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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2026 and 9/4/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21 and 44 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.
As amended, claim 1 recites “the cathode is in direct engagement with one of the first and second portions” in lines 5-6, “a passivation layer that is in direct engagement with one of the first and second portions” in lines 8-9. It is unclear what is being claimed; because if the cathode is in direct engagement with one of the first and second portions of the tin oxide, the same one of the first and second portions of the tin oxide cannot be in direct engagement with the passivation.
Claims 3, 5-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21 and 44 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action, the limitations is construed as “the passivation layer is in direct engagement with another one of the first and second portions”.
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, 3, 8-9, 12, 14-16, 18-21 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (WO 2022/215990 having an English equivalence of US 2024/0206197, which is relied upon herein), in view of Zheng et al. (US 2023/0345745), and further in view of in view of Li et al. (CN 118284280, see machine translation).
Regarding claims 1, 14-15, 18 and 44, Jung et al. discloses perovskite solar cell (figs. 1-2) comprising:
an anode (see ITO electrode, fig. 2);
a cathode (see IZO/Ag electrode, fig. 2);
an electron transport layer (see layer 16 of ALD-SnOx, fig. 2) between the anode (ITO electrode 11, fig. 2) and the cathode (IZO/Ag electrode, fig. 2), wherein the electron transport layer (SnOx) is graded gradually to change from the low thin film having a smaller number of oxygen atom to the upper thin film having a greater number of oxygen atoms ([0071] and [0097) such as grading from SnO to SnO2 ( or x=1 to x=2, see fig.2), or the electron transport layer of tin oxide (SnOx) of Jung et al. comprises of a first portion of tin oxide (or the low thin film starting from SnOx with smaller x) and a second portion of thin oxide (or the upper thin film having larger x) having different stoichiometry (or different x, e.g. smaller x vs. larger x), and the first portion (or the low thin film) is attached to the bottom side of the second portion (or the upper thin film);
a passivation layer (see electron conveying layer 15 of Evap. C60, fig. 2) that is in direct engagement with the first portion of the tin oxide (or the low thin film of the ALD-SnOx); and
a perovskite active layer (14, fig. 2) that is in direct engagement with the passivation layer, wherein the perovskite layer comprises a perovskite material of having formula ABX3 such as HC(NH2)2PbI3 (see [0086-0089]). It is noted that HC(NH2)2PbI3 is FAPbI3 that has a formula of CsxMAyFA1-x-ySnzPb1-zI3-mBrm where x being 0, y being 0, z being 0, and m being 0 as claimed in claims 1 and 44;
wherein the cathode (IZO/Ag electrode) is in direct engagement with the second portion (or the upper thin film) of the tin oxide (see fig. 2).
Jung et al. does not disclose doping the perovskite material with a hole transport material as claimed in claim 1, nor do they teach the hole transport material is selected from the group consisting of 2PACz, MeO-2PACz (methoxy-2PACz), Me-4PACz (methyl-4PACz), Br-2PACz (bromo-2PACz), CbzBF, 4PADBC, and CbzBT, and a combination thereof as claimed in claim 18.
Zheng et al. teaches incorporating a hole transport material such as PACz materials of 2PACz, MeO-2PACz, Br-2PACz, etc… (see [0004-0010]) to provide a perovskite-containing devices having superior physical properties and/or performance metrics (see [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the perovskite solar cell (or perovskite-containing device) of Jung et al. by incorporating a hole transport material such as 2PACz, MeO-2PACz, Br-2PACz… into the perovskite material – or doping the perovskite material with a hole transport material such as 2PACz, MeO-2PACz, Br-2PACz… as taught by Zheng et al., because Zheng et al. teaches such incorporation would provide a perovskite solar cell (or a perovskite-containing device) having superior physical properties and/or performance metrics.
Jung et al. discloses the passivation layer is an electron conveying layer (15, [0049] and [0052]) such as C60 (see fig. 2).
Modified Jung et al. does not disclose the passivation layer of electron conveying layer (15) comprising phenylethylamine salt and perylene diimide-based compound; nor do they the phenylethylamine salt is selected from the group consisting of PEAI (phenylethylammonium iodide), PEABr (phenylethylammonium bromide), PEACI (phenylethylammonium chloride), mF-PEAI (meta-fluorophenylethylammonium iodide), o-F-PEAI (ortho- fluorophenylethylammonium iodide), CF3-PEAT (trifluoromethylphenylethylammonium iodide), CH30-PEAI (4- methoxyphenylethylammonium iodide), and 4F-PEAI (4-fluorophenylethylammonium0 iodide), and a combination thereof as claimed in claim 14, and the perylene diimide- based compound is selected from the group consisting of PDINN (N,N'-bis{3-[3- (dimethylamino)propylamino]propyl}perylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic diimide), 5 PDIN (N,N'-bis{3-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl]amino}perylene-3,4,9,10- tetracarboxylic diimide), PDINO (N,N'-bis {3-[3- (dimethylamino)propyl] amino}perylene-3,4,9,10-tetracarboxylic diimide N-oxide), NDI-N (N,N' -bis {3-[3 -(dimethylamino)propyl] amino }naphthalene-1,4,5, 8- tetracarboxylic diimide), and a combination thereof as claimed in claim 15.
Li et al. teaches perylene diimide such as PDINO, PDINN equivalent material to C60 (see [0050] of the translation) and using phenylethylamine salt such as PEAI would modify the perovskite surface to passivate perovskite surface defect while improving carrier transport capacity at the interface (see [0003] of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Jung et al. by using PDINO or PDINN in place of C60 and further incorporating PEAI as the passivation layer to modify the perovskite surface to passivate the perovskite surface defect while improving carrier transport capacity at the interface as taught by Li et al. In addition, replacing PDINO or PDINN in place of C60 would involve nothing more than use of known material 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). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as claimed in claim 2 above, wherein Jung et al. teaches the electron transport layer (SnOx) is graded from SnO to SnO2, or SnOx with x being from 1 to 2.
Jung et al. does not explicitly show the x of SnOx in the first and second portions is from about 1.81 to 1.98.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the first portion and second portion having x from about 1.81 to 1.98 in the range of x from 1 to 2 disclosed by Jung et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as claimed in claim 2 above, wherein Jung et al. teaches the first portion of tin oxide (or the low thin film) is deposited directly on the second portion of tin oxide (or the top portion, in order to form the entire tin oxide electron transport layer 16, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jung et al. discloses perovskite solar cell as claimed in claim 4 above, wherein Jung et al. teaches the x of SnOx in the first portion (or the low thin film having smaller number of oxygen atoms) is smaller than that of the second portion (or the upper thin film having a greater number of oxygen atoms, see fig. 2 and [0097]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jung et al. discloses Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 8 above, wherein Jung et al. teaches the electron transport layer (SnOx) is graded from SnO to SnO2, or graded from x=1 (SnO) to x=2 (SnO2), or x is ranged from 1 to 2.
Jung et al. does not explicitly teach the x of SnOx in the first portion is about 1.83 and x of SnOx in the second portion is about 1.96.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the first portion and second portion having x from about 1.83 and 1.96, respectively, in the range of x from 1 to 2 disclosed by Jung et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 12, modified Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above, wherein Jung et al. teaches the passivation layer (15) in alignment with and sandwiched between the first portion (or the bottom portion of the tin oxide 16) and the perovskite active layer (14, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 13 above.
Modified Jung et al. does not teach the phenylethylamine salt and the perylene diimide-based compound have a molar concentration ratio from about 4:1 to about 1:4.
However, as the efficiency and performance of the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the concentration ratio of phenylethylamine salt and the perylene diimide, the concentration ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed molar concentration ratio from about 4:1 to about 1:4 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the molar concentration ratio of phenylethylamine salt and the perylene diimide-based compound in the perovskite solar cell of modified Jung et al. to obtain the desired balance between efficiency and performance of the perovskite solar cell (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 claims 19-21, modified Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 1 above; wherein Jung et al. teaches the perovskite solar cell is an inverted perovskite solar cell with the anode (ITO electrode 11) comprising conductive material (ITO, fig. 2) deposited on a transparent substrate (glass, fig. 2), and the cathode (IZO/metal cathode) comprising aluminum (Al, see fig. 1) or silver (Ag, see fig. 2).
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jung et al. (WO 2022/215990) as applied to claims 4 above, in view of Yi et al. (“Bilayer SnO2 as Electron Transport Layer for Highly Efficient Perovskite solar cell”)
Regarding claims 5-7, modified Jung et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell as in claim 4 above, wherein the first portion of tin oxide layer (or the bottom portion) is closer to the perovskite layer than the second portion of tin oxide layer (or the top portion, see fig. 2).
Modified Jung et al. does not disclose the first and second portions of tin oxide have different thickness as claimed in claim 5, the thickness of the first and second portions of tin oxide is in the range from about 2 nm to about 50nm as claimed in claim 6, or the thickness of the first portion of tin oxide is less than that of the second portion.
Yi et al. discloses a perovskite solar cell having a first and second portions of tin oxide (see bilayer SnO2 in fig. 1(a)), wherein the first portion of tin oxide (see nano SnO2 closer the perovskite MAPbI3) and the second portion of tin oxide (see sol-gel SnO2) having different thicknesses of 15nm and 35nm (see page 6029, last paragraph of the left column). 15nm and 35nm are right within the claimed range of from about 2nm to about 50nm, and 15nm is less than 35nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Jung et al. by forming the first and second portions of tin oxide with different thicknesses such as 15nm and 35nm, respectively, as taught by Yi et al., because Yi et al. teaches such thicknesses would improve and optimize the photovoltaic performance (see page 6029, last paragraph of the left column).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Jung et al. (WO 2022/215990) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yeom (US 2024/0206195).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jung et al. or Yi et al. disclose a perovskite solar cell as claimed in claim 7 above, wherein the thickness of the first portion of tin oxide is 15nm and the thickness of the second portion of tin oxide is 35nm. 35nm is right within the claimed range of about 15nm to about 50nm.
Modified Jung et al. does not teach the first portion is about 2nm to about 10nm.
Yeom et al. teaches the portion of electron transporting layer of tin oxide close to the perovskite layer (see fig. 6B, [0050-0070]) more preferably having a thickness of 1-20nm (see [0066] and [0070]) to prevent a problem of decreasing the short-circuit current and an open-circuit voltage ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of modified Jung et al. by selecting the thickness of about 2nm to about 10nm in the range 1-20nm taught by Yeom et al. for the first portion of tin oxide, because Yeom et al. teaches such thickness is in the more preferable range to prevent a problem of decreasing the short-circuit current and an open circuit voltage and selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, , 12-16, 18-21 and 44 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 Jung discloses using PCBM or C0 to prevent the inorganic transport layer in direct contact with the perovskite and silent regarding any alternative passivation materials that offers the same advantages, Zheng and Li do not teach an electron transport layer having two distinct SnOx portions, and there is no teaching or suggestions of two distinct SnOx portions and/or a passivation layer comprising a phenylethylamine salt and perylene diimide-based compound as claimed and there is no combination of cited references that would lead to the ordinary artisan to arrive at the perovskite solar cell as claimed.
The examiner replies that Jung discloses a perovskite solar cell having an electron transport layer having two distinct SnOx portions (e.g. low thin film having smaller number of oxygen atoms and upper thin film having greater number of oxygen atoms, see [0071] and [0094] of Jung). Even though Jung uses C60 and PCBM for the passivation layer, Jung explicitly describes the passivation layer (15) is an electron convey layer (see [0049] and [0052]).
Zheng is relied upon for teaching the perovskite layer is doped with a hole transport material for the benefits disclosed by the reference, not for teaching two distinct SnOx portions.
Li is relied upon for teaching perylene diimide materials are electron conveying material equivalent to C60, and using phenylethylamine sault such as PEAI would modify the perovskite surface to passivate perovskite surface defect while improving carrier transport capacity at the interface.
According, one skilled in the art would modify the solar cell of Jung by doping the perovskite layer with a hole transport material for the benefits disclosed by Zheng; one skilled in the art would have used perylene diimide materials taught by Li in place of C60 for the electron conveying layer (15) as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent electron conveying material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. In addition, one skilled in the art would have incorporating PEAI as the passivation layer to modify the perovskite surface to passivate the perovskite defect and improve carrier transport capacity at the interface as taught by Li.
Conclusion
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