovskite of the perovskite solar cell, the halide perovskite or some other perovskite.
The scope of claim 2 is unclear because the abbreviations of MA and FA are not properly introduced and n is not defined numerically.
Claim 3 is indefinite due to its awkward phrasing. Specifically, it’s unclear if the solvent listing should be interpreted as required since the claim recites the listing “is not limited” to the identified solvents. Applicant should clarify the claimed invention to require that the DPNDI solution comprises a solvent selected from one or more of chlorobenzene, ethyl acetate and anisole, wherein the concentration of the solution is 1-10 mg/ml. Claim language similar to this will make clear the solution contains one of the listed solvents in addition to other components. If Applicant does not want to limit the solution to a specific solvent, Applicant is encouraged to cancel claim 3.
Claim 6 is unclear because the nature of the required perovskite solar cell is unclear. Specifically, the structure of the solar cell required by claim 6 is unclear because the method of claim 1 is directed toward an intermediate product and not a complete solar cell.
Claim 7 is unclear because it appears to require that the “core functional layer” simultaneously be a “formal structure and an inverted structure….” These two structures are distinct from one another.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the arrangement order of the inverted structure" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is also unclear because it depends from claim 1, but appears to be further limiting a perovskite solar cell and not the preparation method of the perovskite solar cell of claim 1.
The scope of claim 8 is insolubly ambiguous because the claimed invention is written in narrative form describing “the modified perovskite surface of the invention” and does not define any method steps for the method or of the perovskite solar cell modified by the method. It’s not clear how the described benefits of the modified perovskite surface should be interpreted.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-8 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1 or 6, respectively.
(4)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Heller teaches an organic semiconductor device comprising an additional layer between the electrode and the photoactive material, wherein the additional layer performs either a chelating function or contains pyridine derivatives (Paragraph 44), but fails to teach or fairly suggest the modification method of claim 1, wherein a chelating layer is formed via spin-coating of N, N’-bis(4-pyridyl)-1,4,5,8-naphthalenetetracarboxylic diimide (DPNDI) solution on the surface of a halide perovskite of a perovskite solar cell, followed by annealing.
(5)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759