UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.mptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`15/163,675
`
`05/25/2016
`
`NAOKI HAYASHI
`
`PANDP0165US
`
`5700
`
`MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`
`CLEVELAND, OHIO 44115
`
`SLAWSKLMAGALIP
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`1758
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/22/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket@rennerotto.com
`
`PTOL-QOA (Rev. 0407)
`
`

`

`017709 A0110” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/163,675
`
`Examiner
`
`Magali P Slawski
`
`Applicant(s)
`HAYASHI et al.
`
`Art Unit
`
`AIA Status
`
`1758
`
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE ofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`.
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11 July 2016
`D A declaration(s)laffidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`2a)[:| This action is FINAL.
`2b)
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)|:| An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)I:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparfe Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims"
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6) El Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`7)
`
`8)
`
`I] Claim(s)
`
`is/are rejected.
`
`I] Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`I] Claim(s)
`9)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http:llwww.uspto.govlpatents/init events/pph/indexjsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:| The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)l:| accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|:| The drawing(s) filed on
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or ( ).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)- All
`
`b)l:| Some“
`
`c)l:l None of the:
`
`1..
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:|
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTOISBIOSa andfor PTOISBIOBb)
`2)
`Paper No(s)lMail Date 5/25/2015.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) |:| Interview Summary (PTO—413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) D Other'
`
`PTOL-325 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper NoJMail Date 20180217
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/163,675
`Art Unit: 1758
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`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 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/163,675
`Art Unit: 1758
`
`Page 3
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`Claims 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh
`
`et al. ("Nanostructured TiOz/CHsNHanls heterojunction solar cells employing spiro-
`
`OMeTAD/Co—complex as hole-transporting material" J. Mater. Chem. A, 2013, 1,
`
`11842—11847), hereinafter Noh, in view of Cappel et al. ("Oxygen-Induced Doping of
`
`Spiro-MeOTAD in Solid-State Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells and Its Impact on Device
`
`Performance" Nano Lett. 2012, 12, 4925-4931), hereinafter Cappel. Copies of Noh
`
`and Cappel have been mailed with this office action.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Noh teaches a perovskite solar cell (page 11843 left,
`
`paragraph 2 top).
`
`Noh teaches the structure FTO/bl-TiOz/mp-TiOz/CHsNH3Pbl3/spiro-OMeTAD/Au
`
`(page 11843 right, paragraph 1 bottom and 11884 figure 1a).
`
`Noh's FTO layer is the claimed first electrode.
`
`Noh's bl-Ti02 layer, a dense blocking layer of Ti02 (page 11843 left, Solar cell
`
`fabrication, top). A plain reading of Noh is that “blocking layer" means "hole-blocking
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/163,675
`Art Unit: 1758
`
`Page 4
`
`layer;" thus Noh's bl-Ti02 layer is the claimed electron transport layer (ETL) located on
`
`the FTC layer, or first electrode. TiO2 is a wide band-gap semiconductor.
`
`Noh's CH3NH3Pbl3 layer is the claimed light-absorbing layer; CH3NH3PbI3 is the
`
`claimed perovskite. CH3NH3+, Pb”, and l' respectively are the claimed monovalent
`
`cation, divalent cation, and halogen anion. The CHsNHstls, or light absorbing layer, is
`
`located on the bl-TiOz layer, or ETL.
`
`Noh's spiro-OMeTAD layer is the claimed hole transport layer (HTL) located on
`
`the CH3NH3Pb|3 layer, or light-absorbing layer.
`
`Noh's Au layer is the claimed second electrode located on the spiro-OMeTAD, or
`
`HTL.
`
`Claim 1 last paragraph requires that 0.1 mol % to 1.1 mol % of some material in
`
`the HTL be oxidized. Noh does not teach this feature. However, why this feature would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art is explained in steps:
`
`Noh teaches that the concentration of oxidized spiro-OMeTAD, i.e., hole doping,
`
`plays a very important role in determining the charge transport resistance of spiro-
`
`OMeTAD and the final photovoltaic (PV) performance of solar cells (page 11845 left,
`
`paragraph 2). Noh's teaching shows that the concentration of oxidized spiro-OMeTAD
`
`is a result-effective parameter, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to optimize.
`
`Noh credits Cappel with teaching the importance of spiro-OMeTAD hole doping
`
`(page 11847 right, item 17). Like Noh, Cappel relates to a solid-state dye-sensitized
`
`solar cell (ssDSSC) (title) and teaches spiro—OMeTAD placed Ti02 (page 4926 figure
`
`2a). Cappel teaches a doping level of 0.8 i 0.2 % oxidized spiro-OMeTAD (page 4927
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/163,675
`Art Unit: 1758
`
`Page 5
`
`Table 1 last line). The range expressed by 0.8 1r 0.2 % is 0.6 % to 1.0 %, which
`
`overlaps with the claimed range. Cappel's teaching show that a range of concentrations
`
`overlapping the claimed range was known when the instant application was filed.
`
`In the
`
`case where the claimed ranges overlaps a range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness exists (M PEP 2144.05 | paragraph 1).
`
`Therefore, in order to control the charge transport resistance of Noh's spiro-
`
`OMeTAD HTL and determine the ultimate PV performance of Noh's solar cells, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of
`
`oxidized spiro-OMeTAD in the HTL layer and, in the course of routine experimentation,
`
`select a value within the claimed range.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Noh's perovskite comprises CH3NH3+ (title), which is a
`
`methylammonium cation.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Noh's perovskite comprises Pb2+ (title).
`
`Regarding claim 4 and claim 5, Noh's HTL comprises spiro-OMeTAD (page
`
`11844 figure 1a). As evidenced by Cappel, spiro—OMeTAD comprises the claimed
`
`aromatic amine derivative (page 4925 left, figure 1a). Two of the claimed aryl groups
`
`are connected to form a ring structure.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Noh teaches a mesoporous TiO2 (mp-TiOz) film on the bl-
`
`Ti02 film, or ETL, between it and the perovskite light absorbing layer (page 11843 left,
`
`bottom — right, top). The mp—Ti02 is the claimed porous layer.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Noh teaches a Co(lll)—complex in the spiro-OMeTAD HTL
`
`(page 11843 right, paragraph 1 middle).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/163,675
`Art Unit: 1758
`
`Page 6
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Magali P Slawski whose telephone number is (571)270-
`
`3960. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9 am. - 5 pm. 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 telephone the examiner.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jennifer K. Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1424. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -
`
`273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA 0R CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/163,675
`Art Unit: 1758
`
`IMAGALI P SLAWSKI/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
`
`Page 7
`
`