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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and recites “a number of the secondary grains account for 80%-100% of total number of the perovskite compound grains” in lines 2-3, while claim 1 is amended to recite “a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm is ≥ 90%” in lines 4-5 and also recites a narrower range of “the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.5mm to 3.0mm is ≥ 60%” in lines 6-8. Applicant has no support for the combination of ranges as claimed.
Similarly, claim 11 depends on claim 1 and recites “a number of secondary grains account for 65-95% of the total number of perovskite compound grains” in lines 2-3, while claim 1 is amended to recite “a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm is ≥ 90%” in lines 4-5 and also recites a narrower range of “the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.5mm to 3.0mm is ≥ 60%” in lines 6-8. Applicant has no support for the combination of ranges as claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As amended, claim 1 recites a broad range of “a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite grain with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm is ≥ 90%” in lines 4-5 and also recites a narrower range of “the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.5mm to 3.0mm is ≥ 60%” in lines 6-8.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claims 2-12 and 15 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1, and also for reciting different ranges from the ranges recited in claim 1.
Claims 10-11 depend on claim 1 and recite “the perovskite compound grains comprise primary grains and secondary grains” in lines 1-2, while claim 1 is amended to recite “a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm is ≥ 90%” in lines 4-5 and “the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.5mm to 3.0mm is ≥ 60%” in lines 6-8. It is unclear if the primary grains and secondary grains recited in claims 10-11 are the same as or different from “perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm is ≥ 90%” and “the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.5mm to 3.0mm is ≥ 60%” recited in claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 2-6 recite different ranges from the range(s) recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-6 fail to limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends and fail to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(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.
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) 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(20) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu et al. (US 2018/0105543).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell module comprising a solar cell (figs. 3 and 19), comprising a light absorption layer (330) comprising a plurality of perovskite compound grains (or perovskite crystals 100a and 100b, [0063]). Zhu et al. shows at least one cross section of the light absorption layer perpendicular to a layer thickness direction (see the cross section of two marked/annotated grains in fig. 8F below) having two perovskite compound grains with the long diameter between 2.5mm to 3.0mm based on the 2mm scale (see annotated fig. 8F below). It is noted that each bar mark on each grain has the same length as the 2mm scale. In other words, Zhu et al. shows at least one cross section of the light absorption layer perpendicular to a layer thickness direction having a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1mm to 6mm and 2.5-3mm is 100%, which is right within the claim ranges of ≥ 90% and ≥ 60% as claimed. As such, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, Zhu et al. teaches the length dimension of the perovskite crystals between 100nm to 3000nm (see [0062]), or 0.1-3mm. Zhu et al. also teaches the perovskite grain sizes between about 2mm and about 5mm ([0062]).
Zhu et al. does not explicitly teaches a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1 mm to 6 mm is ≥ 90%, nor do they teach and the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm is ≥ 60% in the at least one cross section of the light absorption layer perpendicular to the layer thickness direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion 1-6mm and 2.5-3mm of the ranges 100nm to 3000nm (or 0.1-3mm) and between about 2mm and about 5mm disclosed by Zhu et al. such that a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 1 mm to 6 mm is ≥ 90%, and a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 2 mm to 3.5 mm is ≥ 60%, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and discloses a choice of the perovskite compound grain size. The reference is deemed to be anticipatory to the instant claim since the instant claim recites other choice of the perovskite compound grain size. In addition, Zhu et al. teaches the perovskite light absorbing layer comprising perovskite compound grains having a grain size of 2-5mm ([0062]). As such, Zhu et al. also teaches the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with the long diameter D of 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm is ≥ 75%.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above. Zhu et al. disclose a choice as in claim 1 above, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory to the instant claims since the instant claims are directed to other choices of ranges of the perovskite compound grains. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 2.0-3.5mm of the ranges 100nm to 3000nm (or 0.1-3mm) and between about 2mm and about 5mm disclosed by Zhu et al. such that a number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grains with a long diameter D of 2.0mm to 3.5mm is ≥ 50%, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 1 above, and teaches the grain size of 2-5mm (see claim 1 above, or [0062]). As such, the number-based cumulative distribution rate of the perovskite compound grain with the long diameter D of less than or equal to 1.0mm is 0%, or ≤ 8%.
Regarding claims 5-6, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim above, and teaches the perovskite compound grains are polygonal of N-gonal where N is more than 5 (see figs. 8F and 23B).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu et al. discloses solar cell as in claim 1 above, teaches the light absorption layer comprises perovskite compound grains throughout the light absorption (see fig. 3, 19).
Regarding claims 8-9, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and teaches using the same grain size as claimed in claim 1. As such, the light absorption of perovskite compound grains of Zhu et al. will display the same properties of packing such as a ratio of the perovskite compound grains throughout the light absorption layer to a total number of grains in the light absorption layer is 50% to 90% or 60% to 85% as claimed in the instant claims. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 10, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and teaches the perovskite compound having grains with grain sizes of 2.5-3mm (see claim 1 above). As such, Zhu et al. discloses the perovskite compound grains comprise primary grains and secondary grains, and a number of the secondary grains of 2.5-3mm account for 100% of the total number of the perovskite compound grains. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 2.5-3mm of the ranges 100nm to 3000nm (or 0.1-3mm) and between about 2mm and about 5mm disclosed by Zhu et al. such that the secondary grains of 2.5-3mm account for 80-100% of total number of the perovskite compound grains, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 11, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, wherein the grain sizes is about 2 mm to 5mm (see claim 1 above, or [0062] of Zhu et al.) and the accumulative distribution rate of the size 2.5mm to 3 mm is ≥ 60% (see claim 1 above).
Zhu et al. does not teach the number of secondary grains account for 65%-95% of the total number of the perovskite compound grains.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 2.5-3mm of the ranges 100nm to 3000nm (or 0.1-3mm) and between about 2mm and about 5mm disclosed by Zhu et al. such that the secondary grains of 2.5-3mm account for 65%-95% of total number of the perovskite compound grains, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2018/0105543) as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0097144)
Regarding claim 12, Zhu et al. discloses a solar cell as in claim 7 above, and teaches the solar cell comprises a first carrier transport sublayer (320, figs. 3 and 19) and a second carrier transport sublayer (340, figs. 3 and 19).
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 to reduce defects resulting from the contact of two surfaces.
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 explicity shows the passivation layer (or insulating layer) located between the light absorption layer (perovskite, fig. 3A) and the first carrier transport sublayer (or 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 Zhu et al. by incorporating a passivation layer on the surface to the perovskite light absorption layer such that the passivation layer is located between the perovskite 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Zhao does not teach the ranges of number-based cumulative distribution rate as claimed. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
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 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