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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 20, in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-11 and 20 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. Specifically, line 4 of claim 1 recites “the first hole transport layer, the perovskite layer, and the electron transport layer are grown along the textured structure,” however, the manner in which the limitation “grown along” limits the structure claimed is unclear. Claims 2-11 and 20 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 116133497 A - see equivalent US 2025/0008754) in view of Sun et al. (“High Open-Circuit Voltage (1.197 V) in Large-Area (1 cm2) Inverted Perovskite Solar Cell via Interface Planarization and Highly Polar Self-Assembled Monolayer”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising a substrate ([0161), a first hole transport layer ([0165]; it is noted that the disclosed carbazole derivative satisfies the limitation “a first hole transport layer”), a perovskite layer ([0166]), an electron transport layer ([0167]), and a first electrode ([0169],[0170]) from bottom to top ([0161],[0165] – [0170]); wherein the substrate has a textured structure ([0161]), the first hole transport layer, the perovskite layer, and the electron transport layer are grown along the textured structure (it is noted that [0161] – [0168] disclose the first hole transport layer, the perovskite layer, and the electron transport layer are grown on the textured structure and therefore satisfy the limitation “grown along”); a thickness of the first hole transport layer is 5 nm ([0084] discloses a thickness of the organic layer including the carbazole derivative equal to 5 nm), and the perovskite layer is obtained by a reaction of a lead halide skeleton layer with a cation solution ([0166]; it is noted that the limitation “obtained by a reaction of a lead halide skeleton layer with a cation solution” is directed to the manner the product is made, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Liu does not explicitly disclose a material of the first hole transport layer is 2Ph-4PACz or R-2Ph-4PACz.
Sun discloses a perovskite solar cell (abstract) and a material of the hole transport layer is 2Ph-4PACz (Fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first hole transport layer of Liu with 2Ph-4PACz, as disclosed by Sun, because as evidenced by Sun, the use of 2Ph-4PACz as the material of a hole transport layer of a perovskite solar cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the hole transport layer of Liu with 2Ph-4PACz based on the teaching of Sun.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “laminated,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to the limitation “grown along,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a second hole transport layer laminated on a side of the first hole transport layer facing away from the perovskite layer, wherein a material of the second hole transport layer comprises NiOx (Liu - [0069]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “laminated,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a thickness of the second hole transport layer is 10 nm or 20 nm (Liu - [0084]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a thickness of the perovskite layer is 600 nm (Liu – [0132]). It is noted that while modified Liu does disclose a thickness of the lead halide skeleton layer is 400 nm (Liu – [0136]), with regard to the limitation “a thickness of the lead halide skeleton layer is 300 nm to 600 nm,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a thickness of the electron transport layer is 20 nm (Liu – [0167]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Liu does disclose the first electrode is a transparent electrically conductive ITO layer (Liu – [0169]), modified Liu does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first electrode is 250 nm to 400 nm.
Liu discloses that typically a thickness of the transparent electrically conductive oxide is 50 nm to 600 nm ([0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first electrode of modified Liu with a thickness in the range of 50 to 600 nm, as disclosed by Liu, because as evidenced by Liu, the formation of a transparent electrically conductive oxide in a perovskite solar cell with a thickness of 50 to 600 nm amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the transparent electrically conductive ITO layer of modified Liu with a thickness of 50 to 600 nm based on the teaching of Liu.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference 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 7, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the substrate comprises a textured base cell (Liu – [0161]) and a composite layer laminated on the textured base cell (Liu - 202 in Fig. 2; [0145]); and the solar cell further comprises a transparent conductive layer located on a side of the first electrode proximate to the substrate (Liu - 208 in Fig. 2; [0151]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “laminated,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses an anti-reflection layer laminated on a side of the transparent conductive layer facing away from the substrate (Liu – [0168], [0094]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “laminated,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the textured base cell is a heterojunction cell (Liu - [0143]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a material of the transparent conductive layer is indium tin oxide (Liu – [0151]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a thickness of the transparent conductive layer is 30 nm (Liu – [0151]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell (Liu – abstract; the disclosed perovskite solar cell satisfies the limitation “photovoltaic module”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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 Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights