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 1-9 as amended in the response dated 27 January 2026 are presently under consideration.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of record which are thus withdrawn.
Upon further search and consideration of applicant’s newly amended claims, new prior art was uncovered and a new grounds of rejection is set forth below.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have raised new issues of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below.
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 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.
Claim 8 recites “exposing an edge portion of the lead halide perovskite layer or of a synthetic precursor thereof to a member of a group consisting of: solutions containing an anion and oxidizing agents” where it’s unclear if the recitation “a member of a group consisting of: solutions containing an anion and oxidizing agents” means a solution contains both an anion and an oxidizing agent or need only contain of these or if the solution contains both it contains multiple oxidizing agents. Applicant’s specification at page 11 Lines 9-14 indicates a solution contains an anion or an oxidizing agent to form the desired protection edge material (e.g. SO42- to presumably form PbSO4 or H2O2, O3 to presumably form PbO PbO2), but claim 8 can be read to mean a solution contains both rendering it unclear what scope claim 8 is meant to encompass rendering claim 8 indefinite.
Claim 9 is also rendered indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2022/0044878) and further in view of Fukumoto et al (US 2020/0013974) as further evidenced by Al2O3 datasheet (<https://web.archive.org/web/20221007145844/https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16039/4/9>, October 2022) and SiC datasheet (Sigma-Aldrich Safety Data Sheet for Silicon Carbide, 2025).
Regarding claim 1 Shao discloses a photovoltaic cell comprising
at least one lead halide perovskite layer ([0043], [0046] Fig. 1 see: photoactive layer 400 is a perovskite layer such as CH3NH3PbIx, CH3NH3PbBrx);
a protection edge arranged so as to peripherally surround said at least one lead halide perovskite layer ([0043], [0046] Fig. 1 see: barrier layer 700 arranged at edges of photoactive layer 400);
said protection edge having a height (h) equal to that of the at least one lead halide perovskite layer ([0043], [0046] Fig. 1 see: barrier layer 700 having a height equal to that of the photoactive layer 400) and consisting of a protection material having a solubility in water at 25° C. that is equal to or smaller than 5*10−4 mol/kgH2O ([0043], [0046] Fig. 1 see: barrier layer 700 formed of an oxide-based material for example, Al2O3 or a carbide based material);
wherein said protection material is exclusively present in said protection edge ([0043], [0046] Fig. 1 see: barrier layer 700 material only present at the edges of arranged at edges of photoactive layer 400).
Regarding the claim 1 limitation of the protection material “having a solubility in water at 25° C. that is equal to or smaller than 5*10−4 mol/kgH2O”, Al2O3 datasheet (Pages 5-6) evidences that Al2O3 has a water solubility <0.00002 g/L (0.00002g/L(1/101.96g/mol)= ~2*10-7 mol/kgH2O) at 20° C and SiC datasheet evidences SiC (Page 6) having a water solubility of 0.01 g/L (0.01 g/L /(1/40.10g/mol)= ~2.5*10-4 mol/kgH2O) at 20° C and thus both materials have water solubility within the claimed range. As water solubility is an inherent material property, the protection material of Shao of Al2O3 or a carbide based material such as SiC will thus also inherently display the recited water solubility. See MPEP 2112.
Shao does not explicitly disclose where the protection edge has a width (w) ranging from 0.02 mm to 2 mm.
Fukumoto discloses a photovoltaic cell comprising an edge protection layer surrounding a perovskite absorber layer ([0077] Figs. 1-2 see: side-surface-protecting layer 15 formed on the peripheral side of the perovskite layer 14 surrounds the entire periphery of the perovskite layer 14). Fukumoto discloses the width of the edge protection layer is preferably 0.5 mm or more and 5 mm or less from the standpoint of avoiding a reduction in the effective photoelectric conversion area (para [0082]).
Fukumoto discloses this provides protection of the perovskite absorber layer from deterioration from moisture ingress (Abstract).
Fukumoto and Shao are combinable as they are all concerned with perovskite solar cells.
First, in the interpretation where it’s not clear that the protection edge in Shao peripherally surrounds said at least one lead halide perovskite layer discloses it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Shao in view of Fukumoto such that the protection edge of Shao peripherally surrounds said at least one lead halide perovskite layer as in Fukumoto ([0077] Figs. 1-2 see: side-surface-protecting layer 15 formed on the peripheral side of the perovskite layer 14 surrounds the entire periphery of the perovskite layer 14) to provide protection of the perovskite absorber layer from deterioration from moisture ingress (Abstract) and alternatively to provide further protection of the perovskite absorber layer from further cutting or processing steps such as an edge isolation step.
Additionally it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Shao in view of Fukumoto such that the protection edge of Shao has a width of 0.5 mm or more and 5 mm or less as in Fukumoto to provide sufficient protection while avoiding a reduction in the effective photoelectric conversion area as taught by Fukumoto (para [0082]). The recited range substantially overlaps applicant’s claimed width range. 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).
Regarding claim 2 modified Shao discloses the photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, and Fukumoto further teaches wherein the protection edge has a width of 0.5 mm or more and 5 mm or less which substantially overlaps applicant’s claimed width range of from 0.05 mm to 1 mm (para [0082]). 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).
Regarding claim 3 modified Shao discloses the photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, and regarding the claim 3 limitation “wherein that said protection material has a resistivity that is greater than or equal to 105 Ωcm at 25° C” Al2O3 as in the protection material of modified Shao inherently has a resistivity that is greater than or equal to 105 Ωcm at 25° C.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2022/0044878) in view of Fukumoto et al (US 2020/0013974) as further evidenced by Al2O3 datasheet (<https://web.archive.org/web/20221007145844/https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16039/4/9>, October 2022) and SiC datasheet (Sigma-Aldrich Safety Data Sheet for Silicon Carbide, 2025) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Huang et al (US 2022/0108847).
Regarding claim 4 modified Shao discloses the photovoltaic cell according to claim 3, and although Shao discloses the protection material can be a halide based material such as lead iodide (para [0046]), Shao does not explicitly disclose wherein said protection material is an inorganic material comprising lead and also possessing the claimed insolubility.
Huang teaches a protection material for perovskite solar cells comprising a lead oxysalt (Huang, Abstract, [0010]). Huang teaches the material provides stability against degradation caused by liquid water or water vapor (paras [0004], [0006]), including providing very low solubility or insolubility in water to provide such a barrier protection (paras [0013], [0071]).
Huang and modified Shao are combinable as they are concerned with perovskite solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Shao in view of Huang such that the protection material is an inorganic material comprising lead as in Huang ([0010], [0071]) for the benefit of providing stability against degradation caused by liquid water or water vapor as taught by Huang (paras [0004], [0006]).
Regarding claim 5 modified Shao discloses the photovoltaic cell according to claim 4, and Huang further discloses wherein that said protection material is chosen from the group consisting of PbSO4, Pb3(PO4)2, PbCO3, PbS, PbO or PbO2 (Huang, [0010] see: coating oxysalt can be PbSO4, Pb3(PO4)2, PbCO3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2022/0044878 in view of Fukumoto et al (US 2020/0013974) as further evidenced by Al2O3 datasheet (<https://web.archive.org/web/20221007145844/https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/16039/4/9>, October 2022) and SiC datasheet (Sigma-Aldrich Safety Data Sheet for Silicon Carbide, 2025) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kamino et al (US 2022/0102659).
Regarding claim 7 modified Shao discloses the photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein that it is a perovskite/silicon tandem solar cell.
Kamino discloses such perovskite solar cells as in Shao can be formed on a silicon solar cell to form a perovskite/silicon tandem solar cell (Abstract, Figs. 1 and 9-10).
Kamino and modified Shao are combinable as they are concerned with perovskite solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the photovoltaic cell of Shao in view of Kamino such that the perovskite solar cell in Shao is formed on a silicon solar cell to form a perovskite/silicon tandem solar cell as in Kamino (Abstract, Figs. 1 and 9-10) to provide a greater power conversion efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 recites “the photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein said protection material is selected from a group consisting of: poorly soluble inorganic perovskites and a lattice structure other than perovskite and comprising lead halides and bulky cations” which is not taught disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 recites a method of manufacturing a protection edge of a photovoltaic cell according to claim 1 wherein that the method comprises exposing an edge portion of the lead halide perovskite layer or of a synthetic precursor thereof to a member of a group consisting of: solutions containing an anion and oxidizing agents.
This method step is not taught disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record. Huang teaches exposing a lead halide perovskite layer to an anion to form a lead oxysalt (Huang, Abstract, [0010]) but does not explicitly teach the method is exposing an edge portion of the lead halide perovskite layer to form the protection material exclusively present in said protection edge as required in claim 8 by its dependence from claim 1.
Claim 9 also would be allowable by its dependence from claim 8 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuan et al (CN 105161623 A, reference made to attached English machine translation) teaches a perovskite solar cell having a perovskite photosensitive layer (4) with two surrounded side ITO walls (3) for protection from environmental moisture (Abstract, Figs. 1-2).
Watson (US 2018/0286998) in Figs. 1A-1B discloses perovskite absorber layers 214 surrounded by insulating matrix layer 120.
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