DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . Applicant’s amendment, filed September 8, 2026, is entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 4 and 5. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-5 are pending before the Office for review. Claims 6-11 remain withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.
(2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells, 160, (2017), 193-202. Dittrich et al., Applied Physics Letters, 109, 073901 (2016) is cited to support a statement of fact.
With respect to claim 1, Examiner notes the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113.
Zhang teaches a perovskite solar cell (Abstract) comprising a local semi-opening passivation contact structure (Figure 1) comprising a charge transport layer (titania) and a perovskite layer, wherein an insulating material is provided between the charge transport layer and the perovskite layer, wherein the material is a continuous island structure in the form of a honeycomb scaffold. Abstract, Figure 1 and 2. Experiment.
With respect to claim 2, Examiner notes the claimed invention is broadly written to require “a horizontal dimension,” but does not specify how the dimension is measured, meaning an arbitrary point can be set as the horizontal dimension, wherein the arbitrary point is less than a diffusion length of a photo-generated carrier in the perovskite layer and a distance between islands is between 0.1 to 9 times the horizonal dimension, which is arbitrarily determined, of the island. Accordingly, Zhang’s scaffold, as depicted in Figure 1, satisfies this requirement. Abstract, Figure 1 and 2. Experiment.
With respect to claim 3, Zhang teaches, as seen in Figure 1, the island structure has what can be considered a columnar structure. Figure 1. Zhang also teaches a thickness of the scaffold is 200 nm, meaning the height of the island structure is 200 nm. Sec. 3.2.2. Effect of the perovskite precursor concentration. Finally, Zhang teaches the island structure has a horizonal dimension of just less than about 500 nm. Figure 4(a).
Regarding the dimensions being matched with a diffusion length of a photo-generated carrier, Zhang’s dimensions of 200 nm in height and approximately 500 nm in horizontal dimensions matches, i.e. is equal or similar, to the diffusion length of photo-generated carriers in CH3NH3PbI3 perovskites.
Examiner relies on Dittrich et al. to support this statement of fact. Dittrich teaches the diffusion length of photo-generated carriers in CH3NH3PbI3 is 200 nm to tenths of microns, which is similar to the dimensions taught by Zhang.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells, 160, (2017), 193-202.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Examiner notes the statement “the coverage rate is a percentage of an areas where the insulating low-conductivity material obstructs and prevents carriers from being transported from the perovskite layer to the charge transport layer in a surface area of the charge transport layer” is a statement of intended use. The cited statement recites a function performed by the material. Any material meeting the requirements of the claimed invention is capable of the same use absent evidence to the contrary.
Zhang teaches the silica scaffold is formed from an inverse of a PS CM template, wherein the etching time of the template plays an important role in determining the coverage ratio of the silica scaffold. Sec. 3.2.1. Effect (sp) of the O2 plasma etching time. Zhang specifically teaches the transmittance increases with increasing etch time until an etch time of 10 minutes. Sec. 3.2.1. Effect (sp) of the O2 plasma etching time. Given that the scaffold is formed as an inverse of the template, the longer the template is etched corresponds to a greater coverage area for the scaffold. Figure 1.
Zhang establishes the etch time of the template is a result effective variable because Zhang teaches the etch time is adjusted to influence the transparency of the active layer and the corresponding device, which includes the silica scaffold. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). As per the MPEP, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, it’d be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to adjust the etching time and thus the coverage amount of the silica scaffold because Zhang teaches doing so optimizes the transparency of the active layer that is formed on the scaffold and the transparency of the overall device.
(4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues the present application is distinguished over Zhang because the function of the silica honeycomb scaffold is different. Examiner disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that silica honeycomb scaffold also performs a passivation effect not disclosed by Zhang, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s argument is additionally not persuasive because Zhang’s material is within the scope of the claimed invention, as evidenced by claim 5. Applicant has not provided any substantive explanation as to why the silicon oxide of the claimed invention has a passivation effect but that disclosed by Zhang does not.
Applicant also argues that the claimed invention is distinguished over Zhang because it is prepared by a different process. This argument is not persuasive. The claimed invention is directed toward a product and not a process. In a product-by-process claim, as noted above, “[i]f the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this instance, Applicant’s argument does not establish any difference between the product of the prior art and the presently-claimed product. Examiner also notes for the record in the interest of compact prosecution that the process argued by Applicant in the arguments is not a feature of the claimed invention.
Applicant next argues the claimed invention requires a discontinuous island structure. Examiner disagrees. This is not a feature of the claimed invention. Applicant’s most recent amendment removed this as a feature of the claimed invention. A single, continuous island structure, as taught by Zhang, is within the scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant also argues the claimed invention exhibits unexpected results over the prior art. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it’s unclear where Applicant derived the data from or that the presented data is reflective of an embodiment that is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Zhang teaches the etching is an effective variable to improve AVT. The scaffold coverage increases as the etch time increases, and would be expected to be within the claimed range of 5 to 99%, as required by claim 4. One ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to utilize the etch time as a result effective variable because Zhang teaches it leads to improved AVT.
(5)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
