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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3-4 and 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 3 recites “a surface modification component” where it’s unclear if this surface modification component is a new component or means to reference the phosphonium salt of Chemical formula 1 of claim 1. As such, the scope of claim 3 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “a particle size of 1 to 100 nm” where the first end point ‘1’ does not include a unit of measurement in front of it and it’s unclear if ‘1’ means to also be in nanometers. As such, the scope of claim 4 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim 9 recites “a thickness of 10 to 200 nm” where the first end point ‘10’ does not include a unit of measurement in front of it and it’s unclear if ‘10’ means to also be in nanometers. As such, the scope of claim 9 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valadez-Villalobos et al (Effect of Tetrabutylphosphonium Iodide as Interfacial Additive between Tio2 and Ch3nh3pbi3 in Mesoscopic Perovskite Solar Cells. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4170575 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4170575, posted 23 Jul 2022).
Regarding claim 1 Valadez-Villalobos discloses an electron carrier for an electron transport layer of a perovskite solar cell, comprising metal oxide nanoparticles that are surface-modified with a phosphonium salt represented by Chemical Formula 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
102
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in Chemical Formula 1, each of R1 to R4 is independently a C1 to C10 straight- chain alkyl group, a C3 to C10 branched alkyl group, a phenyl group or a benzyl group, and X is a halogen atom or -OH (See Abstract and sections “2.3 Fabrication of films and devices”, 2.4 Interfacial modification with B4PI see: TiO2 mesoporous film which is formed of TiO2 nanoparticles is coated with tetrabutylphosphonium iodide (B4PI) for interface modification (surface modified) and functions as the ETL in a perovskite cell (Fig. 1) where B4PI is a phosphonium salt represented by Chemical Formula 1 where R1 to R4 is C4 alkyl group and X is I).
Regarding claim 5 Valadez-Villalobos discloses a coating agent for an electron transport layer of a perovskite solar cell, comprising an organic solvent and the electron carrier according to claim 1 (See sections “2.3 Fabrication of films and devices”, 2.4 Interfacial modification with B4PI see: TiO2 mesoporous film which is formed of TiO2 nanoparticles is coated with tetrabutylphosphonium iodide (B4PI) in isopropanol, where the deposited isopropanol with B4PI on TiO2 prior to drying meets the limitations of the claimed coating agent as claimed) wherein the organic solvent has a dielectric constant of 20 or less (isopropanol).
Regarding claim 7 Valadez-Villalobos discloses the coating agent of claim 5, wherein the organic solvent comprises at least one selected from isopropyl alcohol, butyl alcohol, 2,2,2-trifluoroethanol, chlorobenzene and chloroform See sections “2.3 Fabrication of films and devices”, 2.4 Interfacial modification with B4PI see: isopropanol).
Regarding claim 8 Valadez-Villalobos discloses an electron transport layer of a perovskite solar cell, comprising a coating layer formed by the coating agent of claim 5 (See Abstract and sections “2.3 Fabrication of films and devices”, 2.4 Interfacial modification with B4PI see: TiO2 mesoporous film which is formed of TiO2 nanoparticles is coated with tetrabutylphosphonium iodide (B4PI) for interface modification (surface modified) and functions as the ETL in a perovskite cell (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadez-Villalobos et al (Effect of Tetrabutylphosphonium Iodide as Interfacial Additive between Tio2 and Ch3nh3pbi3 in Mesoscopic Perovskite Solar Cells. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4170575 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4170575, posted 23 Jul 2022) as applied to claims 1, 5 and 7-8 above.
Regarding claim 3 Valadez-Villalobos discloses the electron carrier of claim 1, but it’s not clear Valadez-Villalobos explicitly discloses wherein the electron carrier comprises 85.0 to 95.0 wt% of the metal oxide nanoparticles and the remaining amount of a surface modification component based on the total weight of the electron carrier.
However, Valadez-Villalobos teaches the device stability and photoelectric conversion efficiency are variables that can be modified by varying the amount of a surface modification component (B4PI) (see Abstract and pages 9-12) and thus also varying the amount of TiO2 based on total weight of the electron carrier.
As such, the weight amounts of the metal oxide nanoparticles and surface modification component in the electron carrier of Valadez-Villalobos would have been considered result effective variables. The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight amounts of the metal oxide nanoparticles and surface modification component in the electron carrier of Valadez-Villalobos to achieve the desired optimized device stability and photoelectric conversion efficiency. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadez-Villalobos et al (Effect of Tetrabutylphosphonium Iodide as Interfacial Additive between Tio2 and Ch3nh3pbi3 in Mesoscopic Perovskite Solar Cells. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4170575 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4170575, posted 23 Jul 2022) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Zhan et al (US 2015/0380169).
Regarding claim 2 Valadez-Villalobos discloses the electron carrier of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal oxide nanoparticles comprise an oxide of a metal comprising at least one or two selected from tin (Sn), zirconium (Zr), strontium (Sr), zinc (Zn), vanadium (V), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), niobium (Nb), aluminum (Al) and gallium (Ga).
Zhan discloses a mesoporous titanium oxide electron transport layer for a perovskite solar cell further comprising aluminum oxide coatings (Zhan, [0044] Fig. 3 see: mesoporous layer of TiO2 nanoparticles with Al2O3 coating layers) that also assist in passivating surface traps at the titanium oxide surface (Zhan, [0044]).
