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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, and 5-14 as amended in applicant’s response dated 22 January 2026 and new claims 21-22 are presently under consideration. Claims 4 and 15 are cancelled by applicant’s amendments to the claims, and claims 16-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejections of record which are thus withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art rejections of record which are thus withdrawn.
Upon performing updated search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, new prior art was discovered and a new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (Interfacial Residual Stress Relaxation in Perovskite Solar Cells with Improved Stability, Adv. Mater. 2019, 31, 1904408 with attached Supporting Information), and further in view of Seok et al (KR 20190083957A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1 Wang discloses a device comprising:
a first layer comprising a perovskite, (Abstract, Figs. 1a, 4d see: perovskite solar cell including perovskite layer); and
an additive comprising at least one of an aromatic ammonium cation or an alkyl ammonium cation (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, see: phenethylammonium iodide (PEAI) or octylammonium iodide (OAI)), wherein:
the first layer comprises a thickness (t) as defined by a distance between a first surface and a second surface of the first layer (Abstract, Figs. 1a, 4d see: perovskite layer having a thickness between top and bottom surfaces),
the additive is positioned and spatially distributed in the perovskite at the first surface of the first layer (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, see: PEAI or OAI additive is present at a surface (interface) on the perovskite film and at or near the grain boundaries at this interface), and
the first layer is characterized by a stress between −50 MPa and 50 MPa (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 4d and Table S2 in supporting information see: the perovskite films O-5, O-10, O-20, and P-5, P-10, and P-20 each includes a stress within the claimed range depending on the depth measured within the film).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the additive is positioned and spatially distributed in the perovskite at the second surface of the first layer.
Seok teaches where a perovskite additive is positioned and spatially distributed in the perovskite at the first surface and the second surface of the first layer (Seok, [0008], [0036], [0151] Fig. 4(a) see: perovskite compound film comprising grains of a perovskite compound surrounded at their grain boundaries by alkylammonium ions such as octylammonium (OA) spatially distributed in the perovskite film at first and second surfaces). Seok teaches this improves preferential orientation of the perovskite crystal grains increasing solar cell stability and reduced non-radiative recombination in the light-absorbing layer (paras [0150]-[0151], [0154]).
Seok and Wang are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of perovskite films including additives.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Seok such that the device further comprises the additive positioned and spatially distributed in the perovskite at the second surface of the first layer as in Seok ([0008], [0036], [0151] Fig. 4(a) see: perovskite compound film comprising grains of a perovskite compound surrounded at their grain boundaries by alkylammonium ions such as octylammonium (OA) spatially distributed in the perovskite film at first and second surfaces) as Seok teaches this improves preferential orientation of the perovskite crystal grains increasing solar cell stability and reduced non-radiative recombination in the light-absorbing layer (Seok, paras [0150]-[0151], [0154]).
Regarding claim 2 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the additive further comprises an anion (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, see: phenethylammonium iodide (PEAI) or octylammonium iodide (OAI)) each include an iodine anion) and (Seok, [0121], [0124] see: octylammonium added as octylammonium iodide (OAI)).
Regarding claim 3 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the anion comprises at least one of a halide, a pseudo halide, formate, carbonate, or nitrate (iodine).
Regarding claim 5 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, and regarding the claim 5 limitation “wherein the stress is between −5 MPa and 5 MPa, inclusively” Wang in Table S2 of the supporting information discloses the O-5 film with a residual stress of 7.1 ± 3.6 MPa (at 500nm depth) the O-10 film with a residual stress of 9.5 ± 3.9 MPa (at 200nm depth) 6.6 ± 3.4 MPa (at 500nm depth), the P-10 film with a residual stress of 8.6 ± 5.4 MPa (at 500nm depth), and the P-20 film with a residual stress of 8.2 ± 4.6 (at 500nm depth).
The recited stress ranges in Wang either overlap the endpoint of the claimed range or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Alternatively, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium)
Furthermore, Wang teaches surface defects and interface traps can be reduced by reducing these residual stresses in the perovskite film (Bottom of right hand column of page 2).
Therefore defects in the perovskite film are a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the stress in the perovskite film. For that reason, the stress in the perovskite film, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the stress in the perovskite film cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the stress in the perovskite film in the device of Wang to obtain the desired reduction of defects in the perovskite film (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 6 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first layer is further characterized by a strain of between −0.1 and 0.1 (unitless) inclusively (Right hand column of page 2, and Table 1 see: by fitting the 2θ as a function of sin2ϕ, we can calculate perovskite film stress, and the slope of the fitting line stands for the residual strain where in Table 1 the perovskite films O-5, O-10, O-20, and P-5, P-10, and P-20 each includes a slope (strain) within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first layer has a thickness between 100 nm and 20 μm inclusively (Fig. 4d see: perovskite film is about 600nm thick).
Regarding claim 8 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the additive has a length between 5 Å and 75 Å inclusively (phenethylammonium iodide (PEAI) and octylammonium iodide (OAI) each have molecular lengths within this claimed range).
Regarding claim 9 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the alkyl group of the alkyl ammonium cation comprises a hydrocarbon group having between 2 and 30 carbon atoms (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, see: octylammonium iodide (OAI) with an 8 carbon chain) (Seok also discloses octylammonium iodide (OAI) as recited above).
Regarding claim 10 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the alkyl ammonium cation comprises n-octyl ammonium (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, see: octylammonium iodide (OAI)) (Seok also discloses n-octylammonium as recited above).
Regarding claim 11 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, and the claim 11 recitation “wherein the aromatic ammonium cation comprises at least one of benzyl ammonium, methylbenzyl ammonium, or a combination thereof” are directed to the species of the aromatic ammonium cation. However, this species is anticipated as Wang discloses the other species of the alkyl ammonium cation in the group set forth above in claim 1 (an additive comprising at least one of an aromatic ammonium cation or an alkyl ammonium cation). As such, the limitations of claim 11 are also anticipated as they are directed to the species of the aromatic ammonium cation in the group anticipated by Wang as set forth in claim 1 above.
See MPEP 2131.02 Genus-Species Situations:
II. A REFERENCE THAT CLEARLY NAMES THE CLAIMED SPECIES ANTICIPATES THE CLAIM NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER SPECIES ARE NAMED
A genus does not always anticipate a claim to a species within the genus. However, when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See Ex parteA, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (The claimed compound was named in a reference which also disclosed 45 other compounds. The Board held that the comprehensiveness of the listing did not negate the fact that the compound claimed was specifically taught. The Board compared the facts to the situation in which the compound was found in the Merck Index, saying that “the tenth edition of the Merck Index lists ten thousand compounds. In our view, each and every one of those compounds is ‘described’ as that term is used in [pre-AIA ] 35 U.S.C. 102(a), in that publication.”). Id. at 1718. See also In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 213 USPQ 441 (CCPA 1982) (The claims were directed to polycarbonate containing cadmium laurate as an additive. The court upheld the Board’s finding that a reference specifically naming cadmium laurate as an additive amongst a list of many suitable salts in polycarbonate resin anticipated the claims. The applicant had argued that cadmium laurate was only disclosed as representative of the salts and was expected to have the same properties as the other salts listed while, as shown in the application, cadmium laurate had unexpected properties. The court held that it did not matter that the salt was not disclosed as being preferred, the reference still anticipated the claims and because the claim was anticipated, the unexpected properties were immaterial.).
Regarding claim 12 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the anion comprises at least one of iodide, chloride, bromide, formate, carbonate, nitrate, thiocyanate, or a combination thereof (iodine).
Regarding claim 13 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, and Seok discloses wherein a portion of the additive is positioned in the first layer at a concentration between greater than 0 mol % and 10 mol % inclusively (Seok, [0105], [0142] Fig. 1 see: OA added to perovskite at 3.3 mol% or 4.9 mol% and generally the alkylammonium metal halide additive is added within the range of 0.5 to 5 mol%).
Regarding claim 14 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising a second layer (carrier transport layer), wherein
the first layer and the second layer are parallel and adjacent to each other, the first surface of the first layer contacts a surface of the second layer at a first interface (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, and Fig. S20 in supporting information see: the Spiro-OMeTAD transport layer and perovskite absorber are generally parallel and adjacent to each other forming a first interface), and
a portion of the additive is positioned at the first interface (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, see: PEAI or OAI additive is present at a surface (interface) on the perovskite film with the carrier transport layer).
Regarding claim 21 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 1, and Seok discloses wherein the perovskite comprises a plurality of perovskite grains separated by a plurality of grain boundaries and a portion of the additive is positioned at or near the grain boundaries (Seok, [0008], [0036], [0151] Fig. 4(a) see: perovskite compound film comprising grains of a perovskite compound surrounded at their grain boundaries by alkylammonium ions such as octylammonium (OA)).
Regarding claim 22 modified Wang discloses the device of claim 14, further comprising a third layer (Fig. S20 in supporting information see: SnO2 layer) wherein:
the first layer and the second layer are parallel and adjacent to each other (Abstract, Right hand column of page 2, Fig. 1a, 2e, and Fig. S20 in supporting information see: the Spiro-OMeTAD transport layer and perovskite absorber are generally parallel and adjacent to each other forming a first interface),
the second surface of the first layer contacts a surface of the third layer at a second interface (Fig. S20 in supporting information see: SnO2 layer contacts perovskite layer at a second interface), and Seok teaches a portion of the additive is positioned at the second interface (Seok, [0008], [0036], [0151] Fig. 4(a) see: perovskite compound film comprising grains of a perovskite compound surrounded at their grain boundaries by alkylammonium ions such as octylammonium (OA) and thus present at the interfaces between the perovskite material and the transport layers).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-14, and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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 Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights