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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office Action based on the 19/130,139 application filed on 05/15/2025.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-22 are currently pending in the application.
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 4 and 19 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. Claims 4 and 19 recite “pentasulfonic acid, hexasulfonic acid” that render the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what the claimed pentasulfonic acid and hexasulfonic acid are because there are no known solvents having the recited names.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2023/0380266).
Addressing claim 13, Zhu discloses a perovskite layer that is the structural equivalence to the claimed perovskite layer, the limitation requiring the layer to be obtained upon a treatment of the universal treatment method according to claim 9 does not structurally differentiate the claimed perovskite layer from that of Zhu’s because it is drawn to the method of treatment without reciting any associated structures of the perovskite layer. The limitation “when compared with perovskite layer before the modified treatment, an average surface roughness, a film defect density, and a nanosheet phase structure content of the perovskite layer after the modified treatment are reduced” does not structurally differentiate the claimed perovskite layer from that of Zhu because the claim does not recite any numerical values associated with the average surface roughness, a film defect density and a nanosheet phase structure content of perovskite layer prior to the modified treatment as reference points to differentiate the claimed perovskite layer from that of Zhu. In other words, the existing average surface roughness, film defect density and nanosheet phase structure content of Zhu’s perovskite layer corresponds to the same properties as those of the claimed perovskite layer without any reference points to which the existing average surface roughness, film defect density and nanosheet phase structure content of Zhu’s perovskite layer are compared.
Addressing claim 15, Zhu does not disclose the perovskite layer comprising a nanosheet phase structure, which satisfies the limitation of current claim.
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(s) 1, 3, 6-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN111628091 with provided machine English translation) in view of Bao (CN112542547 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claims 1, 3 and 6, Li discloses a universal treatment solution of a perovskite layer (mixed solvent for solvent bath assisted heat treatment, [0010 and 0020]), comprising a polar solvent and a non-polar solvent [0012], wherein the polar solvent only comprises (the word “comprises” is read according to the guidance set forth in MPEP 2111.03, despite the word “comprises” follows the word “only”) the list of solvents disclosed in paragraph [0015], a volume fraction of the polar solvent is 0.01 – 2% [0012].
Li further discloses in paragraph [0023] the polar solvent is used for dissolving or partially dissolving perovskites and the polar solvent used in the examples are dimethyl formamide [0037], acetonitrile [0042] and dimethyl sulfoxide [0045].
Bao discloses solvent for dissolving perovskites; wherein the solvent is dimethylformamide, similarly to that of Li or sulfonate [0020].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the treatment solution of Li by substituting the known dimethylformamide polar solvent with the known sulfonate polar solvent disclosed by Bao in order to obtain the predictable result of dissolving the intended perovskite during heat treatment process (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Addressing claims 7-8, paragraphs [0023 and 0037] of Li disclose the claimed non-polar solvents.
Addressing claim 9, Li in view of Bao discloses a universal treatment method of a perovskite layer, comprising:
providing a perovskite layer (paragraph [0011] of Li),
allowing the perovskite layer to be in contact with the universal treatment solution according to claim 1 (paragraph [0012] of Li discloses immersing the perovskite layer in the mixed solvent, which is obviated based on the teaching of Li in view of Bao as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above) for a modified treatment, time of the modified treatment being 2-10 s ([0013], the time disclosed by Li is inclusive of the claimed time range); and
removing the universal treatment solution in the perovskite layer after the modified treatment (paragraph [0013] of Li).
Addressing claim 10, Li discloses the temperature in paragraph [0013] that is inclusive of the claimed temperature range.
Addressing claim 11, Li discloses in paragraph [0013] the step of performing a drying treatment on the perovskite layer after the modified treatment.
Addressing claim 12, paragraph [0042] of Li discloses the claimed annealing treatment temperature and time.
Addressing claims 13-15, the perovskite film disclosed by Li undergoes the same treatment process; therefore, the resulting perovskite film disclosed by Li has all of the claimed properties after the treatment process.
Addressing claims 16-17, paragraph [0039] of Li discloses the perovskite solar cell comprises a first transport layer (electron transport layer), the perovskite layer subjected to the modified treatment through the universal treatment method according to claim 9 (please see the rejection of claim 9 above) and a second transport layer (hole transport layer). The order of the layers disclosed in paragraph [0039] of Li also implies the order of the steps required by claim 17.
Addressing claims 18 and 20, paragraph [0012] of Li discloses the claimed volume fraction.
Addressing claims 21-22, paragraphs [0023 and 0037] of Li disclose the claimed non-polar solvents
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2023/0380266) in view of Taylor et al. (US 2022/0328764).
Addressing claim 14, Zhu discloses in paragraphs [0010-0011] that the perovskite layer has a surface roughness that is less than 1 nm, which meets the limitation “average surface roughness of the perovskite layer is below 2.0 nm”. Zhu is silent regarding the film defect density below 0.9 x 1016 cm-3.
Taylor discloses a perovskite layer having a surface defect density of 7.02 x 1015 cm-3 and 6.94 x 1015 cm-3 [0143] that fall within the claimed range.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the perovskite layer of Zhu with the hole transport layer disclosed by Taylor in order to lower the surface defect density and increase photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell (Taylor, [0143]). Furthermore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed film defect density when perform routine experimentation with the film defect density of the perovskite film in the range disclosed by Taylor in order to optimize the photoelectric conversion efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Pending the 35 USC 112, second paragraph, rejection above, claims 4 and 19 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 02/09/2025