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
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn. Claims 1-13 and 18 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, i.e., fig. 1, and Species II, i.e., cation is organic, in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 1 is generic. Claims 14-15 and 16-17, directed to figs. 3 and 5, respectively, are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 11 is 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. Applicant’s specification does not disclose the materials added by amendment to claim 11.
Claim Interpretation
The word volume can be read in two different ways: volume as in quantity, the quantity of anions is greater than the quantity of cations, the quantity of defects being between the other two quantities. Volume may also be read as size. The size of the anion is greater than the size of the cation and the size of the defect is between the two sizes.
“Applicant, in Remarks dated 2/25/2026, has provided the following claim interpretation of the following:
Applicant agrees with the Examiner's reading that volume refers to size. As described in paragraph [0051] of this application the "largest defect" in the perovskite layer 11 in the present application refers to a defect with the largest volume in the perovskite layer 11.”
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, have been withdrawn.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 have been maintained. See below.
Claims 1-8, 12-13 and18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dong et al. (CN 116283897).
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses a perovskite battery, comprising:
Substrate (11), including a TCO coating (electrode);
a perovskite layer (absorber layer 14), wherein the perovskite layer is disposed on one side of the substrate (show in fig. 1) (see para [n0182]-[n0183]);
a passivation layer (modification layer 12), wherein the passivation layer is disposed on at least one side of the perovskite layer (shown in fig. 1), an electrode layer (the TCO coating on the glass), wherein the electrode layer is disposed on a side of the passivation layer facing away from the perovskite layer (shown in fig. 1, see para [n0182]-[n0185]).
The passivation material comprises anions and cations, (Dong discloses the “hole transport functional layer (12)” substrate; a perovskite layer, wherein the perovskite layer is disposed on one side of the substrate; a passivation layer, wherein the passivation layer is disposed on at least one side of the perovskite layer [n0191], wherein the modification layer reads on the passivation layer, see para [n0194]).
The passivation layer (modification layer) comprises a compound (see para [n0086]) with structural formula (C)n-L-(M)m, (see para [n0059]) wherein n>1, m>1, and C is selected from at least one of conjugated structural unit among aromatic hydrocarbons and their derivatives or heterocyclic compounds and their derivatives (para [n0006]); L is a chain segment with the terminal group having a carboxylate, a sulfonate, or a phosphate, and the chain segment is at least one of a C0-C20 alkyl chain, alkoxy chain, ether oxygen chain, phenyl group, silane group, or nitrogen-containing fragment (para [n0007]); M is selected from at least one of hydrogen, an alkali metal, an alkaline earth metal or a transition metal (see para [n0008]);
the structural formula of the compound may be selected from (see para [n0012] and claim 4):
PNG
media_image1.png
235
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The group L mainly functions to passivate defects between adjacent upper and lower layers. The group M can react with or dope a perovskite absorption layer, thereby achieving the function of passivating interface defects (see paragraphs [0004]-[0415], and figures 1-3).
One example of the modification layer is 2,2'-bithiophene-5-carboxylate potassium salt (abbreviated 2TAK) (see para [n0342]), wherein the anion is 2,2'-bithiophene-5-carboxylate ion and the cation is potassium (K).
Although Dong does not specifically disclose a volume of the anions is V1, a volume of the cations is V2, and V1>V3> V2, wherein V3 is a volume of a largest defect in the perovskite layer, the example reads on the limitation as the disclosed compound is substantially identical to that claimed (see discussion of claims below).
The court has held where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the number of atoms, other than hydrogen atoms, in one of the anions of the passivation material is 3 to 24 anion (formula 2,2'-bithiophene-5-carboxylate, i.e. 2TAK, (C9H5O2S2-), and the number of atoms, other than hydrogen atoms, in one of the cations of the passivation material is 1 to 5 (i.e., potassium) (See discussion of claim 1, and Dong para [n0342]).
Regarding claim 3, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the number of atoms, other than hydrogen atoms, in one of the anions of the passivation material is 8 to 15 (for example 2TAK as discussed in claim 1 and 2), and the number of atoms, other than hydrogen atoms, in one of the cations of the passivation material is 2 to 4 (e.g. 3TAK, Dong application claim 4, and see discussion of instant claim 1 above).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 2TAK compound of Dong with the cation number (i.e., 2) from the 3TAK compound of Dong as the court has held combining prior art elements (the 2TAK compound with the number of cations of the 3TAK compound) (according to known methods (i.e., as disclosed by Dong), wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144.08.
Regarding claim 4, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the anions comprise A1-R-A2, wherein A1 comprises one or more of hydrogen, halogen, benzene ring, heterocyclic ring, or fused ring, R comprises one or more of an alkyl chain with 0 to 10 carbons or an alkenyl group with 2 to 10 carbons, and A2 comprises one or more of carboxylate, sulfonate, phosphonate, or borate (see example given in Dong claim 4, 2,2'-bithiophene-5-carboxylate base, i.e., A1, bithiophene comprises a heterocyclic, R is an alkyl chain of 0 carbons, and A2 is a carboxylate) (para [n0342]).
Regarding claim 5, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 4, wherein one or more of the following conditions are satisfied: A1 (C structure) comprises one or more of the benzene ring or the heterocyclic ring (see para [n0089]); R (chain segment) comprises one or more of an alkyl chain with 2 to 5 carbons or an alkenyl group with 2 to 5 carbons (see para [n0090]); and A2 (end group) comprises one or more of carboxylate, sulfonate, or phosphonate (see para [n0090]-[n0091]).
Regarding claim 6, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the anions comprise one or more of N element, O element, P element, or S element (see Dong para [n0089]-[n0093] and examples provided in the instant claim 1 above, see Dong claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the anions comprise one or more of benzene ring or alkyl group (see Dong para [n0089]-[n0093] and examples provided in the instant claim 1 above, see Dong claim 4, e.g., compound abbreviated TPAPK).
Regarding claim 8, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the cations comprise one or more of organic cations, Li+, Na', K+, Rb+, or Cs+ (see Dong para [n0092] and examples provided in the instant claim 1 above, see Dong claim 4, e.g., compound abbreviated TPAPK where the cation is potassium (K+)).
Regarding claim 12, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the passivation layer (i.e., modification layer) is 0.1 to 30 nm (see para [n0059]), which overlaps the recited range of 0.1 nm to 10 nm.
The court has held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 1, wherein the material of the electrode layer (i.e. the TCO) comprises indium tin oxide (ITO) or aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO) (see para [n0185]), which reads on “the perovskite battery satisfies one or more of the following conditions:
a material of the electrode layer comprises one or more of silver, copper, carbon, gold, aluminum, indium tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide, boron-doped zinc oxide, or indium zinc oxide;
the material of the electrode layer comprises copper;
a material of the perovskite layer comprises one or more of PBX3 or P2CDX6, wherein P comprises one or more of organic cations, Li+, Na', K+, Rb+, or Cs'; B comprises one or more of Pb2+, Sn2+, Bea+, Mg>+,Sr2+, Ba2+,Ge2+,Co2+, Cu2+, and
optionally, B comprises one or more of Pb>+ or C comprises one or more of Cs+, Ag+, K+, and Ru ;
optionally, C comprises Ag ;
D comprises one or more of Bi3+, Ni3+, Fe 3Sb3+, or Ina+; and
X comprises one or more of Cl-, Br , or
the perovskite layer comprises I-;
a bandgap of the perovskite layer is 1.20 eV to 2.30 eV, and a thickness of the perovskite layer is 200 nm to 1000 nm.”
Regarding claim 18, Dong discloses an electric device, comprising the perovskite battery according to claim 1 (i.e., solar cell, see para [n0001], [n0003]).
