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 . This is the first office action on the merits.
(2)
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on June 4, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the product of Group I is inherently produced by the method of Group II. This is not found persuasive because it does not address the substantive requirement of the restriction, which is that the product of Group I can be produced by materially different methods. Although claim 1 is now amended to be a product-by-process claim, it can still be produced by materially different methods, meaning restriction is proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
(3)
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on August 2, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 20221091960X application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
(4)
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 1-5 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.
The claimed invention requires a “low-conductivity material layer” but is otherwise unclear what this feature of the claimed invention requires. It’s unclear from the specification and/or claims how this relative term is to be interpreted. Specifically, the term “low-conductivity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Additionally, claim 1 requires a “continuous or discontinuous island structure….” It’s not clear how a continuous island structure should be interpreted, as these terms are contradictory to one another. An island, by its very nature, is discontinuous.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-5 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(5)
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.
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 or low-conductivity 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.
(6)
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, 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 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. Efect (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. Efect (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.
(7)
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights