DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/873,531, filed on 12/10/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/IB2023/055929, filed on 06/08/2023, and which claims foreign priority to IT 102022000012323, filed on 06/10/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 03/13/2026.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election Group I and Species A1 in the reply is acknowledged. The examiner withdraws the requirement with respect to the species, but not the groups as persuasive arguments were provided only for the election of species.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-8 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is mistakenly amended to delete the “%” after “99” in line 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 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 1 recites “the photoactive layer” at line 5, but no photoactive layer is previously introduced in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the perovskite precursors” at line 5, but no perovskite precursors are previously introduced in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected because it fails to claim essential subject matter for an operable photovoltaic cell, including electrodes and other elements not recited until dependent claim 7. Currently, the claims invention of claims 1-6 could be called a perovskite layer, but not a photovoltaic cell.
Claims 1-8 are rejected because they recite a “photovoltaic cell (or solar cell)”. What is the difference between a photovoltaic cell and a solar cell? These terms are commonly used in the art interchangeably, and a skilled artisan would be unable to determine whether the applicant attempts to include within the scope of the claim some other element or function that distinguishes the two similar terms.
Claim 2 recites that the “perovskite is selected from organometallic trihalides having general formula ABX3”, but is written in a way that suggests that A may represent only a monovalent inorganic cation. Claim 2 also may include redundant “or mixtures thereof” phrases.
Related to claim 2, claim 3 also appears to recite that the perovskite may be selected from inorganic compositions, specifically lead iodides including potassium, cesium, or rubidium. However, none of these are organometallic. The examiner determines that the manner of drafting results in unclear definition for the invention’s metes and bounds, and renders claim 3 indefinite.
Claims 2 and 3 also employ indefinite and unclear exemplary claim language, including “such as” and “preferably” throughout. The examiner determines that these recited terms of examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, as their presence possibly creates confusion for skilled artisans as to whether the exemplary materials must actually be present, and also whether the examples in some way add some sort of chemical structure or class requirement. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claims 4, 7, and 12 also use the indefinite exemplary claim language and are similarly rejected for identical reasons.
Claim 5 does not make sense in the manner of reciting the percentage amount of carboxylic groups.
Claim 7 recites in line 4 “generally fluorine-doped tin oxide” and the use of the word “generally” is confusing. The examiner believes that “generally” may be use similar to the term “preferably” and makes the claim scope unclear. MPEP 2173.05(d).
The examiner recommends significant review and clarification of the claim language.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed in this Office action.
The examiner determines that the claimed subject matter is clear of the prior art references. No prior art reference, alone or in combination with others, describes or suggests a perovskite photoactive layer comprising at least one partially neutralized polyacrylic acid (PAA) in an amount greater than or equal to 3% by weight.
LI (CN 109103350 A) describes a perovskite photoactive layer doped with polyacrylic acid, but does not disclose a doping amount or any neutralization of the PAA.
VAK (WO 2016/115602 A1) describes a perovskite photoactive layer precursor solutions including crystallization retardant polymers including polyacrylics (para. 74) ad doping amounts from 0.01-20% of precursors (para. 75), but does not specifically mention specifically partially neutralized polyacrylic acid.
Further search and review of the prior art did not reveal any embodiments thereof or motivations to modify in such ways. The examiner also notes that the written opinion of the international searching authority erroneously remarks that the photoactive layer of perovskite comprises at least one partially neutralized polyacrylic acid, mapping to “polyacrylate” in claim 6 of EP 3379592 A1. However, the examiner notes that this polyacrylate is in an adjacent charge transport layer rather than the perovskite photoactive layer.
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