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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 1st, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(a) rejections of claims 88, 95-99, 101, 103, 105, and 109-111 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 96, 98-99, and 101 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Kanatzidis et al. are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 88, 92-99, 101, 103, and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanatzidis et al. (US 2013/0320836A1) as evidenced by Horvath et al. (US 2017/0098513 A1).
In view of Claims 88, 103, and 105, Kanatzidis et al. teaches an optoelectronic device that can be a light emitting diode (0016) comprising: a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B]X3zX’3(1-z) (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below);
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
[A] a first organic cation, the organic cation can be selected from formamidinium that has the formula (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200),
[B] a metal cation wherein [B] comprises Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059),
[X] is two or more different halide anions, wherein one of the two or more different halide anions is iodide (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007).
Kanatzidis et al. discloses a broader version of the formula AMX(3-X)X’X, thus the Iodide atom is taught as being placed at the X’ position and have a molar fraction (0.01<x<0.99) within the range of 0.05 to 0.6 (Paragraph 0007). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the mixed-anion perovskite is of formula ABX3zX’3(1-z) (Paragraph 0007), where A is formamidinium (Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200), B is Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059), where X is iodide, and X’ can be selected to represent bromide and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
In regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3 structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5).
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not appreciate that the composition may take the form of a cubic crystal structure. Although its not disclosed this composition can take the form of a cubic crystal structure, Applicant’s discovery/explanation of the previously unappreciated cubic crystal structure of the composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Alternatively, in regards to the limitation, “An optoelectronic device”. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2111.02, II, “The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
In view of Claim 95, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses a broader version of the formula AMX(3-X)X’X, thus the Iodide atom is taught as being placed at the X’ position and have a molar fraction less with points (0.01<x<0.99) within the range of 0.05 to 0.5 (Paragraph 0007).
In view of Claim 96, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 95. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the mixed-anion perovskite is of formula ABX3zX’3(1-z) (Paragraph 0007), where A is formamidinium (Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200), B is Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059), where X is iodide, and X’ can be selected to represent bromide and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
In view of Claim 97, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 95. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that [X] can be two or more different halides selected from bromide and iodide (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
In view of Claim 98, Kanatzidis et al. teaches an optoelectronic device that can be a light emitting diode (0016) comprising: a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below);
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
[A] a first organic cation, the organic cation can be selected from formamidinium that has the formula (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200),
[B] a metal cation wherein [B] comprises Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059)
[X] is two or more different halide anions, wherein one of the two or more different halide anions is iodide (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007) and Kanatzidis et al. teaches that [X] can be two or more different halides selected from bromide and iodide (Paragraph 0004, e.g., different halogen elements & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the mixed-anion perovskite is of formula ABX3zX’3(1-z) (Paragraph 0007), where A is formamidinium (Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200), B is Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059), where X is iodide, and X’ can be selected to represent bromide, fluoride and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide, fluoride, and chloride).
Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
Alternatively, in regards to the limitation, “An optoelectronic device”. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2111.02, II, “The claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use "can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim" as drafted without importing "'extraneous' limitations from the specification." Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”
In view of Claim 99, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 98. Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
In view of Claim 101, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 98. Kanatzidis et al. teaches the perovskite formula (H2N=CH-NH2)PbI3zX3(1-z) (See annotated Kanatzidis Table aj), below), while disclosing that X can be selected to be Bromine (Paragraph 0004, 0007, 0011), while z is greater than 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph 0007 – 0.01<x<0.99). Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 101, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 98. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskite can take the form AMX3-xX’, where A be selected to be formamidinium (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (Paragraph 0045), M can be Pb (Paragraph 0011) and X can be a different halogen that includes bromide and iodide (Paragraph 0007), while z is greater than 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph 0007 – 0.01<x<0.99).
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.
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.
Claims 96-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanatzidis et al. (US 2013/0320836A1) as evidenced by Horvath et al. (US 2017/0098513 A1).
In view of Claim 96, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] represents two or more different X halogen atoms selected from group 17 of the periodic table (Paragraph 0004, 0007, & 0011). In regards to the limitation that “[X] is two different halide anions that are chloride and bromide”. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] is selected from different halogen atoms that include chloride and bromide, in the instant case, these substituted components and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
In view of Claim 97, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] represents two or more different X halogen atoms selected from group 17 of the periodic table (Paragraph 0004, 0007, & 0011). In regards to the limitation that “[X] is two different halide anions that are iodide and bromide”. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] is selected from different halogen atoms that include iodide and bromide, in the instant case, these substituted components and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Claims 96-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanatzidis et al. (US 2013/0320836A1) as evidenced by Horvath et al. (US 2017/0098513 A1) in view of Li et al. “New Organic-Inorganic Perovskite Materials with Different Optical Properties Modulated by Different Inorganic Sheets”.
In view of Claim 96, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] represents two or more different X halogen atoms selected from group 17 of the periodic table (Paragraph 0004, 0007, & 0011).
Li et al. discloses that characteristic excitonic absorption peaks in metal halide based hybrid perovskite materials can be tuned to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum through the appropriate choice of metal atom (Ge, Sn, and Pb), halogen (Cl, Br, and I) (Page 1, Column 1, 1st Paragraph).
Kanatzidis et al. and Li et al. disclose that [X] is selected from different halogen atoms that include chloride and bromide, in the instant case, these substituted components and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at using the halogen atoms selected from chloride and bromide as it would be advantageous to be able to tune the material to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum.
In view of Claim 97, Kanatzidis et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] represents two or more different X halogen atoms selected from group 17 of the periodic table (Paragraph 0004, 0007, & 0011).
Li et al. discloses that characteristic excitonic absorption peaks in metal halide based hybrid perovskite materials can be tuned to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum through the appropriate choice of metal atom (Ge, Sn, and Pb), halogen (Cl, Br, and I) (Page 1, Column 1, 1st Paragraph). Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] is selected from different halogen atoms that include iodide and bromide, in the instant case, these substituted components and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at using the halogen atoms selected from iodide and bromide as it would be advantageous to be able to tune the material to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum.
Claims 88, 92-99, 101, and 103-110 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Era (JP-2003036977-A) in view of Kanatzidis et al. (US 2013/0320836A1) as evidenced by Horvath et al. (US 2017/0098513 A1). Era is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claims 88, 103, and 105, Era teaches an optoelectronic device comprising a perovskite, wherein the optoelectronic device is a light-emitting diode (Page 2 – Detailed Description).
Era does not disclose that the perovskite is a mixed-anion perovskite.
Kanatzidis et al. teaches an optoelectronic device that can be a light emitting diode (0016) comprising: a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below);
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
[A] a first organic cation, the organic cation can be selected from formamidinium that has the formula (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200),
[B] a metal cation wherein [B] comprises Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059)
[X] is two or more different halide anions, wherein one of the two or more different halide anions is iodide (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007).
In regards to the placement of the Iodide atom, Kanatzidis et al. discloses a broader version of the formula AMX(3-X)X’X, thus the Iodide atom can be placed at the X’ position and have a molar fraction less than 0.7 (Paragraph 0007).
In regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3 structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5).
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not appreciate that the composition may take the form of a cubic crystal structure. Although its not disclosed this composition can take the form of a cubic crystal structure, Applicant’s discovery/explanation of the previously unappreciated cubic crystal structure of the composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
In view of Claim 92, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. teaches [A] comprises an organic cation other than (CH3NH3)+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above).
In view of Claims 93-94, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 92. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that [A] the organic cation has the formula (H2N=CH-NH2) (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above).
In view of Claim 95, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that [X] is two or more different halide anions, wherein one of the two or more different halides is iodide (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above).
In view of Claim 96, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that [X] can be two or more different halides selected bromide and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007).
In view of Claim 97, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that [X] can be two or more different halides selected from bromide and iodide (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
In view of Claim 98, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. teaches a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below);
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
[A] a first organic cation, the organic cation can be selected from formamidinium that has the formula (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200),
[B] a metal cation wherein [B] comprises Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059),
[X] is two or more different halide anions corresponding to I [X] and X [X’] (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007),
And z is greater than 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph 0007 – 0.01<x<0.99).
In view of Claim 99, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 98. Kanatzidis et al. teaches z is from 0.05 to 0.95 (Paragraph 0007 – 0.01<x<0.99).
In view of Claim 101, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 98. Kanatzidis et al. teaches the perovskite formula (H2N=CH-NH2)PbI3zX3(1-z) (See annotated Kanatzidis Table aj), below), while disclosing that X can be selected to be Bromine (Paragraph 0004, 0007, 0011), while z is greater than 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph 0007 – 0.01<x<0.99).
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 101, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 98. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskite can take the form AMX3-xX’, where A be selected to be formamidinium (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (Paragraph 0045), M can be Pb (Paragraph 0011) and X can be a different halogen that includes bromide and iodide (Paragraph 0007), while z is greater than 0 and less than 1 (Paragraph 0007 – 0.01<x<0.99). .
In view of Claims 98 and 101, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskite can take the form AMX3-xX’, where A be selected to be formamidinium (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (Paragraph 0045), M can be Pb (Paragraph 0011) and X can be a different halogen that includes bromide and iodide (Paragraph 0007).
In view of Claims 106-108, Era teaches an optoelectronic device comprising a perovskite, wherein the optoelectronic device is a light-emitting diode (Page 2 – Detailed Description), and the light emitting device comprises a first electrode and a second electrode (Page 1, Lines 6-11), and said perovskite wherein the perovskite is disposed between the first and second electrodes (Page 1, Lines 24-30)
Era does not disclose the perovskite of formula I
Kanatzidis et al. teaches an optoelectronic device that can be a light emitting diode (0016) comprising: a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below);
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein:
[A] a first organic cation, the organic cation can be selected from formamidinium that has the formula (H2N=CH=NH2)+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200),
[B] a metal cation wherein [B] comprises Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059)
[X] is two or more different halide anions (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0007).
Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the compound can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near infrared region at room temperature (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0054). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskites can be mixed with other congeners to result in compounds with enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0055). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the compounds can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 00133). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the perovskite of Kanatzidis et al. with the perovskite of Era for the advantages of having a compound that can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near IR region at room temperature, a compound that is capable of having enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range, and a compound that can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications.
In view of Claim 109, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 106. Era teaches a p-type layer which is other than said perovskite (Paragraph 0003 – hole transport layer).
In view of Claim 110, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 109. Era teaches that light emitting device comprises said first electrode and disposed between the first and second electrodes an n-type layer; said perovskite; and said p-type layer (Page 1, Lines 24-30 & Paragraph 0003 – electron and hole transporting layer).
Claims 96-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Era (JP-2003036977-A) in view Kanatzidis et al. (US 2013/0320836A1) as evidenced by Horvath et al. (US 2017/0098513 A1) in view of Li et al. “New Organic-Inorganic Perovskite Materials with Different Optical Properties Modulated by Different Inorganic Sheets”. Era is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 96, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] represents two or more different X halogen atoms selected from group 17 of the periodic table (Paragraph 0004, 0007, & 0011).
Li et al. discloses that characteristic excitonic absorption peaks in metal halide based hybrid perovskite materials can be tuned to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum through the appropriate choice of metal atom (Ge, Sn, and Pb), halogen (Cl, Br, and I) (Page 1, Column 1, 1st Paragraph).
Kanatzidis et al. and Li et al. disclose that [X] is selected from different halogen atoms that include chloride and bromide, in the instant case, these substituted components and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at using the halogen atoms selected from chloride and bromide as it would be advantageous to be able to tune the material to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum.
In view of Claim 97, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 88. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] represents two or more different X halogen atoms selected from group 17 of the periodic table (Paragraph 0004, 0007, & 0011).
Li et al. discloses that characteristic excitonic absorption peaks in metal halide based hybrid perovskite materials can be tuned to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum through the appropriate choice of metal atom (Ge, Sn, and Pb), halogen (Cl, Br, and I) (Page 1, Column 1, 1st Paragraph). Kanatzidis et al. discloses that [X] is selected from different halogen atoms that include iodide and bromide, in the instant case, these substituted components and their functions are known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at using the halogen atoms selected from iodide and bromide as it would be advantageous to be able to tune the material to virtually any wavelength in the visible spectrum.
Claim 111 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Era (JP-2003036977-A) in view of Kanatzidis et al. (US 2013/0320836A1) as evidenced by Horvath et al. (US 2017/0098513 A1) in view of Kaneta et al. (US 2010/0078630 A1). Era is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 111, Era and Kanatzidis et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 109. Era does not teach that the p-type layer hole transporting material is an inorganic material.
Kaneta et al. teaches a p-type layer comprises an inorganic hole transporting material (Claim 11 – Cu2O etc.). Kaneta et al. teaches a high light extraction efficiency can be obtained by reflecting light emitting from the organic luminescent layer off the hole transport layer (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the inorganic material disclosed by Kaneta et al. as Era’s p-type layer for the advantage of having a high light extraction efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kanatzidis et al. does not disclose a mixed-anion perovskite of formula (I) [A][B]X3zX’3(1-z) wherein A is H2N-CH-NH2, B is Pb2+, and X is two or more different anions selected from halide anions. Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would have to make specific choices to arrive at the particular combination of cations and anions recited in claim 88.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Kanatzidis et al. teaches an optoelectronic device that can be a light emitting diode (0016) comprising: a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below). Applicant can find support for the table in priority document 61/601,219 (Paragraph 00113). The formamidinium cation is explicitly taught, while M and X can be selected to arrive at Pb2+ and X is identified as an anion different iodide. Kanatzidis et al. is prior art for all that it teaches (See MPEP 2121.01), therefore Pb2+ and X (other than iodide) are taught in the prior art for the formula ABX3. Kanatzidis et al. discloses a broader version of the formula AMX(3-X)X’X, thus the Iodide atom is taught as being placed at the X’ position and have a molar fraction (0.01<x<0.99) within the range of 0.05 to 0.6 (Paragraph 0007). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the mixed-anion perovskite is of formula ABX3zX’3(1-z) (Paragraph 0007), where A is formamidinium (Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200), B is Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059), where X is iodide, and X’ can be selected to represent bromide and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have envisaged a mixed-anion perovskite of formula (I) [A][B]X3zX’3(1-z) wherein A is H2N-CH-NH2, B is Pb2+, and X is two or more different anions selected from halide anions such as fluoride, bromide, and/or chloride and z is from 0.05 to 0.6, while referencing MPEP 2131.02 II. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that MPEP 2131.02 III provides the following guidance:
“A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). In Kennametal, the challenged claim was to a cutting tool requiring a ruthenium binding agent with a physical vapor deposition (PVD) coating. The reference described all the elements of the claimed coated cutting tool but did not explicitly disclose the specific combination of ruthenium binding agent with a PVD coating. However, the reference disclosed that ruthenium was one of five specified binding agents and PVD was one of three suitable coating techniques. The Federal Circuit stated that the reference’s "express ‘contemplat[ion]’ of PVD coatings provided sufficient evidence that a reasonable mind could find that a person of skill in the art… would immediately envisage applying a PVD coating. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that [the reference] effectively teaches 15 combinations, of which one anticipates pending claim 1. Though it is true that there is no evidence in [the reference] of ‘actual performance’ of combining the ruthenium binder and PVD coatings, this is not required." Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1383, 114 USPQ2d at 1255 (citations omitted). See also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274, 122 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Kennametal does not stand for the proposition that a reference missing a limitation can anticipate a claim if a skilled artisan viewing the reference would "at once envisage" the missing limitation. Rather, Kennametal addresses whether the disclosure of a limited number of combination possibilities discloses one of the possible combinations.”
In the instant case, Kanatzidis does not explicitly disclose the specific combination. However, the Kanatzidis reference does disclose that Pb is a suitable selection for M (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj), above) while X is suitable selected from the halogens and the subscript X is suitably selected 0.01<X<0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus, sufficient evidence has been provided that a reasonable mind could find that a person of skill in the art would immediately envisage that Pb as M and the halogen elements fluoride, bromide, and/or chloride as X, and 0.01<X<0.99 are suitable selections for Kanatzidis et al. generic formula.
“When a claimed compound is not specifically named in a reference, but instead it is necessary to select portions of teachings within the reference and combine them, e.g., select various substituents from a list of alternatives given for placement at specific sites on a generic chemical formula to arrive at a specific composition, anticipation can only be found if the classes of substituents are sufficiently limited or well delineated. Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)”
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. specifically names the compound where A is formanidinium (H2N=CH-NH2), and Pb is specifically limited as a suitable choice for M (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj), above), and the variable X is specifically limited to be a halogen representing elements from Group 17 of the periodic table that includes the elements fluoride, bromide and chloride, and that X varies from 0.01<X<0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
Applicant argues that Kanatzidis et al. does not disclose that [X] is two or more different anions selected from halide anions, wherein on of the two or more different halide anions is iodide and the value of z is from 0.05 to 0.6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the mixed-anion perovskite is of formula ABX3zX’3(1-z) (Paragraph 0007), where A is formamidinium (Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200), B is Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059), where X is iodide, and X’ can be selected to represent bromide and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
Applicant argues that there is not disclosure or suggestion in Kanatzidis that a compound having the specific anions and cations defined in claim 88 would have a cubic crystal structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that in regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3 structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer."
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not appreciate that the composition may take the form of a cubic crystal structure. Although its not disclosed this composition can take the form of a cubic crystal structure, Applicant’s discovery/explanation of the previously unappreciated cubic crystal structure of the composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5).
Applicant argues that Kanatzidis et al. discloses that all the examples in Table aj) for M use Sn (tin). The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that these are merely examples provided by the Kanatzidis et al. reference and does not teach away from using Pb2+ as the metal cation. Additionally, Kanatzidis et al. discloses at the top of table aj) that Pb is a suitable choice for the formula HC(NH2)2M(I3-xXx). If Pb2+ was not a suitable metal cation for this formula than Kanatzidis would not have disclosed that M = G, Sn, or Pb. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Kanatzidis et al. does not disclose that [X] is two or more different anions selected from halide anions, wherein on of the two or more different halide anions is iodide and the molar fraction of iodide in [X] is less than 0.7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the mixed-anion perovskite is of formula ABX3zX’3(1-z) (Paragraph 0007), where A is formamidinium (Paragraph 0007, 0045, 0059 & 0200), B is Pb2+ (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) above, and Paragraph 0004 & 0059), where X is iodide, and X’ can be selected to represent bromide and chloride (Paragraph 0004 & 0007 & Table aj) specific examples of bromide and iodide).
Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
Applicant argues that Horvath et al. does not relate to a compound having a chemical composition as defined in the amended claims of the present application. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant in regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3zX’3(1-z) structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that z from 0.05 to 0.6 achieves unexpected result that the mixed-anion perovskite forms a cubic crystal structure. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant in regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3zX’3(1-z) structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5). Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that it is an essential feature of the device of Era to utilize a layered perovskite formula A2PbX4 and to ensure that the A cation in the layered perovskite of formula A2PbX4 contains an organic chromophore because Era teaches “the organic ammonium molecule used in the electroluminescent device of the present invention has a chemical structure in which ammonia is bonded to an organic molecule having a chromophore, and can be coordinated with lead halide to form a layered perovskite structure” therefore the perovskite of Kanatzidis et al. is unsuitable for the device of Era. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that this passage is simply reciting the perovskite being used by Era, there’s no description within Era saying that if this specific perovskite is not used that the device would be inoperable because of this “essential feature”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues it would not be obvious to substitute the perovskite of Era with the perovskite of Kanatzidis. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the compound can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near infrared region at room temperature (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0054). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskites can be mixed with other congeners to result in compounds with enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0055). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the compounds can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 00133). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the perovskite of Kanatzidis et al. with the perovskite of Era for the advantages of having a compound that can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near IR region at room temperature, a compound that is capable of having enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range, and a compound that can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications.
Applicant argues that the second paragraph on the second page of Era discloses that the fact that the triplet excited state of the organic chromophore is lower in energy that the exciton band of the lead halide layer, which means that energy transfer occurs efficiently from the lead halide layer exciton band to the excited triplet state of the organic chromophore, and then from the excited triplet state of the chromophore to the ground singlet state causing light emission by phosphorescence. Applicant then concludes that “it can be seen that it is an essential feature of the device of Era to (a) utilize a layered perovskite formula A2PbX4 and (b) to ensure that the A cation in the layered perovskite of formula A-2PbX4 contains an organic chromophore”. Thus it would not be obvious to substitute the perovskite of Era with the perovskite of Kanatzidis.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Era is simply describing how the perovskite compound is emitting phosphorescence. There is no reference within any of the cited sections of Era by Applicant that teaches away from the possibility of utilizing a different perovskite (as disclosed by Kanatzidis), nor is there a mention within any of the cited sections of Era that the A cation containing a chromophore is “essential for the electroluminescence by phosphorescence”. For example, Era does not disclose that utilizing anything other than an A2MX4 would result in a incompatible device.
Kanatzidis et al. was relied upon to disclose that the ABX3 compound can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near infrared region at room temperature (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0054). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskites can be mixed with other congeners to result in compounds with enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0055). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the compounds can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 00133). The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Kanatzidis et al. discloses that these materials are incorporated into light emitting diodes (Paragraph 0016), and the perovskites results in compounds with enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate and recognize that incorporating an improved perovskite compound as disclosed by Kanatzidis et al. that is disclosed as being used in the same fashion as Era, that of a light emitting diode material that’s responsible for enhanced emission intensity, would be a compatible material for the light emitting device structure of Era. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Kanatzidis et al. disclosing that the ABX3 compound can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near infrared region at room temperature (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0054). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the perovskites can be mixed with other congeners to result in compounds with enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 0055). Kanatzidis et al. teaches that the compounds can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications (U.S. Provisional Application 61/601,219 – Paragraph 00133) is “not enough”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the mixed-anion perovskite of Kanatzidis et al. with the perovskite of Era for the advantages of having a compound that can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near IR region at room temperature, a compound that is capable of having enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range, and a compound that can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications.
Applicant argues that since Era teaches perovskite that provide electroluminescence utilized by phosphoresce that it is an essential for the necessary phosphorescence mechanism to work in the device of Era. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that the phosphorescence mechanism in Era does not necessarily preclude the use of Kanatzidis et al. light emitting perovskite material. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that ABX3 compounds are photoluminescent material (Paragraph 0005), wherein its known in the art that photoluminescent material encompasses both phosphorescence and fluorescence. This is evidenced by Edinburg “What is the Difference Between Luminescence, Photoluminescence, Fluorescence, and Phosphorescence?” (pages 2-3). While Kanatzidis et al. does not explicitly disclose that the emission type of the perovskite material is fluorescence and phosphorescence, whether or not this material is emitting in either fashion is immaterial to the combination. The ABX3 material is capable of emitting light, and whether or not that material is doing it via fluorescence and phosphorescence would not make the combination incompatible as either mechanism would still result in a ABX3 material incorporated into a light emitting diode that advantageously is providing a device with a compound that can exhibit photoluminescence in the visible and near IR region at room temperature, a compound that is capable of having enhanced emission intensity or emission wavelengths shifted to a desired spectral range, and a compound that can be processed at low-temperatures which are flexible and favorable for many applications. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Response to Affidavit
Dr. Langley argues that Kanatzidis et al. does not disclose a cubic crystal structure because in Dr. Langley’s view, it could not have been predicted by the skilled person from the prior art cited in the present office action. The Examiner respectfully points out that the arguments fail to recognize that Kanatzidis et al. discloses a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below). Applicant can find support for the table in priority document 61/601,219 (Paragraph 00113). The formamidinium cation is explicitly taught, while M and X can be selected to arrive at Pb2+ and X is identified as an anion different iodide. Kanatzidis et al. is prior art for all that it teaches (See MPEP 2121.01), therefore Pb2+ and X (other than iodide) are taught in the prior art for the formula ABX3. Thus, claim 88 is anticipated. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2131.04, “Secondary Considerations”, “Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973)”. Accordingly, for at least this reason alone, this argument is unpersuasive.
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The affidavit points out that when z is in the range 0.05 to 0.6 that the compounds formed a stable cubic crystal structure, and when z was greater than 0.6 it did not have a cubic crystal structure (See section 9-12. of the affidavit & Fig. 18(f) of the instant application). Thus, Dr. Langley points out that when the ratio of halogen elements are in a specific combination that H2N=CH-NH2PbX3zX’3(1-z) adopts a cubic crystal structure. Then the affidavit stats that Kanatzidis et al. in table 0196 discloses a hexagonal form of FAPbI3. The Examiner respectfully points out that this argument fails to recognize that Kanatzidis et al. teaches the identical formula to Applicant’s claimed formula as seen above in Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj). These arguments fail to recognize that Iodide is specifically mention in the above formula and well as lead, wherein Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the remaining halogen is selected from elements in Group 17. Specifically, Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”. By Dr. Langley’s own admission, when Kanatzidis et al. formula approach these ratios, especially when z = 0.33 that they would inherently form a stable cubic crystal structure.
In regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3 structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5).
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not appreciate that the composition may take the form of a cubic crystal structure. Although its not disclosed this composition can take the form of a cubic crystal structure, Applicant’s discovery/explanation of the previously unappreciated cubic crystal structure of the composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above this argument is unpersuasive.
Dr. Langley cannot see how the formula the Examiner relies upon in table aj), specifically HC(NH2)2M(I3-xXx) can be “envisaged” by the skilled person from that general formula. The Examiner respectfully points out that Kanatzidis et al. discloses a mixed-anion perovskite with the following formula (I) [A][B][X]3 (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj) below). Applicant can find support for the table in priority document 61/601,219 (Paragraph 00113). The formamidinium cation is explicitly taught, while M and X can be selected to arrive at Pb2+ and X is identified as an anion different iodide. Kanatzidis et al. is prior art for all that it teaches (See MPEP 2121.01), therefore Pb2+ and X (other than iodide) are taught in the prior art for the formula ABX3.
Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj)
PNG
media_image1.png
174
473
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The only element lacking from Kanatzidis “general” formula is a specific recitation of fluoride, bromide and/or chloride but discloses that X is selected group 17 that include fluorine, chlorine, and bromine (Paragraph 0004).
The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that MPEP 2131.02 III provides the following guidance:
“A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)). In Kennametal, the challenged claim was to a cutting tool requiring a ruthenium binding agent with a physical vapor deposition (PVD) coating. The reference described all the elements of the claimed coated cutting tool but did not explicitly disclose the specific combination of ruthenium binding agent with a PVD coating. However, the reference disclosed that ruthenium was one of five specified binding agents and PVD was one of three suitable coating techniques. The Federal Circuit stated that the reference’s "express ‘contemplat[ion]’ of PVD coatings provided sufficient evidence that a reasonable mind could find that a person of skill in the art… would immediately envisage applying a PVD coating. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that [the reference] effectively teaches 15 combinations, of which one anticipates pending claim 1. Though it is true that there is no evidence in [the reference] of ‘actual performance’ of combining the ruthenium binder and PVD coatings, this is not required." Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1383, 114 USPQ2d at 1255 (citations omitted). See also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1270, 1274, 122 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Kennametal does not stand for the proposition that a reference missing a limitation can anticipate a claim if a skilled artisan viewing the reference would "at once envisage" the missing limitation. Rather, Kennametal addresses whether the disclosure of a limited number of combination possibilities discloses one of the possible combinations.”
In the instant case, Kanatzidis does not explicitly disclose the specific combination. However, the Kanatzidis reference does disclose that Pb is a suitable selection for M (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj), above) while X is suitable selected from the halogens and the subscript X is suitably selected 0.01<X<0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus, sufficient evidence has been provided that a reasonable mind could find that a person of skill in the art would immediately envisage that Pb as M and the halogen elements fluoride, bromide, and/or chloride as X, and 0.01<X<0.99 are suitable selections for Kanatzidis et al. generic formula.
“When a claimed compound is not specifically named in a reference, but instead it is necessary to select portions of teachings within the reference and combine them, e.g., select various substituents from a list of alternatives given for placement at specific sites on a generic chemical formula to arrive at a specific composition, anticipation can only be found if the classes of substituents are sufficiently limited or well delineated. Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990)”
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. specifically names the compound where A is formanidinium (H2N=CH-NH2), and Pb is specifically limited as a suitable choice for M (See Annotated Kanatzidis Table aj), above), and the variable X is specifically limited to be a halogen representing elements from Group 17 of the periodic table that includes the elements fluoride, bromide and chloride, and that X varies from 0.01<X<0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus, Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”.
By Dr. Langley’s own admission (Section 8-9 of the Affidavit filed on 11/01/2025), when Kanatzidis et al. formula approaches this specific ratio, especially when z=0.33, that they would inherently form a stable cubic crystal structure.
In further regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3 structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5).
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not appreciate that the composition may take the form of a cubic crystal structure. Although its not disclosed this composition can take the form of a cubic crystal structure, Applicant’s discovery/explanation of the previously unappreciated cubic crystal structure of the composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above this argument is unpersuasive.
Dr. Langley argues that Kanatzidis et al. does not disclose any method of synthesis for a cubic crystal structure, and that it is conceivable that perovskites of the stoichiometry defined in claim 88 are able to form more than one polymorph that is stable at ambient conditions depending on how the perovskite is produced. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Horvath et al. was relied upon to disclose that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer."
Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5). Furthermore, Dr. Langley expounded in section 9 of the Affidavit that when the crystal structure is varied via the halogen amount that cubic crystal structures are obtained. Applicants’ formula for a mixed-anion perovskite can be expressed as ABX0.99X’2.01 when z = 0.33. Kanatzidis et al. discloses that the mixed-anion perovskite can be approximately expressed as ABX2.01X’0.99 when x is 0.99 (Paragraph 0007). Thus Kanatzidis et al. discloses “z=0.33”. Thus, in regards to the limitation, “the perovskite has a cubic crystal structure”. Kanatzidis teaches the same ABX3 structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a cubic crystal structure”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. Additionally, Horvath et al. discloses that by inserting formamidinium cations into a lead iodide structure that nearly cubic phase perovskites are reported (Paragraph 0002). Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 2112, I, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Additionally, this is further evidenced by Applicant’s own disclosure, “the inventor have unexpectedly found that formamidinium cation (FO) does indeed form the perovskite structure in a cubic structure in a FOpbBr3 or FOPbI3 perovskite and mixed halide perovskites thereof (Instant Specification - Page 62, Lines 1-5).
In the instant case, Kanatzidis et al. composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not appreciate that the composition may take the form of a cubic crystal structure. Although its not disclosed this composition can take the form of a cubic crystal structure, Applicant’s discovery/explanation of the previously unappreciated cubic crystal structure of the composition HC(NH2)2M(I3-XX-X) does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
All of the other arguments recited by Dr. Langley rely on portions of Kanatzidis et al. that were not relied upon in the rejection of record. Accordingly, those arguments are unpersuasive.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726