Zhan and Valadez-Villalobos are combinable as they are both 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 electron carrier of Valadez-Villalobos in view of Zhan such that the metal oxide nanoparticles of Valadez-Villalobos comprise aluminum oxide coatings as in Zhan (Zhan, [0044] Fig. 3 see: mesoporous layer of TiO2 nanoparticles with Al2O3 coating layers) as Zhan teaches they assist in passivating surface traps at the titanium oxide surface (Zhan, [0044]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadez-Villalobos et al (Effect of Tetrabutylphosphonium Iodide as Interfacial Additive between Tio2 and Ch3nh3pbi3 in Mesoscopic Perovskite Solar Cells. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4170575 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4170575, posted 23 Jul 2022) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Leung et al (US 2015/0287852).
Regarding claim 4 Valadez-Villalobos discloses the electron carrier of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal oxide nanoparticles have a particle size of 1 to 100 nm.
Leung discloses a mesoporous titanium oxide electron transport layer for a perovskite solar cell where the titanium oxide nanoparticles have a size of about 50 nm (Leung, [0093]).
Leung and Valadez-Villalobos are combinable as they are both 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 electron carrier of Valadez-Villalobos in view of Leung such that the metal oxide nanoparticles of Valadez-Villalobos have a particle size of 1 to 100 nm as in Leung (Leung, [0093]) as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of a known mesoporous titanium oxide nanoparticle size for its intended use in an electron transport layer of a perovskite solar cell to accomplish an entirely expected result of providing electron transport and serving as a scaffold for the perovskite material.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadez-Villalobos et al (Effect of Tetrabutylphosphonium Iodide as Interfacial Additive between Tio2 and Ch3nh3pbi3 in Mesoscopic Perovskite Solar Cells. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4170575 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4170575, posted 23 Jul 2022) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Lee et al (Work-Function-Tunable Electron Transport Layer of Molecule Capped Metal Oxide for a High-Efficiency and Stable p−i−n Perovskite Solar Cell, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 45936−45949).
Regarding claim 6 Valadez-Villalobos discloses the coating agent of claim 5, but it’s not clear Valadez-Villalobos explicitly discloses wherein the coating agent comprises 0.30 to 2.00 wt% of the electron carrier and the remainder of the organic solvent.
However, such a weight concentration of an electron carrier with respect to the organic solvent in an organic carrier in known, Lee teaches providing an electron carrier in an organic solvent for forming an electron transport layer within the claimed range (Lee, see “Preparation of the Tetraalkylammonium Hydroxide Capped Metal Oxide NP Suspension” under methods on page 45946 see: TBAOH−metal oxide NP at a concentration of 10 mg/mL in ethanol (density 789 mg/ml) and thus at a ~1.25 wt% concentration [(10/(789+10))] ).
Lee and Valadez-Villalobos are combinable as they are both 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 coating agent of Valadez-Villalobos in view of Lee such that the coating agent comprises 0.30 to 2.00 wt% of the electron carrier and the remainder of the organic solvent as in Lee (Lee, see “Preparation of the Tetraalkylammonium Hydroxide Capped Metal Oxide NP Suspension” under methods on page 45946 see: TBAOH−metal oxide NP at a concentration of 10 mg/mL in ethanol (density 789 mg/ml) and thus at a ~1.25 wt% concentration [(10/(789+10))] ) as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of a known concentration of the electron carrier with respect to the solvent in forming the electron transport layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valadez-Villalobos et al (Effect of Tetrabutylphosphonium Iodide as Interfacial Additive between Tio2 and Ch3nh3pbi3 in Mesoscopic Perovskite Solar Cells. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4170575 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4170575, posted 23 Jul 2022) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-8 above, and further in view of Burschka et al (US 2016/0086739).
Regarding claim 9 Valadez-Villalobos discloses the electron transport layer of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electron transport layer has a thickness of 10 to 200 nm.
However, Burschka discloses mesoporous metal oxide electron transport layers for perovskite solar cells having a thick of 10 to 3000 nm, preferably 15 to 1500 nm, more preferably 20 to 1000 nm, still more preferably 50 to 800 nm and most preferably 100 to 500 nm (Burschka, [0022]-[0028]).
Burschka and Valadez-Villalobos are combinable as they are both 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 electron transport layer of Valadez-Villalobos in view of Burschka such that the thickness of the electron transport layer of Valadez-Villalobos is 10 to 200 nm as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of a preferable mesoporous metal oxide electron transport layer thickness as in Burschka (Burschka, [0022]-[0028]).
Furthermore, 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).
Additionally, the claim 9 recitation “wherein when the electron transport layer has a thickness of 10 to 15 nm, the electron transport layer has a light transmittance of 88.0% or more for a wavelength of 500 to 550 nm” is directed to an intended use of the claimed device. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
The electron transport layer of Valadez-Villalobos is considered fully capable of having the recited light transmittance of 88.0% or more for a wavelength of 500 to 550 nm at when at a thickness of 10 to 15 nm as such a electron transport layer is open to having windows or patterning to provide said light transmittance.
Conclusion
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