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 .
The amendment of 8/12/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13, and 14 are pending.
Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, Applied Materials Today, Volume 12, 03-2018, pages 15-20 in view of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 692, 2017, pages 589-598 and further in view of WO 2016/180364 Zhong et al., as translated by US Pat. Application Publication No. 2018/0298278 Zhong et al., which is also prior art.
References to Zhong below reference US Pat. Application Publication No. 2018/0298278 Zhong et al. unless otherwise noted.
Applies to all claims:
Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 16, second column, under “2.2 Synthesis of the polymer/quasi-2D blend”, recites “Synthesis of the precursor materials is similar to that in previous works [3].” The precursor materials are the reaction products of the Lewis acid and amine salt of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”. The cited reference [3] is Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED”. See Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 20, second column, reference [3].
Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED”, page 590, second column, the first through 21st lines, discloses mixing solutions of Lewis acid and cation liquid solution to form the cadmium and lead compounds of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, “2.2 Synthesis of the polymer/quasi-2D blend”. This anticipates the method steps of making the pre-cursor solution of the instant claims 1 and 8 though it uses bromides rather than iodides.
The reference to Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED” by Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, “2.2 Synthesis of the polymer/quasi-2D blend”, is taken as incorporating the disclosure of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED” into the primary reference so as to anticipate the method steps per se of making the pre-cursor solution of the instant claims 1 and 8 though it uses bromides rather than iodides.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 7:
Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” discloses a method of manufacturing a polymer-perovskite hybrid by obtaining a pre-cursor solution, mixing it with a polymer solution to generate a mixture and synthesizing the mixture to manufacture the polymer-perovskite hybrid. See Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 16, Section 2.2. The solution of CH3NH3CdBr3 and (C6H5CH2CH2NH3)2PbBr4 in DMF is the obtained pre-cursor solution of the instant claims 1 and 3 except that it uses the bromides rather than the iodides. The solution of polystryrene is the polymer solution of the instant claims. The polystyrene falls within the polymers of the instant claims 1, 6, and 7. The method steps of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” that form their polymer-perovskite hybrid are the “synthesizing the mixture to manufacture the polymer-perovskite hybrid” required by the instant claims. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” therefore anticipates the composition requirements of the instant claims 1 and 3-7.
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 13:
The discussion above regarding the instant claims 1 and 3-7 shows that Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” discloses the method steps required by the instant claims 8, 10, and 13. That necessitates that the product obtained by Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” has the same properties as required by the method steps of the instant claims 8, 10, and 13, including the solar cell requirements. See MPEP 2112. The instant claims 8, 10, and 13 recite no further distinctions between Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” therefore anticipates the composition requirements of the instant claims 8, 10, and 13.
Also, the Introduction of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” discloses using their HOIS in solar cells specifically.
Regarding claim 14:
The polymer-perovskite hybrid resulting from the above discussed method of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” falls within the scope of the instant claim 14.
Regarding all of the claims:
Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” does not exemplify the instantly claimed lead iodide and methylammonium iodide. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” exemplifies the bromide analogs of these compounds. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 1, first column under “1. Introduction” discusses “lead halide”. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 1, second column under “1. Introduction” discusses “PbxXy (X=I, Br, Cl)” which shows that the iodides are known for use in the field of Vassilakopoulou as are the exemplified bromides.
Zhong, paragraph [0004] discloses CH3NH3PbI3 as having great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility. Zhong, paragraph [0110], particularly the last 5 lines of the first column of page 10, shows that one may mix the iodides of lead and methyl ammonium to their Perovskites, which is expected to make their CH3NH3PbI3 which has great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed inventions to make the Perovskites of the instant claims as those of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” because Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” exemplifies the bromide analogs of these compounds, discusses “lead halide”, and discusses “PbxXy (X=I, Br, Cl)”, which shows that the iodides are known for use in the field of Vassilakopoulou as are the exemplified bromides and that Vassilakopoulou encompasses the Iodides of lead and methylammonium as their reactants, Zhong, paragraph [0004] discloses CH3NH3PbI3 as having great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility, Zhong, paragraph [0110], particularly the last 5 lines of the first column of page 10, shows that one may mix the iodides of lead and methyl ammonium to their Perovskites, which is expected to make their CH3NH3PbI3 which has great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility, and using the lead iodide and methylammonium iodide of the instant claims as the reactants of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” would have been expected to give the polymer-perovskite hybrids of the prior art cited in this rejection which contain Zhong’s CH3NH3PbI3 and which also give the high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility described by Zhong.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed inventions to make the cadmium and lead compounds of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, “2.2 Synthesis of the polymer/quasi-2D blend” according to the method of the instant claims 1 and 8 because Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, “2.2 Synthesis of the polymer/quasi-2D blend” states that their precursor materials are made according to reference [3], Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED” is reference [3] and discloses making the precursor compounds by making solutions of the Lewis acid and cation liquid and mixing them to form the precursor, and these compounds would have been expected to perform as required in the polymer-perovskite hybrids of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, “2.2 Synthesis of the polymer/quasi-2D blend” because they are expressly encompassed by the disclosure of the primary reference.
Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 16, the first and second column references making various devices from their compositions, including LEDs and describes their compositions as being in the form of films. Note section 2.2 Synthesis of the Polymer/Quasi-2D Blend particularly. Page 17, first column, first 4 lines describes making an LED by coating the composition using the doctor blade method.
Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, Applied Materials Today, Volume 12, 03-2018, pages 15-20 in view of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 692, 2017, pages 589-598 does not disclose the instantly claimed spin-coating process limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed inventions to make the LED device of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 17, first column, first 4 lines with a spin-coating process in place of the referenced doctor blade method because Zhong shows it to be conventional to coat polymer-perovskite solutions using spin coating methods at paragraph [0037], which discloses coating polymer-perovskite solutions by various methods including spin coating and blade coating, which includes doctor blade coating, to make luminescent materials in the form of film, Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” does not limit the methods by which their compositions can be coated and discloses making luminescent films generally at page 16, second column, last three lines, and using spin coating in place of Vassilakopoulou’s doctor blade coating would have been expected to give the film forming properties obtained from spin coating coupled with the benefits of making the polymer-perovskite solutions by the method of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” and substituting Vassilakopoulou’s doctor blade coating with spin coating of Zhong is seen as being an obvious substitution of one art recognized equivalent coating method for another, with Zhong, paragraph [0037] establishing the coating methods as art recognized equivalent coating methods in the polymer-perovskite solution coating art.
See MPEP 2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-08.2012], particularly “II. SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE
In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. "This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor." 209 USPQ at 759.).”
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
3. The following response is in reply to the applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of paragraph 2. above:
In their response of 8/14/23:
The applicant argues “Claims 1 and 8 have been amended to more clearly define the pre-cursor solution. In rejecting the claims, the Examiner has provided a general rejection without providing any insight with respect to the suitability of the NPL as a cited reference. Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 8 to include the subject matter of original Claims 2 and 9 respectively. Claim 14 already include similar subject matter. It is respectfully submitted that the NPL is silent with respect to this subject matter. Retraction of Examiner's rejection of Claims 1 to 16 is respectfully requested.” The above new grounds of rejection addresses the argued claim requirements. The applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive for the above new grounds of rejection.
In their response of 4/25/24:
The applicant argues “Claims 1, 3 to 8 and 10 to 16 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated or under 103 for being obvious in view of a first NPL entitled Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode (“Vass1”) with a second NPL entitled “Mixtures of Quasi-Two and Three Dimensional Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Semiconducting Perovskites for Single Layer LED (“Vassi2”). Applicant notes that for a rejection under 102(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 date of the claimed invention” which indicates that the claimed invention should be described in single publication and not in more than one as cited by the Examiner. It is noted that Vassi1 cites Vassi2 in its teaching.” See MPEP 2127 Domestic and Foreign Patent Applications as Prior Art [R-10.2019], I. ABANDONED APPLICATIONS, INCLUDING PROVISIONAL APPLICATIONS, particularly “However, the subject matter of an abandoned application, including both provisional and nonprovisional applications, referred to in a prior art U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication may be relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on that patent or patent application publication if the disclosure of the abandoned application is actually included or incorporated by reference in the patent.” Underlining and bolding is added by the examiner for emphasis. The logic of the bolded and underlined portions would appear to apply to the instant situation in which “Vass1” incorporates the material discussed above from “Vass2”. This section of the MPEP makes it clear that material which is incorporated by reference into another document can be available for an anticipation rejection. In the instant situation, the reference the applicant calls “Vass1” incorporates the information from the reference the applicant calls “Vass2”. The information “Vass1” incorporates by reference to “Vass2” is therefore taken as being present in “Vass1”. Therefore, the above cited information is found in the single “Vass1” document, though some of the noted information is incorporated into “Vass1” by the reference in “Vass1” to that information in “Vass2”. This appears to be allowable in an anticipation rejection based on the logic found in the above MPEP citation, particularly, the bolded and the underlined portions thereof.
It is therefore clear that multiple references can be used in an anticipation rejection where one reference incorporates matter from another reference. The applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive in this regard.
The examiner implicitly acknowledges that there are differing opinions on this subject by his statement “In the event that an authority considers the rejection of paragraph 4 above to not meet the requirements of an anticipation rejection:” in the obviousness rejection of paragraph 6 of the office action mailed 10/26/23.
Therefore, the anticipation argument is supplemented with the obviousness argument. The applicant’s do not argue the obviousness noted in the office action mailed 10/26/23.
The applicant argues “The independent claims have been amended to include the subject matter that synthesizing the mixture includes a spin-coating process. It is respectfully submitted that Vassi1 and Vassi2 are silent with respect to this subject matter. Retraction of Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1, 3 to 8 and 10 to 16 is respectfully requested.” The above modification with Zhong is noted in this regard. See MPEP 2144.06, as noted in the above rejection.
In their response of 1/3/25:
The applicant argues “The independent claims have been amended to include the subject matter of “wherein the Lewis acid is lead iodide and the cation component is methylammonium iodide”. It is respectfully submitted that the cited art is silent with respect to the specific combination of the pre-cursor solution including lead iodide and methylammonium iodide.” It is noted that iodine is just below bromine in the halogen column of the Periodic Table of the Elements. They are therefore of similar electronegativities and reactivities to each other and their compounds are expected to have similar reactivities. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” does not exemplify the instantly claimed lead iodide and methylammonium iodide. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” exemplifies the bromide analogs of these compounds. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 1, first column under “1. Introduction” discusses “lead halide”. Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode”, page 1, second column under “1. Introduction” discusses “PbxXy (X=I, Br, Cl)” which shows that the iodides are known for use in the field of Vassilakopoulou as are the exemplified bromides.
Zhong, paragraph [0004] discloses CH3NH3PbI3 as having great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility. Zhong, paragraph [0110], particularly the last 5 lines of the first column of page 10, shows that one may mix the iodides of lead and methyl ammonium to their Perovskites, which is expected to make their CH3NH3PbI3 which has great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed inventions to make the Perovskites of the instant claims as those of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” because Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” exemplifies the bromide analogs of these compounds, discusses “lead halide”, and discusses “PbxXy (X=I, Br, Cl)”, which shows that the iodides are known for use in the field of Vassilakopoulou as are the exemplified bromides and that Vassilakopoulou encompasses the Iodides of lead and methylammonium as their reactants, Zhong, paragraph [0004] discloses CH3NH3PbI3 as having great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility, Zhong, paragraph [0110], particularly the last 5 lines of the first column of page 10, shows that one may mix the iodides of lead and methyl ammonium to their Perovskites, which is expected to make their CH3NH3PbI3 which has great application potential because of its high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility, and using the lead iodide and methylammonium iodide of the instant claims as the reactants of Vassilakopoulou et al., “Polystyrene Based Perovskite Light Emitting Diode” would have been expected to give the polymer-perovskite hybrids of the prior art cited in this rejection which contain Zhong’s CH3NH3PbI3 and which also give the high absorption coefficient and large carrier mobility described by Zhong.
In their response of 8/12/25:
The applicant argues “In rejecting independent Claim 1, the Examiner has suggested that Vass1 anticipates the composition requirements of Claim 1. While Vass1 appears to indicate that that inorganic part of the hybrid organic-inorganic semiconductor (HOIS) is usually based on PbxXy where X = I, Br or Cl, there is no suggestion that replacing the test bromide with iodide would produce the same results.” Iodine and bromine are adjacent halogens. The halogens are grouped together in large part due to their similar reactions. The adjacent halogens bromine and iodine differ in that iodine is slightly less electronegative than bromine but they are expected to react very similarly due to them being adjacent homologs. There is no probative evidence of any expectation of very different reactions occurring from the bromides of the prior art examples noted above to the instantly claimed iodides which are encompassed by the above cited prior art. This argument is therefore not persuasive. Since the references do not differentiate between I, Br, and Cl, it is taken that they are expected to function similarly in all aspects discussed in both Vass1 and Vass2. There is no probative evidence to the contrary.
The applicant argues “Furthermore, as discussed in the specification, the wt% of the PS-MAPbI3 perovskite films provide different results as outlined in the Experimental Results section of the specification.” The instant claims are not limited specifically or inherently to any particular weight percentages. This argument is therefore not commensurate in scope with the instant claims which are not limited to the argued weight percentages.
The applicant argues “Vass1 simply teaches that these components can be added together to produce a HOIS but does provide any direction with respect the embodiments taught in the specification.” The instant claims are not directed to these bodies. This argument is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
The applicant argues “It is submitted that Vass1, Vass2 and Zhong are also silent with respect to the wt%.” The instant claims are not limited specifically or inherently to any particular weight percentages. This argument is therefore not commensurate in scope with the instant claims which are not limited to the argued weight percentages.
The applicant argues “Similar arguments apply with respect to the other independent claims.” The above examiner rebuttals to the applicant’s arguments apply equally to the other independent claims.
The applicant argues “Retraction of Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1, 3, 6 to 8 and 10, 13 and 14 is respectfully requested.” For the reasons discussed above, the reasons discussed in the above rejections, and for the full teachings of the above cited prior art as they would have been understood by the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the instantly claimed inventions, the above rejection is maintained.
The examiner sees no showing of any unexpected result stemming from the use of the instantly claimed lead iodide and methylammonium iodide over the prior art products discussed above which is demonstrated in a manner commensurate in scope with the instant claims and which compares to the closest prior art.
The examiner sees no showing of any unexpected result over the process and products of Vassi1 and Vassi2 stemming from the use of spin coating in place of the prior art doctor blade coating which is commensurate in scope with the instant claims and which compares to the closest prior art.
See MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention [R-08.2012].
The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons stated above, the reasons stated in the rejection above, and for the full teachings of the cited prior art as they would have been understood by the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the instantly claimed invention. The above rejection is maintained as stated above.
Conclusion
4. 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.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1121. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert S Jones, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1121. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/PATRICK D NILAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762