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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claim 3 is canceled. Currently, claims 1-2 and 4-6 are pending in the application with claim 6 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected on a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
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) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tombs et al. (US 2024/0130145) in view of Goto et al. (JP 2006-16273, see machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Tombs et al. discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element comprising the steps of:
preparing a laminate including
a first electrode (or transparent first composite conductor 162 of first set of metal lines 103 and first conducting layer 105, fig. 1, [0027]),
an electron-transporting layer (or a first carrier transport layer 163 of electron transporting material, fig. 1, [0028] and [0035]),
a perovskite semiconductor film (see perovskite absorbing layer 164, fig. 1, [0028]),
a hole-transporting layer (or second carrier transport layer 165 of hole transporting material, fig. 1, [0028] and [0035]), and
a second electrode (or transparent second composite conductor 166 of second conductor 107 and second set of conductive metal lines 109, fig. 1, [0029])
(See steps 601-615 in fig. 6 and [0096-0104]); and
irradiating the laminate with infrared light (see post treatment using IR lamp, [0103]).
Tombs et al. teaches using IR (infrared) lamp for the post heat treatment ([0103]), but does not explicitly teach using the infrared light has a spectral half-width of 3.0mm or less and the irradiation energy of the infrared light per unit area is 0.10 W/cm2 or more.
Goto et al. teaches using infrared lamp (5) for a heat treatment of 2 to 30 W/cm2 by using a near infrared lamps having wavelength 2.5mm or less so that the infrared rays are widely controlled (see [0021]). 2 to 30 W/cm2 is right within the claimed range of 0.10 W/cm2 or more and wavelengths of 2.5 mm or less are inherently having a spectral half-width of 3.0mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the infrared lamp to provide an irradiation energy of infrared light per unit area of 2 to 30 W/cm2 by using near-infrared having wavelength of 2.5mm or less for the infrared rays to be widely controlled as taught by Goto et al. In addition, such use would involve nothing more than use of known material/device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tombs et al. discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element as in claim 1 above, wherein the infrared light having a wavelength peak of 2.5mm or less (see claim 1 above), which is right within the claimed range of 3.5mm or less.
Regarding claim 5, Tombs et al. discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element as in claim 1 above, wherein Tombs et al. teaches using IR lamp as a heating apparatus (see [0103]).
Tombs et al. does not teach the laminate has a temperature of 100oC or less in the step of irradiating the laminate with the infrared light.
However, Tombs et al. teaches heating the laminate at a temperature to 100oC in the examples (see examples 3 and 5). 100oC is in the claimed range of 100oC or less.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the laminate has a temperature of 100oC or less in the step of irradiating the laminate with the infrared light, because Tombs et al. teaches using infrared light (or IR lamp) in the heating apparatus and heating the laminate to 100oC.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tombs et al. (US 2024/0130145) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Endo et al. (JP 2015-13882, Cite No. 8 of Foreign Patent Documents in IDS 5/19/2025).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tombs et al. discloses a method of producing a photoelectric conversion element as in claim 1 above.
Modified Tombs et al. does not teach the laminate is irradiated with the infrared light until a content of water in the perovskite semiconductor film becomes 1,000 ppm (mass fraction) or less in the step of irradiating the laminate with the infrared light.
Endo et al. teaches the moisture content of perovskite semiconductor film is 1000ppm or less by weight (or on a mass fraction basis) from the viewpoint of obtaining more efficient solar cells with good producibility (see [0009], [0016] and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the step of irradiating the laminate with the infrared light until the content of water (or the moisture content) in the perovskite semiconductor film becomes 1000ppm by weight (or on a mass fraction basis) from the viewpoint of obtaining more efficient solar cells with good producibility as taught by Endo et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues previously cited reference does not teach the limitations “wherein the infrared light has a spectral half-width of 3.0mm or less; and wherein irradiation energy of the infrared light per unit area is 0.10 W/cm2 or more” as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights