DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for 19/292,615, filed 8/6/2025, which claims priority to Chinese application CN202310496409.6, filed 5/5/2023, after the request for continued examination filed 4/29/2026.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are pending, and are considered herein.
The prior art rejections are respectfully maintained.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Geng, et al. (Chemical Engineering Journal, 454 (2023) 140138): This reference teaches a compound, as shown below, that is similar to the compounds of the claimed invention (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
158
138
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magomedov, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0234101 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Magomedov teaches a functional compound, as follows (paragraph [0137]):
PNG
media_image2.png
324
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, of a functional compound represented by Formula 1, wherein Ar-N-(R2)n2 represents a nitrogen-containing heteroaromatic group having 13 ring atoms, wherein at least one nitrogen in Ar-N-(R2)n2 is bonded to n1-LR1 groups.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein L is a linear alkylene group having 2 carbon atoms.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein R1 is a phosphonic acid group.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein R2 are each unsubstituted C1 alkoxy groups.
The compound of paragraph [0137] does not teach that at least one of R2 and R1 are -CHO…or -SH.
However, in the broader disclosure of Magomedov, he teaches that the R2 functionalities may suitably be alkoxy groups (as in the structure of paragraph [0137]) amide groups, or aldehyde (paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have replaced each alkoxy R2 in the compound of paragraph [0137] with any of an amide group or an aldehyde, based on the disclosure of Magomedov that each of these functional groups is suitable for the compounds of his invention.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein at least one of R2 is -CHO (i.e. aldehyde) or -C(O)NH2 (i.e. amide).
Replacing each alkoxy R2 in the compound of paragraph [0037] with an amide group, based on the disclosure of Magomedov that amide groups are suitable for the compounds of his invention teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein at least one of R2 is -C(O)NH2.
Replacing each alkoxy R2 in the compound of paragraph [0037] with an amide group, based on the disclosure of Magomedov that amide groups are suitable for the compounds of his invention teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein at least one of R2 is -C(O)NH2.
Replacing each alkoxy R2 in the compound of paragraph [0037] with an amide group, based on the disclosure of Magomedov that amide groups are suitable for the compounds of his invention teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein n2 ≥ 2 and at least two of R2 are -C(O)NH2.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the functional compound is represented by Formula 1-2, wherein X1 is a single bond, Ar3 and Ar4 are H, and n5 and n6 are both 1.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein Ar3 and Ar4 are both H, and X1 is a single bond.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the functional compound is represented by formula 1b, wherein each n12 is 1.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein L is a linear alkylene having 2 carbon atoms.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein each R2 is -CHO (i.e. aldehyde) or -C(O)NH2 (i.e. amide).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein the functional compound is formula C.
In reference to Claims 6 and 8-10, these claims merely modify an optional limitation of Claim 5. It is the Examiner’s position that modified Magomedov as applied to Claim 5 further teaches the limitations of Claims 6 and 8-10.
In reference to Claim 14, this claim merely modifies an optional limitation of Claim 1. It is the Examiner’s position that modified Magomedov as applied to Claim 1 further teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
In reference to Claim 16, Magomedov teaches that the functional molecules of his invention are used to form a self-assembled monolayer on the TCO of a perovskite solar cell (paragraphs [0039]-[0043]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 16, of a passivation film, wherein a component of the passivation film comprises the functional compound according to Claim 1.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magomedov, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0234101 A1), in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0174762 A1).
In reference to Claim 17, Magomedov teaches a solar cell, wherein the solar cell comprises an electrode layer (i.e. the ITO layer), a passivation layer (i.e. the SAM layer described in the rejection of Claim 1 above), and a perovskite layer that are stacked (paragraph [0064]).
Magomedov does not teach that the cell of his invention comprises a separate hole transport layer, consistent with the hole transport layers of the instant specification.
To solve the same problem of providing a perovskite solar cell with a transparent ITO contact, Kim teaches that disposing a NiOx layer between the perovskite layer and an ITO electrode provides a selective hole extraction layer with an energy level between that of the perovskite and the ITO, which aids in hole extraction (paragraph [0027], Fig. 1C).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included a NiOx layer between the ITO and the perovskite layers of the device of Magomedov, as taught by Kim, because Kim teaches that disposing a NiOx layer between a perovskite layer and an ITO electrode provides a selective hole extraction layer with an energy level between that of the perovskite and the ITO, which aids in hole extraction (paragraph [0027], Fig. 1C).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the solar cell comprises a hole transport layer (i.e. the NiOx layer), a passivation layer (i.e. the SAM layer described in the rejection of Claim 1 above), and a perovskite layer that are stacked (paragraph [0064]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magomedov, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0234101 A1), in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0174762 A1), and further in view of Yamamoto, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0083628 A1).
In reference to Claim 18, modified Magomedov does not teach that the cells of his invention are included in a module.
To solve the same problem of providing a perovskite solar cell, Yamamoto teaches that incorporating a solar cell into a sealed module provides the benefit of enabling the solar cell to resist outdoor environments, including high temperatures, wind, and rain (paragraph [0005]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included the cells of Magomedov into a module, based on the disclosure of Yamamoto that incorporating a solar cell into a sealed module provides the benefit of enabling the solar cell to resist outdoor environments, including temperature, wind, and rain (paragraph [0005]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 18, of a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell of Claim 17.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magomedov, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0234101 A1), in view of Kim, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0174762 A1), and further in view of Inamori, et al. (WO2023/182429 A1, with reference made to patent family document U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0211160 A1).
In reference to Claim 19, modified Magomedov does not teach the photovoltaic system of Claim 19.
To solve the same problem of providing a perovskite module, Inamori teaches that disposing a perovskite solar module on an angled support provides the benefit of allowing rainwater to be removed from the module surface (paragraph [0126]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have disposed the module of modified Magomedov on the inclined support of Inamori, based on Inamori’s disclosure that disposing a perovskite solar module on an angled support provides the benefit of allowing rainwater to be removed from the module surface (paragraph [0126]).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 19, of a photovoltaic system comprising the module of Claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the data in Table 1 of the instant specification are sufficient to provide sufficient evidence of secondary considerations to obviate the obviousness rejection under Magomedov. This argument is not persuasive.
First, the data shown in Table 1 are not commensurate in scope with instant Claim 1, at minimum because they do not support the full scope of the “Ar,” “n” or “R1” structures recited in Claim 1.
Therefore, the data are insufficient to demonstrate that there is an unexpected result obtained from the materials of the claimed invention, over those of the closest prior art.
Further, they do not represent a comparison between a structure analogous to that in the closest applied prior art (i.e. in which R2 of the applied embodiment, prior to modification, is -OMe) and the claimed invention (i.e. in which the R2 moieties are those recited in Claim 1). While the data from Comparative Examples 1-4 demonstrate that devices made using passivation layers with ArN = carbazole and with R2 = PO3H2, NH2, F, or COOH perform less well than devices made using passivation layers with ArN = carbazole and with R2 = C(O)NH2, CHO, COCH3, C(O)SH, OH, SH, and C(S)SH, this showing is not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection of record, because it does not show that the materials of the instant invention provide unexpectedly better results than the un-modified material of Magomedov.
The Applicant has also not shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to try the modification described in the rejection, in which simple substitution of recognized substituents is explicitly envisioned by Magomedov (paragraph [0018]).
The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that the rejections under Magomedov are proper, and are properly motivated by explicit teachings within the reference.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims appear to be largely directed toward the alleged deficiencies of Magomedov, and will not be separately addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights