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
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
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 8-17 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.
Regarding claim 8
Claim 8 recites “the second electrode is positioned between the first electrode layer and the CTL.” However, the specification consistently describes the CTL (430) between the first electrode (420) and the active layer (430), and further describes the second CTL (450) as being positioned between the active layer (440) and the second electrode (460) [see Fig. 4, Page 1, lines 18-22, Page 12, lines 19-31 to Page 13, lines 1-32].
Additionally, the specification expressly identifies the device architecture as substrate/1st electrode/1st CTL/absorber layer/2nd CTL/bilayer 2nd electrode or substrate/1st electrode/1st CTL/absorber layer/2nd CTL/single layer 2nd electrode [Page 13, lines 20-32; See also Figure 4]. Thus, the specification consistently discloses the second electrode positioned on the opposite side of the CTL and the absorber layer from the first electrode rather than the second electrode being positioned between the first electrode and the CTL as recited in claim 8. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill possession of the claimed positional relationship.
It is noted that although Example 17 of the instant specification recites that “the second electrode layer is positioned between he first electrode layer and the CTL,” the specification, when read as a whole, consistently describes and illustrates a different layer arrangement.
Regarding claims 9-17
Claims 9-17 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 8, thereby incorporating the unsupported limitation.
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 4-6 and 8-17 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.
Regarding claim 4
The limitation “the metal” lacks antecedent basis. There is no prior recitation of a metal in the instant claim or in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. For purposes of examination on the merits, it is interpreted that claim 4 depends on claim 3. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5
The limitation “the metal” lacks antecedent basis. There is no prior recitation of a metal in the instant claim or in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends. For purposes of examination on the merits, it is interpreted that claim 5 depends on claim 4. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 is rejected at least for its dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 8
The limitation “the second electrode is positioned between the first electrode layer and the CTL” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The claimed arrangement is inconsistent with the device architecture disclosed throughout the specification. Specifically, positioning the second electrode between the first electrode and the CTL would interrupt the interface between he first electrode and the CTL that is consistently described as part of the perovskite solar cell architecture.
The specification consistently describes the CTL (430) between the first electrode (420) and the active layer (440), and further describes the second CTL (450) as being positioned between the active layer (440) and the second electrode (460) [see Fig. 4, Page 1, lines 18-22, Page 12, lines 19-31 to Page 13, lines 1-32].
Additionally, the specification expressly identifies the device architecture as substrate/1st electrode/1st CTL/absorber layer/2nd CTL/bilayer 2nd electrode or substrate/1st electrode/1st CTL/absorber layer/2nd CTL/single layer 2nd electrode [Page 13, lines 20-32; See also Figure 4]. The specification further describes that, when the second layer is a bilayer second electrode comprising a first layer (463) and the second layer (466), the first layer (463) may be positioned between the second layer (466) and the CTL (430). However, the claim does not recite such structure. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
For purposes of examination on the merits, claim 8 will be read as “further comprising a second electrode layer.”
Regarding claims 9-17
Claims 9-17 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 18
Claim 18 recited the limitation “wherein the absorber layer comprises a perovskite.” However, while claim 1 recites “an active layer,” there is no prior recitation of “an absorber layer”. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination on the merits, it is interpreted that the absorber layer recited in the instant claim corresponds to the active layer of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19
Claim 19 is rejected at least for its dependency on claim 18.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0411704 A1, OOOKA et al. (hereinafter “OOOKA”).
Regarding claim 1
OOOKA teaches a device (corresponding to a photoelectric conversion element 1) [Figs. 1-2 and para. 0023] comprising:
a first electrode layer (corresponding to top electrode 6) comprising a material having a melting point less than or equal to 200°C (the top electrode 6 may comprise a metal such as indium, wherein indium is known to have a melting point of less than 200°C as evidenced by PubChem) [Figs. 1-2 and para. 0041];
a first charge transport layer (CTL, corresponding to intermediate layer 53 functioning as a transport layer) [Figs. 1-2 and paras. 0038-0039]; and
an active layer (51) [Figs. 1-2 and para. 0034], wherein: the CTL (53) is positioned between the first electrode layer (6) and the active layer (51) [Figs. 1-2].
The court has held that when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art [see MPEP 2131.03].
Regarding claim 2
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the melting point is between 100 °C and 200 °C (indium has a melting point of 156.60°C) [see PubChem as evidentiary support for the melting point of indium].
The court has held that when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art [see MPEP 2131.03].
Regarding claim 3
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the material comprises a metal (i.e., indium) [para. 0041].
Regarding claim 4
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the metal comprises at least one of bismuth, lead, tin, cadmium, zinc, indium, gallium, antimony, or thallium (e.g., bismuth, lead, tin, zinc, indium) [para. 0041 and claim 8].
Regarding claim 5
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the metal comprises bismuth and indium (at least one selected from a group including indium and bismuth) [para. 0041 and claim 8].
Regarding claim 7
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the first electrode layer (6) has a thickness between 0.1 μm and 50 μm (1 nm or more and 1 μm or less) [para. 0042].
Regarding claim 8
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, further comprising a second electrode layer (4) [Figs. 1-2 and para. 0025].
Regarding claim 9
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the second electrode layer (4) comprises carbon (carbon materials such as graphene, carbon nanotubes, or the like are used) [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 10
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the second electrode layer (4) comprises at least one of graphite, carbon-black, or a carbon nanotube (e.g., carbon nanotubes) [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 17
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the second electrode layer (4) has a thickness between 0.1 μm and 50 μm (10 nm or more and 1 μm or less) [para. 0026].
Regarding claim 18
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the absorber layer (51) comprises a perovskite [para. 0028].
Regarding claim 19
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the perovskite comprises a first cation (A), a second cation (B), and an anion (X) (a compound having a composition expressed by ABX3, wherein A is a monovalent cation, the B site is a divalent cation, and X site is a monovalent anion) [para. 0035].
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OOKA as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10 and 17-19 above, and further in view of US 2017/0345782 A1, KISHI et al. (hereinafter “KISHI”).
Regarding claim 6
OOOKA teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above.
OOOKA is silent to bismuth being present in the first electrode layer (6) at a concentration between 5 wt% and 95 wt%.
KISHI teaches a bismuth-indium alloy for use in improving reliability of electrical connections wherein when the amount of bismuth contained in the bismuth-indium alloy exceeds 20% by mass, an effect by the bismuth is sufficiently achieved, and the solder portion and the electrode are allowed to firmly adhere to each other and can be joined to each other [para. 0016]. Furthermore, KISHI discloses that when the amount of bismuth contained in the bismuth-indium alloy exceeds 80% by mass, the melting point of the solder material increases, and there is a case where a defect, such as a curve of a circuit member, is generated as a heating temperature which is necessary for the connection between the electrodes increases [para. 0016].
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found obvious to optimize the amount of bismuth within the first electrode layer in a range of between 20% and 80% by mass, as discloses in KISHI, for the purpose of improving the connection reliability [paras. 0005-0006 and 0016].
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OOKA as applied to claims 1-5, 7-10 and 17-19 above, and further in view of “Self-Adhesive Macroporous Carbon Electrode for Efficient and Stable Perovskite Solar Cells” (2018), Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 11
OOOKA teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
OOOKA teaches the second electrode layer (4) comprising a carbon material such as graphene or carbon nanotube, or the like [para. 0025].
OOOKA is silent to graphite.
Zhang teaches that carbon materials adopted as electrodes for perovskite solar cells include carbon nanotube, carbon fiber, carbon black, graphite and graphene [Page 2, Introduction].
OOOKA and Zhang are analogous inventions in the field of perovskites solar cells. Because Zhang shows that these carbon materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute graphene or carbon nanotube for graphite [MPEP 2144.06].
Regarding claim 12
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the second electrode layer (4) further comprises a metal (stacked film of a layer comprising a nano conductive material such as carbon nanotubes and a metal layer formed of a metal such as gold, platinum, silver, copper, cobalt, nickel, indium, or aluminum, or an alloy containing any of these metals) [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 13
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the metal of the second electrode layer comprises a transition metal (a metal such as gold, platinum, silver, copper, cobalt, nickel, indium, or aluminum, or an alloy containing any of these metals) [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 14
OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the metal of the second electrode layer (6) comprises at least one of nickel, cobalt, or tungsten [para. 0025].
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OOOKA in view of Zhang, as applied to claims 1-5, 7-14 and 17-19 above, and further in view of US 10290432 B1, Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 15
Modified OOOKA teaches all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Modified OOOKA is silent to the metal of the second electrode layer is present at a concentration between greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt%.
Li teaches a carbon electrode for a perovskite solar cell wherein comprising metal particles for further reducing the carbon electrode’s sheet resistance (the total carbon material within the electrode is 10%-90%, thereby satisfying the limitation “greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt%”) [Col. 6, lines 21-67 to Col. 7, lines 1-3].
Modified OOOKA and Li are analogous inventions in the field of perovskite solar cell comprising carbon-based electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the metal of the second electrode at a a concentration between greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 30 wt%, as discloses in Li, as such is effective in further reducing the sheet resistance.
It is noted that, similar to Li, OOKA is concerned with reducing the sheet resistance of the electrode layer [para. 0014].
Regarding claim 15
Modified OOOKA teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the metal of the second electrode layer is in a particulate form having an average particle size between 10 nm and 10 µm (less than 500 nm) [Li, Col. 6, lines 21-67 to Col. 7, lines 1-3; see also OOKA, paras. 0025-0026].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 20170140878 A1, Yoshiwara.
Regarding claim 20
Li teaches a method comprising:
synthesizing metal particles (metal particles including particles of gold, silver, platinum, nickel, or a combination thereof) [Col. 6, lines 63-67 to Col. 7, lines, 1-3];
synthesizing a mixture comprising the metal particles and a carbon-containing material (“the carbon ink further comprises metal particles dispersed in the mixture of the polymer binder and the solvent.”) [Col. 6, lines 63-66]; and
applying the mixture to a device stack comprising a perovskite layer (“[t]he perovskite layer 120, or the interface layer 115 if present, is covered by a carbon electrode 110.”) [Col. 3, lines 55-56], resulting in the forming of a layer (110) comprising the carbon-containing material and the metal particles [Col. 6, lines 21-67].
Li does not teach applying a metal or alloy in liquid form to a surface of the layer comprising the carbon-containing material and the metal particles, resulting in the forming of a solid layer of the metal or alloy.
Yoshiwara teaches a method of making a solar cell comprising applying a metal or alloy in liquid form (corresponding to conductive film 30c comprising a metal applied using a coating method) to a surface of a layer comprising a carbon containing material and metal (corresponding to catalyst layer 30b), resulting in the forming of a solid layer of the metal or alloy for the purpose of ensuring good electrical conduction [Fig. 1, paras. 0037-0039, 0043,0094-0095 and 0131].
Li and Yoshikawa are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells comprising carbon and metal containing counter electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Li to comprise a step of applying a metal or alloy in liquid form to a surface of the layer comprising the carbon-containing material and the metal particles, resulting in the forming of a solid layer of the metal or alloy, as disclosed in Yoshikawa, for the purpose of ensuring good electrical conduction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights