DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/871,122, which is a national stage entry of PCT/US2023/024466, filed 6/5/2023, which claims priority to provisional application 63/365,822, filed 6/3/2022.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-18, 20, 23-25, and 28 are pending; Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-15, and 28 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments, the objection to Claim 4 is withdrawn and the rejections of Claims 6 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Wu, et al. (Nano Energy 36 (2017) 295-302): This reference teaches formation of a 3D perovskite from a 2D precursor, using acetonitrile as a solvent (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The metes and bounds of Claim 2 are indefinite, because it is unclear how the number n is determined. Specifically, it is unclear what structure has the quantum well(s) on which “n” depends, and therefore, the metes and bounds of “n” are unclear.
While paragraph [0031] of the instant specification states that the number n is related to layer thickness, and may be between 1 and 7, this description does not provide sufficient specificity to constitute a special definition of the term, or details sufficiently specific to render the term “the number of octahedra in a quantum well” definite.
The recitation of “the number of octahedra in a quantum well” in Claim 2 is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the “quantum well” structure is part of the actual structure of the material of Claim 2, or a theoretical quantum well. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 2 are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 13, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kore, et al. (Communications Materials (2021)2:100, provided in the IDS filed 12/2/2024).
In reference to Claim 1, Kore teaches a method comprising providing a 2-dimensional (2D) perovskite seed solution (i.e. a solution of 2D perovskite, from which a 2D perovskite can be seeded) comprising a 2D perovskite and a polar aprotic solvent (i.e. THF, “2D perovskite deposition section” section, column 1, page 8).
The method of Kore comprises layering the 2D perovskite seed solution onto a 3-dimensional (3D) perovskite layer to form a 3D/2D bilayer (“2D perovskite deposition” section, column 1, page 8).
The method of Kore comprises annealing the 3D/2D bilayer such that the aprotic polar solvent evaporates to form a perovskite heterostructure film (“2D perovskite deposition” section, column 1, page 8).
In reference to Claim 2, Kore teaches that the 2D perovskite has a general formula (C18H37NH3)2PbI4.
It appears from the instant specification that the “n+1” term refers to the sum of the “L’” and “A” cations.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Kore teaches the limitations of claim 2, wherein the 2D perovskite has the formula of L'An+1BnX3n+1,wherein L' is a long chain organic cation (i.e. C18H37NH3), A is absent, B is a divalent metal (i.e. Pb2+), X is a monovalent anion (i.e. I-), and n is 1.
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein n is less than 4 (i.e. 1).
In reference to Claim 6, Kore teaches that the method of his invention comprises, prior to providing the 2D perovskite seed solution, forming and isolating single crystals of (C18H37NH3)2PbI4 (“Synthesis of 2D Perovskites” section, column 1, page 8).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that this disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the method comprises crystallizing the single-crystal powder (i.e. a crystalline solid of the 2D perovskites in single-crystalline needle form) such that the single-crystal powder has a high phase purity of a desired n-value of at least 90%, as measured by one or more of X-ray diffraction and optical absorption (i.e. is single crystalline, “Synthesis of 2D Perovskites” section, column 1, page 8).
In reference to Claim 10, Kore teaches that, when the 2D perovskite in THF is coated on the top of the 3D perovskite, the grain growth of the 3D perovskite is unaffected (paragraph 4, column 2, page 5).
Therefore, it appears that Kore teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the 2D perovskite is soluble in the polar aprotic solvent (“Synthesis of 2D Perovskites” section, column 1, page 8), and the 3D perovskite is insoluble in the polar aprotic solvent.
In reference to Claim 13, Kore teaches that layering the 2D perovskite seed solution comprises: implementing spin casting (“2D perovskite deposition” section, column 1, page 8).
In reference to Claim 15, Kore teaches that the perovskite heterostructure films of his invention made with C18H37NH3 have stable PCE for 100 days (Fig. 5c and associated text).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Kore’s disclosure meets the limitations of Claim 15, that the perovskite heterostructure film has a stability of T99>2000 hours (Fig. 5c).
In reference to Claim 28, Kore teaches that the 2D perovskite seed solution consists of the 2D perovskite and the polar aprotic solvent (i.e. THF) (“2D perovskite deposition” section, column 1, page 8).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kore, et al. (Communications Materials (2021)2:100, provided in the IDS filed 12/2/2024), in view of Soe, et al. (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139, 16297-16309).
In reference to Claim 4, Kore does not teach that the 2D perovskite is any of the materials in Claim 4.
To solve the same problem of providing a solar cell comprising a 2D perovskite, Soe teaches an alternating cation 2D perovskite, GAMA3PbI10 (Fig. 2), that is incorporated into a solar cell via dissolving the GAMA3PbI10 in a polar, aprotic solvent and spin-coating the 2D perovskite solution onto an underlying layer of a solar cell (“Solar Cell Device Fabrication,” column 1, page 16300).
Soe further teaches that devices made with the GAMA3PbI10 material of his invention have a high fill factor, i.e. ~80% (Conclusions, column 2, page 16307).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used GAMA3PbI10 as the 2D perovskite material in the method of Kore, because it provides the its high fill factor.
Using GAMA3PbI10 as the 2D perovskite material in the method of Kore teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the 2D perovskite is an alternating cation 2D perovskite.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kore, et al. (Communications Materials (2021)2:100, provided in the IDS filed 12/2/2024), in view of Dong, et al. (WO2018/009530 A1), and as evidenced by de Montigny, et al. (U.S. Patent 3,592,833).
In reference to Claim 7, THF does not have a dielectric constant (E) greater than or equal to 30.
To solve the same problem of providing a solvent for preparing a perovskite solar cell comprising a 2D perovskite layer (paragraph [0059]), Dong teaches that THF and acetonitrile are both suitable aprotic solvents for dissolving perovskite precursors (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used acetonitrile in place of THF in the method of Kore, based on Dong’s disclosure that both THF and acetonitrile are suitable solvents for dissolving perovskite precursors (paragraph [0057]).
Evidentiary reference de Montigny teaches that the dielectric constant of acetonitrile is 38.8 (column 2, lines 10-15).
Therefore, using acetonitrile, instead of THF, as the solvent to dissolve the 2D perovskite precursor of Kore, teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the polar aprotic solvent has a dielectric constant greater than or equal to 30.
The instant specification recognizes acetonitrile as a solvent with a DN value of 5<DN<18 kcal/mol (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, using acetonitrile, instead of THF, as the solvent to dissolve the 2D perovskite precursor of Kore, teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the solvent has a Gutmann donor number (DN) from 5-18 kcal/mol.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kore, et al. (Communications Materials (2021)2:100, provided in the IDS filed 12/2/2024), in view of Snaith, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0359207 A1).
In reference to Claim 11, Kore does not teach that the solvent is any of those listed in Claim 11.
To solve the same problem of providing a solvent for preparing a perovskite solar cell comprising a 2D perovskite layer, Snaith teaches that a mixed solvent of acetonitrile and methylamine is suitable for dissolving a 2D perovskite layer precursor (paragraph [0147]).
Snaith further teaches that this mixed solvent of acetonitrile and methylamine provides the benefit of having a low boiling point and low toxicity (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used a mixed solvent of methylamine and acetonitrile, instead of THF, as the solvent to dissolve the 2D perovskite precursor of Kore, because Snaith teaches that a mixed solvent of acetonitrile and methylamine is suitable for dissolving a 2D perovskite layer precursor (paragraph [0147]), and that this mixed solvent of acetonitrile and methylamine provides the benefit of having a low boiling point and low toxicity (paragraph [0005]).
Using a mixed solvent of methylamine and acetonitrile, instead of THF, as the solvent to dissolve the 2D perovskite precursor of Kore, teaches the limitations of Claims 11-12, wherein the polar aprotic solvent is acetonitrile.
Claims 2-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kore, et al. (Communications Materials (2021)2:100, provided in the IDS filed 12/2/2024), in view of Sidhik, et al. (Memory seeds enable high structural phase purity in 2D perovskite films for high-efficiency devices, provided in the IDS dated 12/2/2024).
In reference to Claim 2, it is noted that Claim 2 is indefinite, as described above. The following represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
If it is found that Kore does not teach the limitations of Claim 2, the following rejection is presented.
Kore does not teach that the 2D perovskite of his invention has the form recited in Claim 2.
It appears from the instant specification that the “n+1” term refers to the sum of the “L’” and “A” cations.
To solve the same problem of providing a 2D perovskite layer, Sidhik teaches a method in which 2D perovskite films of BA2MA2Pb3I10 are formed with high crystallinity and phase purity (final paragraph, page 3).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the 2D perovskite layer of Kore from BA2MA2Pb3I10 using the phase-selective method of Sidhik, in order to achieve the taught benefits of forming a 2D perovskite with high phase purity and crystallinity.
Forming the 2D perovskite layer of Kore from BA2MA2Pb3I10 using the phase-selective method of Sidhik teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the 2D perovskite has the formula of L'An+1BnX3n+1,wherein L' is a long chain organic cation (i.e. BA), A is MA, B is a divalent metal (i.e. Pb2+), X is a monovalent anion (i.e. I-), and n is 3.
Forming the 2D perovskite layer of Kore from BA2MA2Pb3I10 using the phase-selective method of Sidhik teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein n is less than 4, i.e. 3.
In reference to Claim 4, Kore does not teach that the 2D perovskite of his invention has the form recited in Claim 4.
To solve the same problem of providing a 2D perovskite layer, Sidhik teaches a method in which 2D perovskite films of BA2MA2Pb3I10 are formed with high crystallinity and phase purity (final paragraph, page 3).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the 2D perovskite layer of Kore from BA2MA2Pb3I10 using the phase-selective method of Sidhik, in order to achieve the taught benefits of forming a 2D perovskite with high phase purity and crystallinity.
Forming the 2D perovskite layer of Kore from BA2MA2Pb3I10 using the phase-selective method of Sidhik teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the 2D perovskite is a Ruddlesden-popper 2D perovskite.
In reference to Claim 14, it is noted that Claim 14 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Kore does not explicitly teach that the perovskite heterostructure film comprises a 2D perovskite layer having a phase purity of a desired n-value ranging from 90 to 95%.
To solve the same problem of providing a 2D perovskite layer, Sidhik teaches a method in which 2D perovskite films are formed with high crystallinity and phase purity (final paragraph, page 3).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the 2D perovskite layer of Kore via the phase-selective method of Sidhik, in order to achieve the taught benefits of forming a 2D perovskite with high phase purity and crystallinity.
Forming the 2D perovskite layer of Kore via the phase-selective method of Sidhik teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the perovskite heterostructure film comprises a 2D perovskite layer having a phase purity from 90 to 95% (Sidhik, final paragraph, page 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the position that the claim amendments overcome the objection to Claim 4 are persuasive. This objection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of Claims 6 and 14-15 under 25 U.S.C. 112(b) are persuasive. These rejections are withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that the rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is proper. While the Applicant argues that paragraph [0031] of the instant specification states that the number n is related to layer thickness, and may be between 1 and 7, this description does not provide sufficient specificity to constitute a special definition of the term, or details sufficiently specific to render the term “the number of octahedra in a quantum well” definite.
The recitation of “the number of octahedra in a quantum well” in Claim 2 is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the “quantum well” structure is part of the actual structure of the material of Claim 2, or a theoretical quantum well. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 2 are unclear.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under Kore are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the response that, because Kore teaches that, upon annealing, separate 2D and 3D perovskite layers were not observed, and that a homogeneous perovskite layer was observed, Kore fails to teach the limitations of Claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive.
First, the argument is not commensurate in scope with Claim 1, as written.
Claim 1 merely requires “layering the 2D perovskite seed solution onto a 3-dimensional (3D) perovskite layer to form a 3D/2D bilayer; and annealing the 3D/2D bilayer such that the aprotic polar solvent evaporates to form a perovskite heterostructure film.” Claim 1 does not require that a bilayer structure is present after the annealing step, merely that a “heterostructure film” is formed.
Because Kore teaches that the film has a “blend” of the 2D and 3D materials after annealing (column 2, page 6), it is the Examiner’s position that Kore teaches the limitations of Claim 1, of “annealing the 3D/2D bilayer such that the aprotic polar solvent evaporates to form a perovskite heterostructure film.”
Further, although Kore explicitly teaches that the 2D perovskite layer is not discernable under SEM (page 6, as cited by the Applicant), Kore presents additional evidence that suggests that a 2D perovskite layer encapsulates the bulk 3D perovskite layer of his invention. For example, Fig. 5b demonstrates improved film stability under ambient exposure from the 2D/3D perovskite films, relative to the films containing only a 3D perovskite (Fig 5a). Additionally, Fig. 4 demonstrates a change in water contact angle between the pure 3D perovskite material and the 3D perovskite material treated with the 2D perovskite layer (Fig. 4h). Kore explicitly teaches that these data show that the 2D perovskite layer encapsulates the underlying 3D perovskite material (column 1, paragraph 1, page 7).
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains the position that Kore teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims (except for Claim 7) appear to be directed toward the previously-addressed position that Kore does not teach the limitations of Claim 1, and will not be separately addressed.
The arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 7 are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights