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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(b) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (WO 2024/221430) (Li et al. US 2026/0008795 used as a translation; all cites refer to translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a perovskite layer comprising a perovskite compound and a surfactant (see abstract),
wherein the perovskite compound is represented by Formula 1:
(A+)1-y(A'+)y(M2+)(X-)3
wherein y is 0.01-0.99;
M2+ is Pb2+, Sn2+, or Ge2+
each of A+ and A’+ is independently Cs+, Rb+, CH3NH3+, CH3CH2NH3+, H(C=NH2)NH2+, or Me(C=NH2)NH2+; and
X- for each instance is independently F-, Cl-, Br-, or I-,
wherein A+ and A’+ are the same or different (see para [0287]-[0296]; and
the surfactant comprises a sulfonate surfactant, an alcohol alkoxylate surfactant, a quaternary ammonium surfactant, or mixtures thereof (see para [0006]-[0007], [0012] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 1, wherein the quaternary ammonium surfactant comprises one or more C1-C16 alkyl substituents (R01 and R03 are alkyl, see para [0018]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 1, wherein M2+ is Pb2+; and
each of A+ and A'+ is independently Cs+, CH3NH3+, or H(C=NH2)NH2+ (see para [0287]-[0296]);
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 1, wherein the perovskite layer comprises (H(C=NH2)NH2+)1-y(Cs+)y(Pb2+)(I-)3, wherein y is 0.01-0.99 (see para [0287]-[0296]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Synergistic Defect passivation and Crystallization Modulation in Efficient Perovskite Solar Cells: The Case of Multifunctional 2-Anisidine-4-Sulfonic Acid) (hereafter Li2).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the perovskite layer comprises a perovskite of Formula 2:
[(A+)1-y(A'+)y(M2+)(X-)3]1-z[(A”+)(M’2+)(Q-)3]z
wherein y is 0.01-0.99;
z is 0.01-0.99;
M2+ is Pb2+, Sn2+, or Ge2+
M'2+ is Pb2+, Sn2+, or Ge2+
each of A+, A’+, and A”+ is independently Cs+, Rb+, CH3NH3+, CH3CH2NH3+, H(C=NH2)NH2+, or Me(C=NH2)NH2+; and
X- and Q- for each instance is independently F-, Cl-, Br-, or I-,
wherein A+ and A’+ are the same or different.
Li2 is analogous art as Li as Li2 is directed to a perovskite active layer. Li2 discloses wherein the active layer is Cs0.15FA0.75MA0.10PbI3, which reads on the above formula (see abstract).
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e. the perovskite formula of Li2 for the perovskite formula of Li), according to known methods (as disclosed by Li), wherein the result is predictable.
Regarding claim 8, modified Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 7, wherein each of M2+ and M'2+ is Pb2+,
each of A+ and A’+ is independently CH3NH3+, H(C=NH2)NH2+, and A"+ is CH3NH3+ (see Li2, abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and Li et al. (Li2) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Kamaraki et al. (US 2024/0415009).
Regarding claim 9, modified Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the perovskite layer comprises [(H(C=NH2)NH2+)1-y(Cs+)y(Pb2+)(I-)3]1-z[(CH3NH3+)(Pb2+)(Br-)3]z, wherein y is 0.01-0.99 and z is 0.01-0.99.
Li2 does not disclose the substitution of Br for I.
Kamaraki is analogous art to Li and Li2 as Kamaraki is directed to perovskite material for solar cells. Kamaraki discloses substituting Br for I, (see para [0009] and [0012]).
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e. the perovskite formula of Li and Li2 and the addition of Br as disclosed by Kamaraki), according to known methods (as disclosed by Kamaraki), wherein the result is predictable.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2019/128656).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Li discloses a perovskite layer of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the perovskite layer comprises a plurality of perovskite grains, and a bottom surface of each of the plurality of perovskite grains comprises a single grain surface concave (GSC) and a convex ridge around the GSC (claim 10), nor wherein the perovskite layer comprises a plurality of perovskite grains and a grain-boundary grooving (GBG) between the bottom surfaces of each of the adjacent perovskite grains, the GBG is surrounded by edges of the adjacent perovskite grains as a GBG sidewall (claim 11), and wherein the average angle of the perovskite grains between the line connecting the apex of the convex ridge to the center of the GSC and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface of the grain is 0°-15°.
Wang is analogous art to Li as Wang discloses a perovskite material with an ammonium salt (see abstract). Wang discloses wherein the perovskite layer comprises a plurality of perovskite grains, and a bottom surface of each of the plurality of perovskite grains comprises a single grain surface concave (GSC) and a convex ridge around the GSC, and wherein the perovskite layer comprises a plurality of perovskite grains and a grain-boundary grooving (GBG) between the bottom surfaces of each of the adjacent perovskite grains, the GBG is surrounded by edges of the adjacent perovskite grains as a GBG sidewall (see Wang abstract and pages 2-14).
Wang does not disclose wherein the average angle of the perovskite grains between the line connecting the apex of the convex ridge to the center of the GSC and a top surface opposite to the bottom surface of the grain is 0°-15°, but does disclose the variable.
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a known variable as differences in a variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such variable is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
Further, the court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e. the perovskite formula of Li and the grain boundaries as disclosed by Wang) according to known methods (as disclosed by Wang), wherein the result is predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Li discloses sulfonates as a surfactant, which would include sulfonic group substituted by an alkyl or an alkane. Li does not disclose wherein the alkyl group is halogenated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights