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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 3/31/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are amended. Currently, claims 1-16 are pending in the application with claims 13-14 and 16 being withdrawn from consideration.
Previous claim objection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Previous prior art rejection is maintained since the above amendment is insufficient and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. See response to arguments below.
Claims 1-12 and 15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Zho does not teach “in at least one cross section of the light absorption layer perpendicular to a layer thickness direction, a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grain with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm is ≥ 90%”, because Zhao is a single experiment based on the selection of 36 grains, and it appears there is no reference to 33 grains with Fig. 3, therefore 30/36 is not a number distribution of ≥ 90%.
The examiner replies that even though Zhao describes 36 grains total, Figure 3 shows only 33 grains on “at least one cross section” (see the counts below).
PNG
media_image1.png
827
1035
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant then argues it is assumed that there is if there is 30/33 is shown in figure 3, this is one experiment and one skilled in the art would have no expectation of success based on a single controlled experiment when Zhao teaches “it is difficult to fabricate PSCs with a decent amount of grains of sizes further larger than 2mm”.
The examiner replies that Zhao teaches “restricted by the one-step preparation method of perovskite film, it is difficult to fabricate PSCs with a decent amount of grains of sizes further larger than 2mm (e.g. ~5mm). The claimed invention is not about the method, but a device of solar cell. One single controlled experiment and one-step preparation method are not claimed in claim 1. Applicant discloses additional treatment is required to achieve the desired grain size. In other words, Applicant does not use one-step preparation method to achieve the grain size.
Furthermore, Zhao discloses the optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic (PV) performance (see abstract and conclusion). Therefore, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to form the perovskite compound grains having a number-based accumulative distribution rate of the grain with a long diameter D of 1 mm to 5 mm is > 90% (or most of the perovskite compound grains having a long diameter D of 1 mm to 5 mm) for better charge collection efficiency and better photovoltaic performance, because Zhao et al. shows 91% of perovskite grains having a size in the range of 1-5mm and teaches optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic performance.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection. Previous prior art rejection is maintained. Below is the copy of the previous prior art rejection.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“A positive correlation between local photocurrent and grain size in a perovskite solar cell”).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell module comprising a solar cell (see fig. 1(b)), wherein the solar cell comprises a light absorption layer of perovskite including a plurality of perovskite compound grains (see figs. 1 and 3), studies at least one cross section of the light absorption layer perpendicular to a layer thickness direction and shows a result that most of perovskite grains having a size in the range of 1-5mm (see fig. 3), and discloses the optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic (PV) performance (see abstract and conclusion). Zhao et al. shows the counts (or measurements) for grain size of 1mm-5mm to be 30 out of the total of 33 counts (or measurements, see fig. 3(d)), or a number-based distribution rate of the perovskite grains with grain size of 1mm to 5mm to be 91% (or 30/33). It is noted that the thickness of the perovskite light absorption layer is about 700nm (see first vertical dashed line in fig. 3d and the annotation of fig. 3, also see the left column of page 11). Therefore, the “grain size” in the range of 1-5mm that is greater than the thickness of the perovskite light absorbing layer shown in figs. 3d and 3e and disclosed by Zhao et al. is considered to be corresponding to the claimed long diameter D, and the short diameter of the grains is along the thickness of the perovskite light absorbing layer.
Zhao et al. does not explicitly use the exact word-by-word “a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1 mm to 6 mm is > 90%” as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the perovskite compound grains having a number-based accumulative distribution rate of the grain with a long diameter D of 1 mm to 5 mm is > 90% (or most of the perovskite compound grains having a long diameter D of 1 mm to 5 mm) for better charge collection efficiency and better photovoltaic performance, because Zhao et al. shows 91% of perovskite grains having a size in the range of 1-5mm and teaches optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic performance.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic (PV) performance (see abstract and conclusion of Zhao et al., also see claim 1 above).
Zhao et al. does not explicitly disclose the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm is 75%.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the perovskite compound grains having a number-based accumulative distribution rate of the grain with a long diameter D of 2 mm to 5 mm is 75% (or most of the perovskite compound grains having a long diameter D of 2 mm to 5 mm) for better charge collection efficiency and better photovoltaic performance, because Zhao et al. teaches optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic performance, and selection of overlapping portion 2 mm to 5 mm in the range ≥ 2 mm has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic (PV) performance (see abstract and conclusion of Zhao et al., also see claim 1 above).
Zhao et al. does not explicitly disclose the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 2.0 mm to 3.5 mm is > 50%.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the perovskite compound grains having a number-based accumulative distribution rate of the grain with a long diameter D of 2 mm to 3.5 mm is 50% (or most of the perovskite compound grains having a long diameter D of 2 mm to 3.5 mm) for better charge collection efficiency and better photovoltaic performance, because Zhao et al. teaches optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic performance, and selection of overlapping portion 2 mm to 3.5 mm in the range ≥ 2 mm has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic (PV) performance (see abstract and conclusion of Zhao et al., also see claim 1 above).
Zhao et al. does not explicitly disclose the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of more than or equal to 3.5mm is 5%-30%; and/or the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm is ≥60%; and/or the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1.0 mm to 2.5 mm is 20%-40%; and/or the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1.0 mm to 2.0 mm is 16.69%-20.9%; and/or the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of less than or equal to 1.0 mm is 8%.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the perovskite compound grains having a number-based accumulative distribution rate of the grain with a long diameter D of 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm is ≥60% (or most of the perovskite compound grains having a long diameter D of 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm) for better charge collection efficiency and better photovoltaic performance, because Zhao et al. teaches optimum grain size ≥ 2 mm providing better charge collection efficiency and thus better photovoltaic performance, and selection of overlapping portion 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm in the range ≥ 2 mm has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the perovskite compound grains are polygonal (see fig. 1(a) and 3(a)-(c)).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the perovskite compound grains are N-gonal, wherein N is a positive integer and N is more than 5 (see fig. 1(a) and 3(a)-(c)).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the light absorption layer comprises perovskite compound grains distributed throughout the light absorption layer in at least one cross section in the layer thickness direction (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and shows the counts for the perovskite compound grains having a grain size from 700nm to 2mm (or between 2 dashed lines in figs. 3(d) to be 26 out of a total of 33 counts. In other words, Zhao et al. shows a ratio of the perovskite compound grains having a grain size of 700nm to 2mm throughout the light absorption layer (26) to a total number of grains in the light absorption layer (33) to be 79%, which is right within the claimed range of 50%to 90%.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, the counts for the perovskite compound grains having a grain size from 700nm to 2mm (or between 2 dashed lines in figs. 3(d) to be 26 out of a total of 33 counts. In other words, Zhao et al. shows a ratio of the perovskite compound grains having a grain size of 700nm to 2mm throughout the light absorption layer (26) to a total number of grains in the light absorption layer (33) to be 79%, which is right within the claimed range of 60%to 85%.
Regarding claim 10, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and teaches the perovskite compound grains comprise primary grains (or the grains having a size equal to and less than 700nm) and the and secondary grains (or the grain having a size greater than 700nm), and show the counts for secondary grains to be 30 and the total number of the perovskite compound to be 33 (see fig. 3(d)). As such, the number of the secondary grains account for 91% of the total number of the perovskite compound grains. 91% is right within the claimed range of 80%- 100%.
Regarding claim 11, Zhao et al. disclose a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and teaches the perovskite compound grains comprise primary grains (or the grains having a size equal to and less than 700nm) and the and secondary grains (or the grain having a size greater than 700nm), and show the counts for secondary grains to be 30 and the total number of the perovskite compound to be 33 (see fig. 3(d)). As such, the number of the secondary grains account for 91% of the total number of the perovskite compound grains. 91% is right within the claimed range of 65%- 95%.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (“A positive correlation between local photocurrent and grain size in a perovskite solar cell”) as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0097144).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and teaches the solar cell comprises a first carrier transport sublayer (see the electron transport layer of SnO2) and a second carrier transport sublayer (see the hole transport layer of Spiro-MeOTAD, fig. 1(b)).
Zhao et al. does not disclose including a passivation layer located between the light absorption layer and the first carrier transport sublayer and/or a passivation layer located between the light absorption layer and the second carrier transport sublayer; wherein the passivation layer is used for reducing defects resulting from the contact of two interfaces.
Huang et al. discloses including a passivation layer (or an insulating dielectric layer) on the surface of the perovskite light absorption layer (see figs. 1A-1F) and explicitly shows the passivation layer (or insulating layer) located between the light absorption layer (perovskite, fig. 3A) and the electron transport layer (C60, see fig. 3A), wherein the passivation layer is used for reducing defects resulting from the contact of two interfaces (see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of Zhao et al. by incorporating a passivation layer on the surface to the perovskite such that the passivation layer is located between the light absorption layer and one of the carrier transport sublayers as taught by Huang et al., because Huang et al. teaches such incorporation would increase the power conversion efficiency (PCE, see [0005] and [0041]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights