DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 19/272,009, filed on 07/17/2025, which is a CON of PCT/CN2024/072990, filed on 01/18/2024, and which claims foreign priority to CN 202310078516.7, filed on 01/18/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 07/07/2026.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention II (claims 4-13) in the reply is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not be a significant burden to search and examine all inventions. This is not found persuasive because substantial additional time and resources are necessary to search and examine all inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 4-13 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4-7 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WU (“Solvent-Mediated Intragranular-Coarsening of CH3NH3PbI3 Thin Films toward High-Performance Perovskite Photovoltaics”).
Regarding claim 4, WU teaches a perovskite precursor solution with a composition comprising a perovskite precursor material (CH3NH3I and PbI2) and a solvent, wherein the solvent comprises a first solvent (DMF) and a second solvent (DMSO), satisfying one or more of the following (1) and (2):
(1) a boiling point of the first solvent is lower than a boiling point of the second solvent (BP of DMF and DMSO are well-known to be 153°C and 189°C, thus anticipating the claimed range; see applicant’s own disclosure noting these material properties); and
(2) a saturated vapor pressure of the first solvent is higher than a saturated vapor pressure of the second solvent.
Regarding claim 5, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein the first solvent and the second solvent satisfy one or more of the following (1) and (2):
(1) an absolute value of a difference between the boiling point of the first solvent and the boiling point of the second solvent is ≥ 30 (abs(189-153)>30, thus anticipating the claimed range); and
(2) the saturated vapor pressure of the first solvent is more than 8 times the saturated vapor pressure of the second solvent.
Regarding claim 6, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein the first solvent satisfies one or more of the following (1) and (2):
(1) the boiling point is 70°C to 160°C (BP of DMF and DMSO are well-known to be 153°C and 189°C, thus anticipating the claimed range; see applicant’s own disclosure noting these material properties); and
(2) the saturated vapor pressure is higher than 2 mm Hg at 20°C.
Regarding claim 7, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein the second solvent satisfies one or more of the following (1) and (2):
(1) the boiling point is 130°C to 220°C (BP of DMF and DMSO are well-known to be 153°C and 189°C, thus anticipating the claimed range; see applicant’s own disclosure noting these material properties); and
(2) the saturated vapor pressure is lower than or equal to 3 mm Hg at 20°C.
Regarding claim 10, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein the first solvent comprises one or more of acetonitrile, dioxane, ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF).
Regarding claim 11, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein the second solvent comprises one or more of N,N-dimethylformamide, N,N-diethylacetamide, N-methylpyrrolidone, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and γ-butyrolactone.
Regarding claim 12, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein a general structural formula of the perovskite precursor material is ABX3 or A2CDX6, wherein A is a monovalent cation, B is a divalent metal cation, C and D are a monovalent metal cation and a trivalent metal cation respectively, and X is a monovalent anion (the perovskite precursor forms MAPbI3 perovskite crystals, and is ABX3).
Regarding claim 13, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, satisfying one or more of the following (1) to (5) (the perovskite precursor forms MAPbI3 perovskite crystals, and is ABX3, satisfying at least one of (1)-(5)):
(1) A comprises one or more of Cs+, K+, Rb+, monovalent amine cations, and monovalent amidinium cations;
(2) B comprises one or more of Pb2+, Sn2+, Fe2+, Mn2+, Ni2+, Ge2+, Co2+, and Sb2+;
(3) C comprises one or more of Cs+, Ag+, K+, and Ru+;
(4) D comprises one or more of Bi3+, Ni3+, Fe3+, and Cu3+; and
(5) X comprises one or more of I-, Br-, and Cl-.
Claims 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HU (“Room-Temperature Meniscus Coating of >20% Perovskite Solar Cells: A Film Formation Mechanism Investigation”).
Regarding claims 4-13, HU teaches a perovskite precursor solution with a composition comprising a perovskite precursor material (CH3NH3I and PbI2) and a solvent, wherein the solvent comprises a first solvent (DMF) and a second solvent (DMSO), satisfying one or more of the following (1) and (2):
(1) a boiling point of the first solvent is lower than a boiling point of the second solvent (BP of DMF and DMSO are well-known to be 153°C and 189°C, thus anticipating the claimed range; see applicant’s own disclosure noting these material properties); and
(2) a saturated vapor pressure of the first solvent is higher than a saturated vapor pressure of the second solvent.
Regarding the dependent claims, HU teaches the same materials as the instant claims. HU also teaches “The Cs0.05FA0.81MA0.14PbI2.55Br0.45 precursor solution was prepared in a mixed solvent of DMF and DMSO (4:1, v/v) in nitrogen-filled glove box. For the thin perovskite layer coating, the concentration of perovskite precursor solution was 0.6M (the gap was ≈50 µm)”, so this means the solid content is about 27% (reading on the range of claim 9).
Claims 4-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WU-2 (US 2015/0311364 A).
Regarding claims 4-7, 9, and 11-13, WU teaches a perovskite precursor solution with a composition comprising a perovskite precursor material (CH3NH3PbI3, para. 31) and a solvent, wherein the solvent comprises a first solvent (isopropanol) and a second solvent (DMF), satisfying one or more of the following (1) and (2):
(1) a boiling point of the first solvent is lower than a boiling point of the second solvent (BP of isopropanol and DMF are well-known to be 83°C and 153°C, thus anticipating the claimed range); and
(2) a saturated vapor pressure of the first solvent is higher than a saturated vapor pressure of the second solvent.
Regarding the dependent claims, WU-2’s materials possess all of the recited material properties, including boiling point relationships. WU-2 also states solid content can be 22% (para. 31), thus within the range claimed by the applicant in claim 9.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (“Solvent-Mediated Intragranular-Coarsening of CH3NH3PbI3 Thin Films toward High-Performance Perovskite Photovoltaics”).
Regarding claim 8, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein a volume ratio of the first solvent to the second solvent is Y, and 20 ≥ Y ≥ 1 (WU teaches overlapping obvious range of “500 μL mixture of anhydrous N,N dimethylformamide (DMF, Sigma-Aldrich) and N,N-dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, Sigma-Aldrich) with different volume ratios of 1:0, 4:1, 3:2, 1:1, and 0:1”).
Regarding claim 9, WU teaches the perovskite precursor solution according to claim 4, wherein a solid content of the perovskite precursor solution is 10% to 40% (WU teaches 50%, which is prima facie obvious because it is close enough to the claimed range; see Titanium Metals).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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