Alternatively, and electronic device powered by a solar cell is a well-known expedient in the art. See MPEP § 2144.03.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cell of Dong to power an electronic device as the energy would allow the electronic device to function.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (Efficient Semi-Transparent Wide-Bandgap Perovskite Solar Cells Enabled by Pure-Chloride 2D-Perovskite Passivation).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Dong discloses a perovskite battery according to claim 8, wherein the organic cations comprise one or more of methylammonium cation, methylammonium cation, propylammonium cation, butylammonium cation, pentylammonium cation, hexylammonium cation, formamidinium cation, imidazolium cation, or guanidinium cation (claim 9) nor wherein the cations comprise methylammonium cation (claim 10).
Yang discloses the use of methylammonium as a passivating cation for perovskite solar cells in the form of PMA+ or NMA+, i.e., in salt form with Cl- (see pp 1-12).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cation of Dong to be methylammonium as the court has held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 regarding rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “the modifying layer in Dong et al. is placed on the side of the hole transport layer, which is different from the structure as claimed in claim 1 of the present application”. The language in the claim describing the passivation layer is “a passivation layer, wherein the passivation layer is disposed on at least one side of the perovskite layer”. In Dong, fig. 1 (shown below), layer 14, the perovskite layer, and layer 12, a hole transport functional layer are adjacent to each other;
PNG
media_image2.png
351
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dong in paragraph [0055] states: “[n0055] This application also provides a solar cell, comprising a substrate, a hole transport functional layer, a perovskite absorber layer, an electron transport layer, and a top electrode, which are stacked sequentially from bottom to top.”
Dong describes the hole transport functional layer, in paragraphs [0058]-[0065], specifically paragraphs [0058]-[0059] states: “[n0058] Furthermore, the hole transport functional layer is composed of a hole transport layer and a modification layer stacked together, with the hole transport layer stacked together with the substrate layer and the modification layer stacked together with the perovskite absorption layer. [n0059] Furthermore, the modification layer is a (C)n-L-(M)m layer with a thickness of 0.1-30 nm”.
It is unclear why applicant states a hole transport functional bi-layer comprising the hole transport layer (stacked with the substrate layer) and a modification layer, which reads on passivation layer, stacked together with the perovskite absorber layer does not read on “wherein the passivation layer is disposed on at least one side of the perovskite layer”. Dong clearly describes a bi-layer wherein the modification layer, which reads on a passivation layer, is adjacent the perovskite layer and therefore reads on disposed on one side of the perovskite layer. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s second argument is “Secondly, the functions and mechanisms of the passivation layer in the present application differ from those in the modifying layer of Dong.” Applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed. Applicant in his arguments cites to applicant’s specification. See Remarks pages 2-3.
The court has held that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See MPEP § 2145.
The examiner notes applicant did not argue (1) the rejection fell under 35 USC 103 and (2) the invention as claimed comprised unexpected results, which overcomes a rejection under 35 USC 103, but does not overcome a rejection under 35 USC 102. In the interest of compact prosecution, and applicant’s reference to the function that “[t]he present application controls V3 > V2, allowing cations to enter the perovskite layer to, compensate for the defects in the perovskite layer” (see Remarks page 3). Dong (as referenced by applicant) discloses the cation M can “react with or be doped into the perovskite absorber layer, playing a role in passivating interface defects” (see Dong para [0077]). Dong discloses the material addresses the stability of the perovskite devices. The examiner believes Dong discloses the function referenced by applicant. Therefore, if applicant was successful in arguing Dong is a rejection under 35 USC 103, which may require additional structural limitations of the passivation layer in claim 1, applicant would need to reference more differentiation in function to claim unexpected results.
Applicant discussed the anion function, but did not specifically distinguish the function of the instant application and the disclosure of Dong. There appears to be discussion, but not arguments. Therefore, the examiner has not comment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. (See rejection under 35 USC 112). 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 JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721