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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11-13 and 16 are amended. Claims 2-3, 6, 14-15 and 17-20 are canceled. Currently, claims 1, 4-5, 7-13 and 16 are pending in the application with claims 13 and 16 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous 102 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous 103 rejection is modified to address the above amendment.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-12 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahli et al. (“Fully textured monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with 25.2% power conversion efficiency”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kusumoto (US 2019/0363202).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Sahli et al. discloses a perovskite/silicon tandem device (fig. 1a) comprising:
a silicon layer (c-Si, fig. 1a) having first and second opposite sides;
a first electrode (Ag/ITO, fig. 1a) located on the first side of the silicon layer (or bottom side of c-Si, see fig. 1a);
a hole transport layer (spiro-TTB, fig. 1a) located on the second side of the silicon layer (or the top side of c-Si, see fig. 1a);
a perovskite layer (Perovskite) located over the hole transport layer (Spiro-TTB);
a metal fluoride layer (LiF) located over the perovskite layer (Perovskite) and in direct contact with the perovskite layer (Perovskite, see fig. 1a);
an electron selection layer (C60) located on the metal fluoride layer (LiF); and
a second electrode (see top Ag) located over the ultrathin metal fluoride layer (LiF, see fig. 1a).
The metal fluoride will form dipoles in a space between the perovskite layer (Perovskite) and the electron selection layer (C60); because a metal fluoride molecule includes a cation (metal) forming a positive pole and an anion (fluoride) forming a negative pole. As such, a metal fluoride molecule together will form a dipole of a positive pole and a negative pole, and a layer of metal fluoride will have a plurality of metal fluoride molecules to form a plurality of dipoles.
Sahli et al. does not disclose the metal fluoride layer to include magnesium fluoride having a nonstoichiometric structure MgFx as claimed in claim 1, where x is between 0.8 and 1.2 (as claimed in claim 4).
Kusumoto discloses a light absorbing layer (3) having fluorine atoms containing interface (3a, see [0043]) to lower defect density and thereby increasing conversion efficiency of the solar cell (see [0047]), wherein the light absorbing layer (3) contains fluorine compound such as MgF ([0031]). MgF is magnesium fluoride having a nonstoichiometric structure MgFx, where x is 1 which is between 0.8 and 1.2.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the tandem device of Sahli et al. by using metal fluoride such as MgF as taught by Kusumoto in place of LiF, because Kusumoto teaches such fluorine compound would provide fluorine containing interface (3a) to lower defect density and thereby increasing conversion efficiency of the solar cell. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material of metal fluorine for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sahli et al. discloses a tandem device as in claim 1 above, wherein the metal fluoride is magnesium fluoride (see claim 1 above). Sahli et al. teaches the metal fluoride layer (LiF) having a thickness of 1nm (see Methods, monolithic tandem fabrication). 1nm is smaller than 2nm.
Regarding claim 7, modified Sahli et al. discloses a tandem device as in claim 1 above, wherein Sahli et al. teaches the first and second sides of the silicon layer (c-Si) are textured with pyramids (see fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sahli et al. discloses a tandem device as in claim 1 above, wherein Sahli et al. teaches the electron selection layer is a fullerene layer (C60); a SnO2 layer (SnO2) located over the fullerene layer (C60); and an indium zinc oxide, IZO, layer located over the fullerene layer (C60) and under the second electrode (or top Ag, see fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sahli et al. discloses a tandem device as in claim 1 above, wherein Sahli et al. teaches the device further comprising an n-doped a-Si layer (a-Si:H(n)) and an intrinsic a-Si layer (a-Si:H(i)) located between the hole transport layer (Spiro-TTB) and the second side of the silicon layer (or top side of c-Si, see fig. 1a); and a p-doped a-Si layer (a-Si:H (p)) located between the first side of the silicon layer (or the bottom side of c-Si) and the first electrode (or bottom Ag/ITO, see fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sahli et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed tandem device as in claim 1 above, the recitation in the instant claim is direct to the intended use of the tandem device. Said recitations does not differentiate tandem device claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The tandem device of modified Sahli et al. is fully capable of being used as a solar cell because Sahli et al. explicitly suggest doing so (see the title and the whole document). Therefore, when the tandem device of Sahli et al. is used as a solar cell, the perovskite layer converts solar energy into electrical pairs of electrons and holes, the magnesium fluoride layer (MgF) extracts the electrons, and the hole transport layer (Spiro-TTB) extracts the holes so that the device acts as a solar cell.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sahli et al. discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed tandem device as in claim 1 above, the recitation in the instant claim is direct to the intended use of the tandem device. Said recitations does not differentiate tandem device claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The tandem device of modified Sahli et al. is fully capable of being used as a light emitting device by applying electricity to the electrodes of the device. Therefore, when the tandem device of Sahli et al. is used as a light emitting device, the perovskite layer generates light from electrons and holes injected into the magnesium fluoride layer and the hole transport layer, so that the device acts as a light emitting device.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sahli et al. (“Fully textured monolithic perovskite/silicon tandem solar cells with 25.2% power conversion efficiency”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Al-Ashouri et al. (“Conformal monolayer contacts with lossless interfaces for perovskite single junction and monolithic tandem solar cells”, Cite No. 1 of Non-Patent Literature Documents of IDS 8/22/2024).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sahli et al. discloses a tandem device as in claim 1 above.
Modified Sahli et al. does not teach the hole transport layer includes [2-(9H-carbazol-9-yl)ethyl]phosphonic acid, 2PACz.
Al-Ashouri et al. discloses using 2PACz as the hole transport layer (or hole-selective contact material, see fig. 1) would provide higher power efficiency (see table 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tandem device of modified Sahli et al. by including 2PACz in the hole transport layer – or using 2PACz as the hole transport layer – as taught by Al-Ashouri et al., because Al-Ashouri et al. teaches 2PACz would enable hole-selective contacts with minimized non-radiative losses, high reproducibility and ease of fabrication at low cost, and high efficiency in perovskite cell (see abstract, conclusion, and table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Sahli and Kusumoto is improper because Kusumoto teaches fundamentally different structure, because Kusumoto incorporating a fluorine compound directly into the light absorbing layer through a solution-base process, in such process the fluorine become an integral part of the final light absorbing layer. Applicant then concludes the claimed “magnesium fluoride layer located over the perovskite layer” is a physically separate and discrete interlayer, while Kusumoto teaches a method of doping or modifying the bulk perovskite layer and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to take a material used as a solution additive in Kusumoto and apply it as a distinct that is formed by different method in Sahli’s device, and the references teach fundamentally different ways of modifying a solar cell.
The examiner replies a method is not claimed in claim 1. How to form the magnesium fluoride is also not claimed in claim 1. Both Sahli and Kusumoto teach the metal fluoride layer, e.g. LiF in Sahli and 3a layer of MgF in Kusumoto, is a physically separate and discrete interlayer (see fig. 1a of Sahli, and fig. 1 of Kusumoto). Even though Kusumoto teaches the fluorine layer is deposited by solution process, the fluorine layer of Kusumoto is still a distinct and separated layer (see [0105] of Kusumoto). Applicant explicitly discloses LiF and MgF are equivalent materials (see [0035] of Applicant’s disclosure) for fluorine to modify/doping the perovskite to change the work function of the perovskite (see figs. 5A-B and [0039] of Applicant’s disclosure).
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 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