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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups do not lack unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature of group II is thermal evaporation of the precursors, which is not required by group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-4 are interpreted in light of the specification. Instant specification recites that the perovskite compound has a molecular formula of CsAZPbI3, CsAZPb(I,Br)3, CsAZPb(I,Cl)3, or CsAZPb(I,Br,Cl)3 (see page 3 of specification), which implies that the compound requires both Cs and AZ. However, instant claim as recited is broader and requires the compound to have a molecular formula of (Cs,AZ)PbI3, (Cs,AZ)Pb(I,Br)3, (Cs,AZ)Pb(I,Cl)3, or (Cs,AZ)Pb(I,Br,Cl)3, which implies that the compound requires Cs, AZ, or mixture of Cs and AZ. Therefore, if the prior art teaches a perovskite compound comprising only one of Cs and AZ, it would be interpreted to read on the instant claim.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snaith et al. (US 2015/0249170 A1). Supporting evidence is provided by Liu et al. (“Structural, Electronic and Optical Properties of CsMI 3 (M=Ge,Sn,Pb) Perovskite from First Principles”, American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) (2020) Volume 71, No 1, pp 87-98).
Regarding claim 1, Snaith discloses an absorber (perovskite absorber, fig. 16 or 17) for a solar cell (perovskite solar cell, fig. 16/17, [0052-0053]) having a molecular formula of CsPbI3 ([0244]), which reads on instant claimed formula (Cs,AZ)PbI3 with no AZ present.
Regarding claim 2, Snaith discloses the absorber is made of CsPbI3 ([0244]), which has the following structure as evidenced by figure 2 of Liu
PNG
media_image1.png
197
235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Snaith as evidenced by Liu discloses the Pb and I form a basic structure with Cs ion is intercalated in the basic structure.
Regarding claim 3, Snaith further discloses a solar cell (figure 16/17), comprising an absorber as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Snaith further discloses that the solar cell is designed as a thin-film solar cell (thin film photovoltaic device, [0276]) and/or as a tandem solar cell (figure 16/17 that shows a tandem solar cell).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kesava et al. (“Azetidinium as cation in lead mixed halide perovskite nanocrystals of optoelectronic quality” AIP Advances 10, 025001 (2020)) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kesava discloses an absorber (AZPbI2Cl, Abstract and fig. 1) for a solar cell (perovskite solar cell, last sentence of Abstract, see also Introduction seciotn) having a molecular formula of AZPbI2Cl (figure 1) which reads on instant claimed formula (Cs,AZ)Pb(I,Cl)3 with no Cs present.
Regarding claim 2, Kesava discloses the absorber is made of AZPbI2Cl perovskite (see figure 1), and thus the Pb and I and Cl form a basic structure with AZ ion is intercalated in the basic structure.
Regarding claim 3, Kesava further discloses a solar cell (Abstract and §I. Introduction section), comprising an absorber as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kesava further discloses that the solar cell is designed as a thin-film solar cell (§I. Introduction section).
`
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kesava et al. (“Azetidinium as cation in lead mixed halide perovskite nanocrystals of optoelectronic quality” AIP Advances 10, 025001 (2020)) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kesava discloses an absorber (AZPb2Cl, Abstract and fig. 1) for a solar cell (perovskite solar cell, last sentence of Abstract, see also Introduction seciotn) having a molecular formula of AZPb2Cl (figure 1) which reads on instant claimed formula (Cs,AZ)Pb(I,Cl)3 with no Cs present.
Although Kesava does not explicitly disclose the compound AZPb2Cl further comprises Cs, Kesava further discloses the AZ can be mixed with Cs to develop a system with excellent photovoltaic performance (see §VII. Conclusions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the combination of Cs and AZ to form the perovskite compound to develop a photovoltaic or solar system with excellent photovoltaic performance.
Thus, Kesava as modified discloses the compound having a molecular formula of CsAZPb2Cl (figure 1) which reads on instant claimed formula (Cs,AZ)Pb(I,Cl)3.
Regarding claim 2, Kesava as modified discloses the absorber is made of CsAZPb2Cl perovskite (see figure 1), and thus the Pb and I and Cl form a basic structure with Cs and AZ ions are intercalated in the basic structure.
Regarding claim 3, Kesava further discloses a solar cell (Abstract and §I. Introduction section), comprising an absorber as claimed in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kesava further discloses that the solar cell is designed as a thin-film solar cell (§I. Introduction section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0155974 A to Wang et al. discloses an absorber for a solar cell comprising a formula AaBbMmXx ([0006-0008]), wherein A can be Cs or AZ ([0008]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights