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 .
Priority
This application is the 35 U.S.C. § 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2023/007983, filed 03/03/2023, published as WO 2023/181843 A1 on 09/28/2023. The report on patentability of the IPEA or ISA in this National Stage application has been considered by the Primary Examiner. MPEP § 1893.03(e).
This application also claims benefit of JP 2022-047691, filed 03/24/2022.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks, filed 01/14/2026, in reply to the non-final Office action mailed 10/15/2025 (“non-final action”) are noted.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 11 remain pending, claims 9 and 12 having been canceled by the amendment.
Support for the amendments can be found, inter alia, at [0019] – [0020] of the originally filed specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks have been fully considered.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the non-final action are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) in the non-final action are moot in view of Applicant’s cancelation of these claim in the amendment.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments in traverse of the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the non-final action are not persuasive.
I. The claims are unpatentable because they do not exclude thermal annealing.
The Primary Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s characterization of US 426’s annealing step as “an essential step” without which the method/apparatus of US 426 does not result in a perovskite structure. Nevertheless, because the claims employ the transitional phrase “comprising,” the claims are open to such an element/step. See MPEP § 2111.03 (the transitional phrase “comprising” is inclusive of “additional, unrecited elements or method steps”).
Moreover, the Primary Examiner notes that independent claims 1 and 7 conclude “to obtain a perovskite crystal layer.” While it may be Applicant’s intention that this phrase limit these claims such that it is the drying step/gas supply only that results in a perovskite crystal structure, “to obtain” is not unambiguously so limiting and, because the claim is open to additional, unrecited elements/method steps, it would be improper for the Primary Examiner to so limit it. See MPEP § 2111 (“giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation [] reduce[es] the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified”) (citations omitted).
Finally, because the balance of Applicant’s arguments hang on the exclusion of US 426’s annealing step from the scope of the claim, based on the various combinations of prior art references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully achieving the formation of a perovskite crystal without resorting to undue experimentation.
II. US 426 does, in fact, describe static or moveable elements related to the positional relationship between the gas and the coating section.
US 426 explicitly teaches “[i]n certain embodiments of the . . . coating process, the substrate is moving and the device is stationary . . . . In certain aspects, the substrate is stationary and the device moves relative to the substrate” [0128]. It is the Primary Examiner’s position that this clearly reads on the claimed gas supply member’s remaining stationary while the substrate stage moves, and vice versa.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0159426 A1 in view of either CN 106252520 A or Ham et al., “Influence of Drying Roll Conditions on Device Performances of Antisolvent-Assisted Roll-to-Roll Slot Die-Coated Perovskite Solar Cells,” ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2021, 4, 7611-7621 (hereinafter “Ham et al”).
Claim 1
US 426 teaches a process for producing poly-crystalline perovskite films [abstract] (“[a] perovskite crystal deposition method”). The process comprises:
(i) spreading a precursor solution (“ink solution”) of a perovskite crystal on a substrate to obtain a precursor film; and
(ii) drying the precursor film by knife-assisted drying (e.g., air knife, N2 knife, air doctor), which comprises applying a high velocity, low pressure gas to the precursor (ink) solution to form a perovskite film [0131].
Specifically, during knife-assisted drying:
film thickness ranges from 100 nm – 1,000 nm (0.1 micron – 1 micron; falling within the claimed range of “130 microns or less”) [0137] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05);
gas pressure ranges from 0 psi – 500 psi (0 MPa – 3.45 MPa; encompassing the claimed range of 0.3 MPa – 0.6 MPa) [0133] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05);
temperature ranges from about 25 °C – 250 °C (encompassing the claimed range of 100 °C – 200 °C) [0132] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05);
precursor film moves at 2 mm/s – 15,000 mm/s (0.12 m/min – 900 m/min; encompassing the claimed range of 0.6 m/min – 4 m/min), resulting in relative gas movement along the surface of the precursor of this rate from a stationary knife [0128-29] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05); and
either the substrate moves while the knife coating device is stationary or the substrate is stationary while the knife coating device moves [0128].
US 426 does not explicitly teach that the flow rate of the air, N2 ,or other gas used in knife-drying has a flow rate of 30 L/min – 40 L/min.
CN 520 teaches that, in a controlled perovskite precursor drying process, in which a perovskite crystal film is formed, the flow rate of an air knife gas can be controlled to give the desired type of nucleation – heterogeneous vs. homogenous – to promote crystal growth. See, e.g., claim 7. Consequently, the flow rate is a result-effective variable affecting the degree of crystal growth of the perovskite film and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate by routine experimentation, absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP § 2144.05.
In the alternative, Ham et al. teach, when producing a perovskite film from a precursor, drying is carried out with air supplied at a flow rate of 5 – 30 L/min [§ Experimental]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of US 426 so as to utilize, as the flow rate of the air, N2, or other gas used in knife-drying, 5 – 30 L/min, as taught by Ham et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully drying and crystallizing the film.
Claim 2
US 426 teaches a process for producing poly-crystalline perovskite films [abstract] (“[a] perovskite crystal deposition method”). The process comprises:
(i) spreading a precursor solution (“ink solution”) of a perovskite crystal on a substrate to obtain a precursor film; and
(ii) drying the precursor film by knife-assisted drying (e.g., air knife, N2 knife, air doctor), which comprises applying a high velocity, low pressure gas to the precursor (ink) solution to form a perovskite film [0131].
Specifically, during knife-assisted drying:
film thickness ranges from 100 nm – 1,000 nm (0.1 micron – 1 micron; falling within the claimed range of “130 microns or less”) [0137] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05);
gas pressure ranges from 0 psi – 500 psi (0 MPa – 3.45 MPa; encompassing the claimed range of 0.5 MPa – 0.6 MPa) [0133] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05);
temperature ranges from about 25 °C – 250 °C (encompassing the claimed range of 25 °C – 200 °C) [0132] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05);
precursor film moves at 2 mm/s – 15,000 mm/s (0.12 m/min – 900 m/min; encompassing the claimed range of 0.6 m/min – 4 m/min), resulting in relative gas movement along the surface of the precursor of this rate from a stationary knife [0128-29] (overlapping or fully encompassed ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP § 2144.05).
US 426 does not explicitly teach that the flow rate of the air, N2 ,or other gas used in knife-drying has a flow rate of 30 L/min – 40 L/min.
CN 520 teaches that, in a controlled perovskite precursor drying process, in which a perovskite crystal film is formed, the flow rate of an air knife gas can be controlled to give the desired type of nucleation – heterogeneous vs. homogenous – to promote crystal growth. See, e.g., claim 7. Consequently, the flow rate is a result-effective variable affecting the degree of crystal growth of the perovskite film and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate by routine experimentation, absent evidence of criticality. See MPEP § 2144.05.
In the alternative, Ham et al. teach, when producing a perovskite film from a precursor, drying is carried out with air supplied at a flow rate of 5 – 30 L/min [§ Experimental]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of US 426 so as to utilize, as the flow rate of the air, N2, or other gas used in knife-drying, 5 – 30 L/min, as taught by Ham et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully drying and crystallizing the film.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11
US 426 teaches contacting the ink (precursor) solution using a fast coating process onto the substrate [0124]. In a certain embodiment, a doctor blade is used to facilitate formation of the ink (precursor) film on the substrate [0126]. It is inherent in a doctor blade coating process that coating material is applied to (i.e., dropped onto) the substrate first, followed by spreading with the blade to form a film of the precursor on the substrate.
Claim 5
US 426 teaches, as noted above, substrate movement of 2 mm/s – 15,000 mm/s (0.12 m/min – 900 m/min), which encompasses the claimed range of 0.6 m/min – 4 m/min. MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 7
US 426 in view of either CN 520 A or Ham et al. teach all of the components of the apparatus recited in these claims when disclosing the above-described method.
Claim 8
US 426 teaches contacting the ink (precursor) solution using a fast coating process onto the substrate [0124]. In a certain embodiment, a doctor blade is used to facilitate formation of the ink (precursor) film on the substrate [0126]. It is inherent in a doctor blade coating process that coating material is applied to (i.e., dropped onto) the substrate first, followed by spreading with the blade to form a film of the precursor on the substrate.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0159426 A1 in view of either CN 106252520 A or Ham et al., “Influence of Drying Roll Conditions on Device Performances of Antisolvent-Assisted Roll-to-Roll Slot Die-Coated Perovskite Solar Cells,” ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2021, 4, 7611-7621 (hereinafter “Ham et al”), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of CN 1134579217 A.
Claim 6
The teaching of US 426 in view of either CN 520 or Ham et al. is detailed above.
None of the cited references explicitly disclose that gas is blown onto the precursor film while moving in synchronization with the blade.
CN 917 discloses a process and apparatus for preparing a perovskite crystal film on a substrate. A precursor material (100) is applied to the substrate, via application head comprising coater (200), scraper (i.e., blade) (300), and air knife assembly (500) [Fig. 5].
PNG
media_image1.png
456
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coater (200), blade (300), and air knife (500) are connected as a unit and function to deposit, spread, and dry the perovskite precursor while moving together as a unit (i.e. synchronized) in the direction of the arrow.
US 426 in view of either CN 520 or Ham et al. teach the application of a perovskite precursor film utilizing a blade coater and an air knife assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of US 426 in view of CN 520 or Ham et al. so as to utilize a single applicator-blade-air knife assembly to accomplish the formation of the perovskite film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of successfully forming the perovskite film on the substrate in one continuous step.
Conclusion
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). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 112510156 A teaches a method and device for drying and preparing a perovskite crystal film wherein a substrate coated with a perovskite liquid film is dried with a high-speed dilution circulation of 10 – 100 m/s to extract solvent therefrom and grow the crystal grain [abstract]. The method/apparatus regulates and controls the gas flow rate of the pumping gas groove, gas flow, gas component, gas flow temperature, gas groove shape, gas groove distance, gas groove width, gas groove and liquid film distance, and gas chamber volume, gas chamber temperature; gas chamber pressure; the homogeneous nucleation of perovskite liquid film; the surface of the base body is preferentially heterophase nucleation; and inhibiting the liquid level fluctuation to generate ripple. Crystal growth is dense; the perovskite film without ripple.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
10 October 2025
Prosecution Insights