DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
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 without traverse of Group I and Species B (claims 1-13 and 19) in the reply on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KUSUMOTO (US 20190363202 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KUSUMOTO teaches a perovskite solar cell (see the perovskite solar cell, see Fig. 1) comprising:
a perovskite light absorbing layer (see the perovskite light-absorbing layer 3; The light-absorbing layer 3 contains a perovskite compound [0030]) (see Fig. 1),
an electron transport layer (see the electron transport layer 5) (see Fig. 1), and
a resistance reduction layer located between the perovskite light absorbing layer and the electron transport layer (see the intermediate layer 7 located between the perovskite light-absorbing layer 3 and the electron transport layer 5; [0035] The intermediate layer 7 contains a metal sulfide; Regarding the claimed “resistance reduction layer”, since KUSUMOTO’s intermediate layer teaches substantially the same material as the resistance reduction layer in Applicant’s Specification (KUSUMOTO discloses the intermediate layer 7 contains a metal sulfide [0035]; Applicant’s Specification discloses a material for forming the resistance reduction layer includes metal sulfide [0006]), KUSUMOTO’s intermediate layer is considered to inherently provide resistance reduction property, and the resistance reduction property would obviously have been present in KUSUMOTO’s intermediate layer. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.) (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the intermediate layer 7 in KUSUMOTO corresponds to the claimed “resistance reduction layer”.).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KUSUMOTO teaches a material for forming the resistance reduction layer comprises at least one of metal sulfide, metalloid sulfide, and sulfur- containing organic compound ([0035] The intermediate layer 7 contains a metal sulfide).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
KUSUMOTO teaches the material for forming the resistance reduction layer comprises at least one of lithium sulfide, potassium sulfide, magnesium sulfide, arsenic sulfide, indium sulfide, manganese sulfide, and cobalt sulfide ([0038] An example of the metal sulfide is In2S3).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KUSUMOTO teaches a back electrode layer (see the second electrode 4), a transparent electrode layer (see the first electrode 2; [0025] The first electrode 2 has light-transmissive property), and a hole transport layer (see the hole transport layer 6); wherein a structure of the perovskite solar cell satisfies any one of the following conditions: the transparent electrode layer is located on a side of the electron transport layer away from the resistance reduction layer (The first electrode 2 is located on the side of the electron transport layer 5 away from the intermediate layer 7; see the rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 1), the hole transport layer is located on a side of the perovskite light absorbing layer away from the resistance reduction layer (The hole transport layer 6 is located on the side of the perovskite light-absorbing layer 3 away from the intermediate layer 7; see the rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 1), and the back electrode layer is located on a side of the hole transport layer away from the perovskite light absorbing layer (The second electrode 4 is located on the side of the hole transport layer 6 away from the perovskite light-absorbing layer 3; see the rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 1); and the hole transport layer is located on the side of the perovskite light absorbing layer away from the resistance reduction layer, the transparent electrode layer is located on the side of the hole transport layer away from the perovskite light absorbing layer, and the back electrode layer is located on the side of the electron transport layer away from the resistance reduction layer.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a material for forming the transparent electrode layer comprises at least one of fluorine-doped tin oxide (FTO), indium tin oxide (ITO), aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO), boron-doped zinc oxide (BZO), and indium zinc oxide (IZO) ([0057]-[0063] Each of the first electrode 2 and the second electrode 4 is formed of tin oxide doped with fluorine, indium-tin composite oxide, zinc oxide doped with boron, aluminum, or indium).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a chemical formula of a material for forming the perovskite light absorbing layer is at least one of ABX3 or A2CDX6, wherein A is at least one of methylamino, amidino, cesium ion, and rubidium ion, B is at least one of divalent lead ion and divalent tin ion, C is monovalent silver ion, D is trivalent bismuth ion, and X is at least one of chloride ion, bromide ion, and iodide ion ([0030] the chemical formula ASnX3 ; A is a methylammonium cation (i.e., CH3NH3 +), a formamidinium cation (i.e., NH2CHNH2 +), a phenethylammonium cation (i.e., C6H5CH2CH2NH3 +), or a guanidinium cation (i.e., CH6N3 +), or a cesium cation (i.e., Cs+); X is an iodide ion).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a band gap of the perovskite light absorbing layer is 1.20 eV to 2.30 eV (see the rejection of claim 8; The bandgap for CH3NH3SnI3 material is 1.3 eV to 1.4 eV).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a material for forming the electron transport layer comprises at least one of [6,6]-phenyl C61 methyl butyrate, [6,6]-phenyl C71 methyl butyrate, fullerene C60, fullerene C70, tin dioxide, and zinc oxide ([0073] fullerene, a derivative of fullerene, an oxide of Zn or Sn).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a material for forming the hole transport layer comprises at least one of poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine], 2,2',7,7'-tetra[N,N-bis(4-methoxyphenyl)amino]-9,9'-spirobifluorene, poly-3-hexylthiophene, triphenylamine with triptycene as a core, 3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene-methoxytriphenylamine, N- (4-aniline) carbazole-spirobifluorene, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), poly(styrenesulfonate), polythiophene, nickel oxide, molybdenum oxide, copper iodide, and cuprous oxide ([0077]-[0083] An example of a general organic substance used for the hole transport layer 6 is 2,2′,7,7′-tetrakis-(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamine)9,9′-spirobifluorene (hereinafter, referred to as “spiro-OMeTAD”), poly[bis(4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (hereinafter, referred to as “PTAA”), poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl) (hereinafter, referred to as “P3HT”), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (hereinafter, referred to as “PEDOT”), Cu2O, CuI, NiOx, or MoOx).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a material for forming the back electrode layer comprises at least one of Ag, Cu, C, Au, Al, ITO, AZO, BZO, and IZO. ([0057]-[0063] Each of the first electrode 2 and the second electrode 4 is formed of indium-tin composite oxide, zinc oxide doped with boron, aluminum, or indium).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
KUSUMOTO teaches an electric device, comprising the perovskite solar cell according to claim 1 (see the solar simulator comprising the perovskite solar cell to measure the conversion efficiency; see the rejection of claim 1 and [0141] The solar cell according to the inventive example 1 was irradiated with pseudo sunlight having an illumination intensity of 100 mW/cm2 with a solar simulator to measure the conversion efficiency of the solar cell according to the inventive example 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUSUMOTO (US 20190363202 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, above.
Regarding claims 4-5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “wherein a thickness of the resistance reduction layer is less than or equal to 3 nm” in claim 4 and “wherein the thickness of the resistance reduction layer is 1 nm to 3 nm” in claim 5, KUSUMOTO teaches the resistance reduction layer (see the intermediate layer 7; see the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, KUSUMOTO discloses the intermediate layer 7 formed of the porous body causes light scattering and length of a path of light which travel thorough the light-absorbing layer 3 may be increased, and the increase in the path of light may increase amounts of the electrons and holes which are generated in the light-absorbing layer 3 [0051]; The intermediate layer 7 does not prevent the electrons from migrating from the light-absorbing layer 3 to the electron transport layer 5 [0052]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the thickness of the intermediate layer decrease, the path of light decreases, and when the thickness of the intermediate layer increase, the electron migration to the electron transport layer decreases because of the long path for the electron migration. As the path of light and the electron migration are variables that can be modified by adjusting said thickness of the intermediate layer, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the intermediate layer in KUSUMOTO to obtain the desired balance between the path of light and the electron migration (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
KUSUMOTO teaches a thickness of the perovskite light absorbing layer is 200 nm to 1000 nm ([0033] The light-absorbing layer 3 may have a thickness of not less than 100 nanometers and not more than 1,000 nanometers; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728