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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are currently pending examination, claims 6 and 19 have been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peng et al (CN 117393637; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Peng).
Claim 1: Peng teaches a method comprising, in order:
depositing an intervening layer (hole transport layer (11)) having a thickness onto the first surface of a perovskite layer (10) (see, for example, Fig 5-6, [0010], [0053]).
the perovskite layer having a thickness defined by a distance between the first surface and a second surface (See, for example, [0019], Fig 6);
applying a liquid (photoresist) to an outer surface of the intervening layer (See, for example, Fig 5-7, [0011-0012] [0058-59]).
and irradiating the second surface with a light (see, for example, [0012], [0058], Fig 6).
wherein:
the perovskite layer includes a void (such as portion of etch line P1 / scribing lines within the volume of the perovskite layer) that extends from the first surface into at least a portion of the thickness of the perovskite layer (see, for example, Fig 5-7),
the intervening layer is positioned over the void (see, for example, Fig 5-7, wherein the entirety of the intervening layer is positioned above / over the surface of the perovskite layer and the void therein).
the applying results in the liquid being transferred through the thickness of the intervening layer positioned over the void and at least partially filling the void (see, for example, [0011-0012] [0058-59]), Fig 5-7 wherein the photoresist penetrates through the thickness of the intervening layer (11) and then into the void in perovskite layer (10)).
and the irradiating results in the liquid in the void reacting to form a solid (see, for example, [0012], [0058], Fig 5-7).
Claim 2: Peng further teaches wherein the void is completely filled by the solid (See, for example, [0012], [0058], Fig 5-6).
Claim 3: Peng further teaches wherein in a region without a void the thickness of the perovskite layer, results in essentially zero transmission of the light between the wavelengths of 200 nm and 400 nm from the second surface to the first surface (see, for example, [0012], [0019], [0058], Fig 5-7 only the photoresist within the void is cured /exposed / developed, thus given the direction of incident light, no transmission through the perovskite layer occurred).
Claim 4: Peng further teaches wherein the light the light is UV light, thus light at a range of a wavelength of ~100-400nm (see, for example, [0058]).
Claim 7: Peng further teaches wherein the intervening layer (hole transport layer (11)) comprises at least one of an organic, an oxide, a carbonaceous material, or a combination thereof (See, for example, [0056]).
Claim 8: Peng further teaches after the irradiating, removing (via developing) unreacted liquid remaining on the intervening layer (see, for example, Fig 5-6, [0058]).
Claim 9: Peng further teaches wherein the removing is performed by use of a removal liquid (developer) (See, for example, [0058]).
Claim 10: Peng further teaches wherein at least one of the applying, irradiating, or removing is performed at room temperature (25° C) (See, for example, [0058], as no additional temperature is recited in conjunction with the application, exposure and development of the photoresist, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume naturally occurring room temperature (~25C)).
Claim 11: Peng further teaches wherein the void comprises a scribe (See, for example, [0025], [0057], Fig 5).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng.
Claim 5: Peng further teaches wherein the thickness of the perovskite layer is between 100 nm and 1000 nm (See, for example, [0019]). Although such a range is not explicitly 400-1000 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 10: Peng further teaches the applying, irradiating, or removing (coating, UV exposure, development) of the photoresist. (See, for example, [0058]). If room temperature would not already be inherent (refer to rejection of claim 10 above), Peng not explicitly providing a temperature for such steps would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that standard atmospheric conditions of room temperature (~25C) would be suitable, further such a naturally occurring condition would not require any additional expenditure of energy / infrastructure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated performing at least one of applying, irradiating, or removing at a temperature between 10C and 100 C, further room temperature since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily assume that if no alternative / specific temperature was disclosed, that standard atmospheric conditions of room temperature (~25C) would be suitable, further such a naturally occurring condition would not require any additional expenditure of energy / infrastructure, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Claim(s) 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ying et al (US 6,183,901; hereafter Ying).
Claim 12: Peng teaches the method of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the liquid is photocurable (see, for example, [0012]), but is silent as to its composition, so it does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid comprises a monomer. Like Peng, Ying teaches a method of forming battery cells (See, for example, abstract). Ying similarly has relied upon a UV-curable composition for separation and filling / penetration of cracks and recessive features underlying surfaces (See, for example, abstract, col 20 lines 50-57, and col 21 lines 19-30, col 22 lines 31-37, Example 1). Ying further teaches wherein such liquid formulations are commonly and predictably comprised of monomers (See, for example, col 21 lines 39-53). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated monomers in the liquid since monomers are common and predictable components in photo-curable compositions usable for separation structures and filling / penetration of cracks and recessive features within battery applications, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim 13: Peng in view of Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the monomer comprises at least one of an alkene, an epoxide, an ester, an acrylate, a phenolic, an azide, an isoprene, an oxetane, a coumarin, an anthracene, a maleimide, a furan, styrene, or a combination thereof (See, for example, col 11 lines 49-55, col 21 lines 39-52).
Claims 14-15: Peng in view of Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the liquid further comprises a polymerizing agent, further a radical initiator (photosensitizer) (See, for example, col 16 lines 21-33, Example 1).
Claim 16-17: Peng in view of Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the solid comprises a cured form of the monomer, further at least one of a polyether, a polyacrylate, a polyalkene, a phenolic resin, a polyester, polystyrene, or a combination thereof (see, for example, col 11 lines 49-55, col 21 lines 19-52, example 1, claim 4).
Claim 18: Peng in view of Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the liquid viscosity is tailorable to control penetrative properties and is commonly implemented at a viscosity between 15 cP and 5000cP (See, for example, col 22 lines 9-37; as the conversion from cP to cSt is 1:1 for densities ~1 (cSt = (cP/Density))). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a liquid viscosity within the claimed range of 1 cSt and 10,000 cSt or between 1,000 cSt and 5,000 cSt since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and / or since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 1-5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiner et al (US 2011/0312120; hereafter Weiner) in view of Lincot (US 2019/0035964; hereafter Lincot).
Claim 1: Weiner teaches a method comprising, in order:
the absorber layer having a thickness defined by a distance between the first surface and a second surface (See, for example, [0048], Fig 6A-D);
applying a liquid (photoresist / 618) over the absorber layer and penetrating through a void in the absorber layer (615) (See, for example, Fig 6B-D [0008-0009], [0065]).
and irradiating the second surface with a light (see, for example, [0076-78], Fig 6C).
wherein: the absorber layer includes a void (void defects 650) that penetrates into the first surface and at least a portion of the thickness (see, for example, Fig 6A),
the applying results in at least a portion of the liquid at least partially filling the void, and the irradiating results in the liquid in the void reacting to form a solid (see, for example, abstract, [0076-0079], Fig 6C-D).
Weiner teaches wherein the layer is an absorber layer in electronic stack materials, such as solar or photovoltaic cells , further such as a CdTe or CIGS absorber layer (See, for example, abstract, [0002-0003], [0008], [0073]), but it does not explicitly describe the absorber layer as a perovskite layer. Lincot is similarly directed to the field of electronic stack materials, such as photovoltaic / solar cells (See, for example, abstract, [0002-0003]). Lincot similarly is concerned with filling void features (P2) through absorber layers with electrically insulating polymer type material (90) (see, for example, [0162-165], Fig 3). Lincot further teaches wherein common absorber layers comprise CIGS, CdTE, and perovskite types (See, for example, [0011], [0014], [0047], [0108], [0165]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a perovskite absorber layer since such a layer is common and predictably used in the art as an absorber layer, and since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method above, and Lincot has further taught wherein before the applying a filling liquid (Such as to P1), depositing an intervening layer (such layer 26), to serve as a buffer layer for the underlying perovskite layer (see, for example, Fig 3, [0113], [0162]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated deposition of an intervening layer as it would perform predictably as a buffer layer within the device. By combination, such an intervening layer is deposited prior to applying the liquid, so the liquid would then be applied to an outer surface of the intervening layer. Further by combination, the intervening layer would be positioned over the void (see, for example, Fig 3, wherein the entirety of the intervening layer (26) is positioned above / over the surface of the perovskite layer (24) and the void therein). By combination the applying results in the liquid being transferred through the thickness of the intervening layer positioned over the void and at least partially filling the void (see, for example, [0011-0012] [0058-59]), Fig 5-7).
Claim 2: Weiner further teaches wherein the void is completely filled by the solid (See, for example, [0079]).
Claim 3: Weiner further teaches wherein in a region without a void the thickness of the perovskite layer results in essentially zero transmission of the light between the wavelengths of 200 nm and 400 nm from the second surface to the first surface (see, for example, [0077], Fig 6C-D only the photoresist within the void is cured /exposed / developed, thus essentially zero transmission of the light at the above wavelength had occurred, otherwise the volume above the perovskite layer would have similarly been cured).
Claim 4: Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method of claim 1 above and Weiner explicitly teaches the use of photoresist, which by convention would involve curing with UV light, thus light at a range of a wavelength of ~100-400nm (see, for example, [0059]).
Claim 5: Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method of claim 1 above and Weiner further teaches wherein the thickness of the absorber/ perovskite layer is result effective depending on the material, but is commonly between about 500-2000 nm (See, for example, [0048]). Although such a range is not explicitly 400-1000 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 7: Lincot further teaches wherein the intervening layer (26) comprises at least one of an oxide (such as ZnO) (See, for example, Fig 3, [0125]).
Claim 8: Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method of claim 1 above, and Weiner further teaches after the irradiating, removing (via developing) unreacted liquid remaining on the intervening layer (see, for example, [0009], [0078-0079]), Fig 6D).
Claim 9: Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method of claim 1 above, and Weiner further teaches wherein the removing is performed by use of a removal liquid (developer) (See, for example, [0009], [0078-0079]), Fig 6D).
Claim 10: Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method of claim 1 above, and Weiner further teaches wherein at least one of the applying, irradiating, or removing is performed at room temperature (25° C) (See, for example, [0059], wherein the process “may include baking at low temperature”, thus anticipating scenarios where it “may” not. Further as no additional temperature is recited in conjunction with the exposure and development of the photoresist, one of ordinary skill in the art would assume naturally occurring room temperature (~25C)). Alternatively, if not already inherent, the silence as to temperatures for such exposure and development would at least suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that standard atmospheric conditions of room temperature (~25C) would be suitable, further such a naturally occurring condition would not require any additional expenditure of energy / infrastructure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated performing at least one of applying, irradiating, or removing at a temperature between 10C and 100 C, further room temperature since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily assume that if no alternative / specific temperature was disclosed, that standard atmospheric conditions of room temperature (~25C) would be suitable, further such a naturally occurring condition would not require any additional expenditure of energy / infrastructure, and generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 11: Weiner in view of Lincot teach the method of claim 1 above, and Weiner further teaches voids comprise pinholes, cracks defects (See, for example, [0059]), and Lincot has taught the void comprises a scribe (P1, groove) (See, for example, Fig 3, [0162]).
Claim(s) 4, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiner in view of Lincot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ying.
Claim 12: Weiner in view of Lincot teaches the method of claim 1 above, and Weiner further teaches wherein the liquid is photocurable (see, for example, [0073]), but is silent as to its composition, so it does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid comprises a monomer. Like Weiner, Ying teaches a method of forming electronic stacked devices / photovolataic /solar cells (See, for example, abstract). Ying similarly has relied upon a UV-curable composition for separation and filling / penetration of cracks and recessive features underlying surfaces (See, for example, abstract, col 20 lines 50-57, and col 21 lines 19-30, col 22 lines 31-37, Example 1). Ying further teaches wherein such liquid formulations are commonly and predictably comprised of monomers (See, for example, col 21 lines 39-53). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated monomers in the liquid since monomers are common and predictable components in photo-curable compositions usable for separation structures and filling / penetration of cracks and recessive features within battery applications, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim 4: Weiner in view of Lincot and Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the light the light for curing is UV light, thus light at a range of a wavelength of ~100-400nm (see, for example, col 16 lines 21-33, and example 1).
Claim 13: Weiner in view of Lincot and Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the monomer comprising at least one of an alkene, an epoxide, an ester, an acrylate, phenol, a phenolic, azides, an isoprene, an oxetane, a coumarin, an anthracene, a maleimide, a furan, styrene, or a combination thereof (See, for example, col 11 lines 49-55, col 21 lines 39-52).
Claims 14-15: Weiner in view of Lincot and Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the liquid further comprises a polymerizing agent, further a radical initiator (photosensitizer) (See, for example, col 16 lines 21-33, Example 1).
Claim 16-17: Weiner in view of Lincot and Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the solid comprises a cured form of the monomer, further at least one of a polyether, a polyacrylate, a polyalkene, a phenolic resin, a polyester, polystyrene, or a combination thereof (see, for example, col 11 lines 49-55, col 21 lines 19-52, example 1, claim 4).
Claim 18: Weiner in view of Lincot and Ying teach the method of claim 12 above and Ying further teaches wherein the liquid viscosity is tailorable to control penetrative properties and is commonly implemented at a viscosity between 15 cP and 5000cP (See, for example, col 22 lines 9-37; as the conversion from cP to cSt is 1:1 for densities ~1 (cSt = (cP/Density))). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a liquid viscosity within the claimed range of 1 cSt and 10,000 cSt or between 1,000 cSt and 5,000 cSt since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and / or since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments, filed 8/3/26, with respect to the claim objections to claims 4 and 13, and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 8-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore these objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/3/26 with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections over Peng and the 35 USC 103 rejections over Peng, and further in view of Ying the applicant argues that:
a)“Peng’s method does not include ‘depositing an intervening layer’ onto a perovskite layer such that ‘the intervening layer is positioned over’ a void.” The examiner disagrees. As shown in Fig 5-7 of Peng, the entirety of the intervening layer (11) resides above / over the first surface of the perovskite layer (10) and the void that extends between the first and second surfaces of the perovskite layer. Thus the intervening layer reads on being positioned over said void.
b) “nor does Peng disclose applying a liquid to an outer surface of the intervening layer’ such that the liquid is transferred through the thickness of the intervening layer…at least partially filling the void’ as recited in amended claim 1.” . The examiner disagrees. As shown in Fig 5-7 of Peng, the entirety of the intervening layer (11) resides above / over the first surface of the perovskite layer (10). The photoresist liquid is applied to the top of the structure and penetrates downward through each layer via volumes of the etch lines (P1) within each layer. Thus, in a sequential fashion the photoresist applied onto the outer surface would first pass (be transferred) through the thickness of the intervening layer via at least the volume of the associated portion of etch line (P1), and then continue to flow into the void of the perovskite layer to at least partially fill it (as depicted in Fig 6 it completely fills said void).
The only argument raised by Applicant with respect to Weiner and Lincot is: “Per Section V above, Peng fails to disclose, expressly or inherently, every element of amended claim 1. The Applicant respectfully maintains that none of Ying, Weiner, or Lincot, either alone or in combination, either expressly or inherently, remedy the deficiencies of Peng. The Applicant, therefore, respectfully maintains that amended claim 1 is patentable over Peng, Ying, Weiner, and Lincot.” First, the examiner notes that Weiner in view of Lincot is applied as a separate and distinct art rejection (35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-11 over Weiner in view of Lincot), and does not rely upon Peng therefore arguments directed to the teachings of Peng are not apt for Weiner in view of Lincot. Further Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the 35 USC 103 rejections over Weiner in view of Lincot above with respect as to how this combination of prior art teaches the claimed method.
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 NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights