DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 19/262,017, filed on 07/07/2025, which is a CON of 18/325,009, now U.S. Patent No. 12,414,404, filed on 05/29/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 06/17/2026.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A1 in the reply is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 and 20 are rejected.
Claims 18 and 19 are allowed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,414,404. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, the ‘404 patent discloses a photovoltaic device comprising each of the recited limitations. Claims 2-17 and 20 are disclosed in the ‘404 patent at claims 1-7.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The closest prior art references identified by this examiner are YANG (WO 2019/028054 A1) and CHRISTENSEN (WO 2020/243287 A1).
YANG describes that the addition of urea produces single interfaces of large perovskite grains along the direction perpendicular to the substrate (para. 90). CHRISTENSEN teaches that surfactants like L-a-phosphatidylcholine promote improved grain boundary quality, producing high performance perovskite layers (pg. 9, ll. 25-33).
The prior art references reviewed do not appear to teach or suggest the claimed photovoltaic device having a photoactive crystalline material layer having the recited properties related to specific range quantity of penetrating crystal grains and average flatness index.
The examiner further notes that the phrase “penetrating through” has a specific meaning as defined by the instant specification, where the grain must penetrate and extend entirely through the layer from one side to the other side (para. 86).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights