DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 19/169,003.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on April 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 24, 2026.
Claims 1-10 are considered on the merits herein.
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, and 7-10 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 3, 9 and 10 refer to “the active material” of the perovskite layers but does not introduce this concept previously or in parent claim 1. It is unclear if the Applicant is intending to refer to an additional active material within the layer (beyond the perovskite material) or if this active material is the perovskite material. For this reason, the claim is unclear.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 3.
Claim 10 (and to some extent claim 3) is further unclear in the proportion of components in the materials listed of use as the 2D materials. More specifically, the use of two “A” components in relation to a singular “B” component (Pb) and only 3 halogen or “X” components does not fit with the general ionic proportions known to be present in 2D, 3D, ABX3 or A2CDX6 structures and it is unclear how the structure would be possible. More specifically, this general formula of A2BX3 is not consistent with either a 2D or 3D perovskite structure, as the art establishes it is well known in the art for 2D perovskites to adhere to the general structure of A2BX4 or A4CDX8 (see also the Japanese Office Action submitted by the Applicant on May 15, 2026 in reference to the clarity of claim 3). The Examiner encourages the Applicant to make clear how these materials listed function as a 2D layered perovskites or provide context for interpreting these formulas in relation to the disclosed structures for 2D perovskites for clarity of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN et al (“In Situ Growth of 2D Perovskite Capping Layer for Stable and Efficient Perovskite Solar Cells”, as provided by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN et al teaches perovskite solar cell (abstract, figure 1a), comprising a transparent electrode (FTO), a first functional layer (ETM), a perovskite layer (2D/3D perovskite), a second functional layer (HTM) and a second electrode layer (Au) which are stacked (see figure 1a),
wherein the perovskite layer comprises a three-dimensional perovskite layer (3D perovskite) and a two-dimensional perovskite layer (2D perovskite) which are stacked (see figure 1a), the surface of the three-dimensional perovskite layer in contact with the first functional layer being a first surface (interface between 3D/ETM), and the remaining surfaces constituting a second surface, and the two-dimensional perovskite layer covers the entire second surface (see figure 1a and disclosure of page 3, 1st full paragraph on the left which states “the exposed surfaces of 3D perovskite crystals are fully covered by the in situ grown 2D perovskite materials”, reading on covering the remaining surfaces).
Regarding claim 2, CHEN et al teaches wherein the two- dimensional perovskite layer is of a continuous structure (see figure 1a).
Regarding claim 6, CHEN et al teaches the thickness of the three- dimensional perovskite layer is 300-2000nm (the right column of page 2 teaches the 3D layer to be around 500 nm thick).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al, in view of LEE et al (US PG PUB 2017/0358757).
Regarding claim 3, CHEN et al teaches the general structural formula of the active material in the three-dimensional perovskite layer is ABX3 (see top of the right column of page 2); the A ion comprise one or more monovalent cations (Cs/FA/MA), the B ion comprises one or more divalent metal cations (Pb), and the X ion comprises one or more monovalent anions (I/Br). CHEN et al teaches a 2D perovskite in the abstract, but fails to teach the general structural formula of the active material in the two-dimensional perovskite layer is A'BX3or A'2CDX6; the A' ion and wherein the ionic radius of at least one monovalent cation in the A' ion is larger than the ionic radius of the monovalent cation in the A ion.
LEE et al teaches perovskite materials for solar cells (abstract), just as in CHEN et al. LEE et al further teaches the use of 2D and 3D perovskite materials having the ABX3 structure or an An-1PbnX3n+1 (as in CHEN et al) in paragraph [0120], wherein the A component of either the 3D or 2D materials can be any number of ammonium groups, materials or combinations thereof listed in paragraphs [0121] or [0122], such as FA.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize ABX3 2D structure of LEE et al for the 2D structure of CHEN et al, as the substitution of one known 2D structure for another would reasonably render the same predictable functionality as a light absorbing perovskite layer. Moreover, upon selection of large ammonium group listed in paragraph [0122] of LEE et al as the A’ of the 2D structure of modified CHEN et al, the ionic radius of at least one monovalent cation in the A' ion is larger than the ionic radius of the monovalent cation in the A ion, fulfilling the claim as written.
Regarding claim 7, modified CHEN et al teaches the use of an amine group as the A’ component in paragraph [0122] of LEE et al.
Regarding claim 8, modified CHEN et al teaches component (1), (2), and (5) in paragraphs [0122], [0123] and [0126] of CHEN et al, respectively.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al.
Regarding claim 4, CHEN et al teaches wherein the thickness ratio of the two-dimensional perovskite layer to the three-dimensional perovskite layer is (0.2- 10):100 (right column of page 7 teaches the 2D layer to be up to 30 nm, the right column of page 2 teaches the 3D layer to be around 500 nm thick. This combination includes a comparative selection of 30 nm:500nm (6:100), within the ratio claimed).
Regarding claim 5, CHEN et al teaches the thickness of the two-dimensional perovskite layer is 1-50 nm; optionally, the thickness of the two- dimensional perovskite layer is 2-32 nm (right column of page 7 teaches the 2D layer to be up to 30 nm, overlapping the claimed range).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al, in view of XIANG et al (CN 111628080A, wherein the English machine translation included herein is cited).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN et al teaches a specific 3D perovskite at the top of page 2 in the left column featuring Cs, FA, MA, Pb, I and Br, but fails to disclose the active material of the three-dimensional perovskite layer (wherein active material is interpreted to be the perovskite material) comprises one or more of CH3NH3PbI3, CH(NH2)2PbI3, FAo.83Cso.n7PbI3, CsPbI3, CsPbI2Br and CsPbIBr2.
XIANG et al teaches stacking 2D and 3D perovskite materials within a cell, just as in CHEN et al, in the abstract. XIANG et al further explicitly teaches the use of MAPbI3 and FAPbI3 (among others via the formula) on page 3.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to substitute a specific 3D perovskite material for another for the same predictable result of light absorption. Moreover, the use of the materials of XIANG et al, for the 3D perovskite of CHEN et al, would render the same predictable result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 reads free of the prior art.
The closest available prior art includes the currently cited CHEN et al, XIANG et al, LEE et al, LIN et al (Lin et al, “Enhanced Thermal Stability in Perovskite Solar Cells by Assembling 2D/3D Stacking Structures”, provided by the Applicant), and DOU et al (US PG PUB 2022/0246865). CHEN et al, XIANG et al, LIN et al and DUO et al all teach perovskite devices featuring a stack of 2D and 3D layers but all teach 2D perovskite materials which lack “the general structural formula of the active material in the two-dimensional perovskite layer is A'BX3or A'2CDX6” as they feature 2D perovskite materials with either 4 or 7 X atoms and generally utilize a structure of A’2An-1PbnX3n+1. (CHEN et al, abstract, (PEA2PbI4), XIANG et al, page 3, LIN et al, abstract ((BA)2PbI4), DOU et al, abstract). While LEE et al teaches the use of ABX3 structured materials as the 2D perovskite and XIANG et al teaches the use of the listed A components in the materials below, none of the above references disclose the active material of the two-dimensional perovskite layer comprises one or more of (PEA)2PbI3, (PBA)2PbI3, (OAm)2PbI3, (mF-PEA)2PbI3 and (PD)2PbI3, rendering these materials free of the prior art as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 6/15/2026
Prosecution Insights