DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/829,401, filed on 09/10/2024, which claims priority to provisional application number 63/537,571, filed on 09/11/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 02/16/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-28 are cancelled.
Claims 29-51 are new.
Claims 29-51 are examined below.
Claims 41-50 are allowed. Claims 29-40 and 51 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 02/16/2026 have been carefully considered.
The applicant amends its independent claims to require an ordering of specific layers not considered obvious by the prior art references reviewed by this examiner. The examiner does not understand any particular embodiment in the prior art references to teach all of a thin conducting layer between a metallic foil substrate and hole transport layer (HTL), a DPPP stabilization layer between the HTL and the perovskite layer, and the combined transparent conductive oxide layer plus a grid.
LI (Rational design of Lewis base molecules for stable and efficient inverted perovskite solar cells) is considered the closest prior art reference. LI teaches a “p-i-n configuration of glass/FTO/NiOx/Me-4PACz/(with or without) DPPP/FA0.95Cs0.05PbI3 /PEAI/C60/SnO2/Ag” (pg. 3, right col.). LI does not teach or suggest each of the claimed layers, instead only teaching the DPPP layer. LI’s solar cell is also a p-i-n configuration, whereas the claims requires an n-i-p configuration. (The examiner notices that the applicant repeated stated that the claims recite a “PIN structure”, but the examiner believes the applicant may be mistaken. Various configurations included below for reference. The examiner requests that the applicant clarify and confirms its remarks to ensure clarity of the prosecution history.)
PNG
media_image1.png
352
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims use improper indentation for each element of step of the claim, as required by MPEP 608.01(m). For each limitation, an indent shall be used for only the first line. In the applicant’s recent reply, the limitations indent all lines except the first line, and this makes it unnecessarily challenging to easily read the claims, and may cause significant printing errors upon publication and/or allowance of claims. The applicant should reply with a corrected claim set using proper indentation (similar to how the applicant correctly used indentation in its filings dated 09/02/2025 and 09/10/2024).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43 should be amended to read “wherein the plurality of the apparatus are connected in parallel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 29-40 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites “the electron transport layer” on line 13, however, “an electron transport layer” was not previously introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 30-40 depend on rejected claim 29 are and also rejected.
Claims 40 and 51 each recites “optimized to transfer wavelengths of a visible light band”. This phrase is confusing and ambiguous because it does not require any particular structure or arrangement of the grid, and skilled artisans would not know how to interpret it, or know whether a similar device reads on the claimed limitation. The examiner recommends canceling these claims.
Claim 43 recites “wherein a plurality of the apparatus are arranged into a solar cell module” and “the solar cell module includes the apparatus connected in parallel”. This phrase is confusing because it is not clear whether only the
Conclusion
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights