DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross-Reference to Related Applications
2. This application is a CON of PCT/JP2023/006032 02/20/2023.
Oath/Declaration
3. The oath/declaration filed on 09/13/2024 is acceptable.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/13/2024 and 06/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
6. Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOEHL T (WO-2016038501-A2).
Regarding claim 1, MOEHL T discloses a photoelectric conversion material comprising a perovskite compound and an ammonium salt (Fig. 9 and English Text).
Regarding claim 20, MOEHL T discloses photoelectric conversion element comprising: a first electrode (3); a photoelectric conversion layer (7); and a second electrode (4), wherein the photoelectric conversion layer (7) includes the photoelectric conversion material according to claim 1 (Fig. 9 and English Text).
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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MOEHL T in view of HOSOKAWA (U.S. Publication No. 20190165192 A1).
Regarding claim 2, MOEHL T discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the photoelectric conversion material has a photoluminescence peak energy of less than 1.55 eV.
HOSOKAWA H, however, discloses wherein the photoelectric conversion material (6) has a photoluminescence peak energy of 1.4 eV or less (Fig. 1 and para [0062]).
However, the selection of the claimed device parameters would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide the photoelectric conversion material has a photoluminescence peak energy of less than 1.55 eV, since it is well settles that when the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MOEHL T in view of WAKAMIYA A (WO-2019182058 A1).
Regarding claim 2, MOEHL T discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the perovskite compound has an average primary particle diameter of 2 μm or more.
WAKAMIYA A, however, discloses wherein the perovskite compound has an average primary particle diameter of 150 nm to 500 nm (see English Text).
However, the selection of the claimed device parameters would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide wherein the perovskite compound has an average primary particle diameter of 2 μm or more, since it is well settles that when the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
9. Claims 4-10 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MOEHL T in view of CHEN SUN ET AL: "Phosphonium Halides as Both Processing Additives and Interfacial Modifiers for High Performance Planar-Heterojunction Perovskite Solar Cells".
Regarding claims 4, see, for example, fig. 3c and page 3347 in CHEN SUN ET AL.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide a photoluminescence peak energy of the photoelectric conversion material is substantially the same as a photoluminescence peak energy of the perovskite compound as cited in the claims above to improve the performance of the photoelectric conversion material, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 5-10, see fig. 1 -ref, TBAI: tetrabutylammonium iodide salt- and pages 3345-3347 in CHEN SUN ET AL.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide the materials are used for the ammonium salt as cited in the claims above to improve the performance of the photoelectric conversion material, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 15-18, see table 1 -ref. CH₃NH₃PbI 3-xClx- TBAI-, fig. 3 b-c and page 3345 - right column-, page 3346 -right column and 3347 -left column- in CHEN SUN ET AL.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to provide the materials are used for the perovskite compound as cited in the claims above to improve the performance of the photoelectric conversion material, since it has been held within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
10. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MOEHL T in view of LI JUNMING ET AL: "Enhanced Performance of Sn-Based Perovskite Solar Cells by Two-Dimensional Perovskite Doping".
Regarding claims 11-12, LI JUNMING ET AL identifies the problem of how to suppress the Sn²+/Sn⁴⁺ oxidation (see, e.g. page 8624) and uses SnF₂ as a reducing additive (see, e.g. page S2). Furthermore, D2 shows that TBA cation also suppresses said oxidation (see, e.g., fig. S2 and page 8626). Therefore, replacing TBAI by tetrabutylammonium fluoride is merely one of several straightforward possibilities which the skilled person would select, depending on the circumstances, without exercising inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed
11. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MOEHL T in view of LI HAIYAN ET AL: "Perovskite films with a sacrificial cation for solar cells with enhanced stability based on carbon electrodes".
Regarding claims 13-14, LI HAIYAN ET AL disclosed the value of the molar ratio of the ammonium salt. See, for example, page 812 -right column-.
However, the selection of the claimed device parameters would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to form the value of the molar ratio of the ammonium salt is within the claimed range, since it is well settles that when the general conditions of a claim are discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
12. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MOEHL T in view of SNAITH H (WO-2015092397-A1).
Regarding claim 19, MOEHL T discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above but does but disclose further comprising SnF2.
SNAITH H, however, discloses the photoelectric conversion material further comprising SnF2 (English Text).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of MOEHL T to provide the photoelectric conversion material further comprising SnF2 as taught by SNAITH H for a purpose of improving the performance of the photoelectric conversion material.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phuc T. Dang whose telephone number is 571-272-1776. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHUC T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights