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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-12 drawn to a photovoltaic cell and a photovoltaic module, in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, e.g. compound having a formula of metallocene, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/18/2026.
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 6 and 8-9 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.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 8-9, the phrase "optionally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (“Solution-Processable Ionic Liquid as an Independent or Modifying Electron Transport Layer for High-Efficiency Perovskite Solar Cells”) in view of Manfredi et al. (“Ferrocene Derivatives Functionalized with Donor/Acceptor (Hetero)Aromatic Substituents: Tuning of Redox Properties”).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell (see the figure in abstract and Scheme 1, also see Figure 3) comprising
a first electrode (Glass/FTO);
a second electrode (Au);
a perovskite layer (see perovskite) disposed between the first electrode (Glass/FTO) and the second electrode (Au);
an electron transport layer (TiO2) disposed between the first and second electrodes (Glass/FTO and Au); and
an interface layer (see ionic liquid - IL) disposed between the perovskite layer and the electron transport layer (TiO2) and in direct contact with the perovskite layer (see the figure in abstract, Scheme 1 and Figure 3).
Wu et al. teaches using ionic liquid (IL) as the interface layer to modifying the electron transport layer. The reference does not teach the interface layer comprising a metallocene substituted with at least one substituent R1 comprising at least one of an O, S, N or P atom.
Manfredi et al. teaches an ionic liquid (or electrolyte) being used in solar cell, wherein the ionic liquid is a metallocene of ferrocene substituted with at least one substituent R1 comprising at least one of an O, S, or N atoms (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interface layer of Wu et al. by using ionic liquid comprising metallocene substituted with at least one substituent R1 comprising at least an O, S, or N atoms as taught by Manfredi et al.; because Manfredi et al. teaches ferrocene derivatives are new highly efficient, non-toxic, cheap based on earth-abundant elements to be employed in solar devices, and with proper substituents, the optical and electrochemical properties and energy levels are finely tuned for maximum attainable photovoltage (see conclusions of Manfredi et al.). Furthermore, such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use of ionic liquid 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 2, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Manfredi et al. teaches the interfacial compound is a metallocene having the formula (I) as claimed (see Figure 1 of Manfredi et al.).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 2 above, wherein Manfredi et al. teaches the metallocene of ferrocene has a formula (Ia) as claimed, with M being a metal or Fe ion, Ar1 being a monocyclic aromatic, M and two Ar1 groups forming the metallocene, Ar1 is substituted with R1 (or R1 and R2), q is 0, R3 are H (see Figure 1 of Manfredi et al.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Manfredi et al. teaches the metallocene is ferrocene (see Figure 1 of Manfredi et al.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Manfredi et al. teaches the R1 (see R1 or R2) comprising a group of formula (II): A-B, wherein A is a divalent group comprising O, S, or N, and B is H or C1-C6 alkyl.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 5 above, wherein Manfredi et al. teaches A having formula CHO or OC6H3 (see Figure 1 of Manfredi et al.). CHO or OC6H13 has a formula (III) with f being 1, g being 0, R5 being a hydrocarbon group of CH or C6H13, Z is O. CHO is also have a formula (IV) with R6 is a C1 alkylene group and j is 1.
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 5 above, wherein Manfredi et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the metallocene as in claim 5 above, modified Wu et al. is deemed to read on the limitations recited in the instant claims since the limitations recited in the instant claims are optional.
Regarding claim 10, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Wu et al. teaches the perovskite layer comprises a perovskite of CH3NH3PbI3 (see abstract, experimental section). CH3NH3PbI3 has formula CatPbX3, wherein Cat is an organic cation, and X is I.
Claim(s) 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schrage et al. (“Evaluating ferrocene ions and all-ferrocene salts for electrochemical applications”).
Regarding claims 2-7, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Manfredi et al. discloses using substituted ferrocene (see claim 1 above or Figure 1 of Manfredi et al.) and teaches substituting ferrocene for fine tuning the ferrocene (see conclusions of Manfredi et al.) and for improving solubility in solvent and reduces detrimental recombination phenomena (see first paragraph of “3.1. Design and Synthesis” of Manfredi et al.).
Modified Wu et al. does not teach A is -O-C(=O)- as claimed in claim 7.
Schrage et al. teaches a substituted ferrocene having A to be -O-C(=O)- (see compounds 2 and 4 in Scheme 1) to allow solubility in both aqueous and organic media (see page 26, second paragraph of the second column). The ferrocene of Schrage et al. also reads on the metallocene of ferrocene as claimed in claims 2-6.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Wu et al. by using the substituted ferrocene taught by Schrage et al. to achieve solubility and for fine tuning the optical and electrochemical properties and energy levels provided by the substituent having A to be -O-C(=O)-; because Manfredi et al. teaches adding proper substituent would allow finely tune the optical and electrochemical properties as well as energy levels.
Regarding claims 8-9, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim above claim 5 above, wherein Schrage et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the metallocene as in claim 2-7 above, modified Wu et al. is deemed to read on the limitations recited in the instant claims since the limitations recited in the instant claims are optional.
Claim(s) 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inkpen et al. (“Oligomeric ferrocene rings-Supplementary Information”, cited in Non Patent Literature Documents of IDS 10/21/2024).
Regarding claims 2-9, Regarding claims 2-7, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Manfredi et al. discloses using substituted ferrocene (see claim 1 above or Figure 1 of Manfredi et al.) and teaches substituting ferrocene for fine tuning the ferrocene (see conclusions of Manfredi et al.) and for improving solubility in solvent and reduces detrimental recombination phenomena (see first paragraph of “3.1. Design and Synthesis” of Manfredi et al.).
Modified Wu et al. does not teach A is -O-C(=O)- as claimed in claim 7, with B is a substituted 5 member heteroaryl comprising O, S or N such thiophene as claimed in claims 8-9.
Inkpen et al. discloses a substituted ferrocene of ferrocenyl thiophene-2-carboxylate having A is -O-C(=O) and B is a substituted 5 member heteroaryl comprising S such as thiophene (see Supplementary Scheme 1, and page 3 of Inkpen et al.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Wu et al. by using the substituted ferrocene of ferrocenyl thiophene-2-carboxylate as taught by Inkpen et al. to achieve solubility and for fine tuning the optical and electrochemical properties and energy levels provided by the ferrocenyl thiophene-2-carboxylate; because Manfredi et al. teaches adding proper substituent would allow finely tune the optical and electrochemical properties as well as energy levels.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (“N-type doping of Fullerenes for Planar Perovskite Solar Cells”, cited in Non Patent Literature Documents of IDS 10/21/2024)
Regarding claim 11, modified Wu et al. photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Wu et al. does not disclose the electron transport layer comprising a fullerene.
Ye et al. discloses using fullerene for the electron transport layer (see title and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of modified Wu et al. by using fullerene for the electron transport layer as taught by Ye et al., because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material 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).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horiuchi et al. (US 2021/0366662).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wu et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell as in claim 1 above.
Modified Wu et al. does not disclose a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of the photovoltaic cells of claim 1 connected in series.
Horiuchi et al. teaches a photovoltaic module comprising a plurality of perovskite photovoltaic cells in series to increase output voltage ([0004], [0220], figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected a plurality of photovoltaic cells of modified Wu et al. in claim 1 in series to increase output voltage as taught by Horiuchi et al.
Conclusion
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