DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 20, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,570,240 to Durstock, et al. (hereinafter “Durstock”). It is noted that claims 26-28 appear to be product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113. Because of the nature of product-by-process claims the Examiner cannot ordinarily focus on the precise difference between the claimed product and the disclosed product. It is then Applicants’ burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (CAFC 1983). See also footnote 11 O.G. Notice 1162 59-61, wherein a 35 USC 102/103 rejection is authorized in the case of product-by-process claims because the exact identity of the claimed product or the prior art product cannot be determined by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 26, Durstock teaches a film deposited on a substrate which has a thickness of 100 nm to 100 mm with a grain size of the film being the same as the thickness of the film (See at least Figs. 1-6 and col. 6, l. 34 to col. 7, l. 7 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference which teach approximately 300-nm-thick perovskite thin films deposited onto a glass substrate with an average grain size that is controlled by the amount and type of solvent added as well as the annealing conditions. See specifically Fig. 6 and col. 6, ll. 58-67 which teach that the average grain size increases from 270 nm to 520-585 nm and then to 950 nm to 1.7 mm as the amount of added Na increases. Since the average grain size is greater than the film thickness this necessarily means that there are at least some individual grains with a size that is the same as the thickness of the film since these crystalline grains will span the entire thickness of the film in the vertical direction over the entirety of its width in the horizontal direction. Alternatively, since the average grain size is controlled by the amount of Na added during annealing it is considered to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA to utilize routine experimentation to determine the amount of Na ether required to yield an average grain size of 300 nm in the 300-nm-thick perovskite thin film with the motivation for doing so being to produce a perovskite thin film having the desired materials properties for a specific application.).
Regarding claim 27, Durstock teaches that the film is a perovskite film (see at least Figs. 1-6 and col. 6, ll. 34-43 which teach that the layer is an approximately 300-nm-thick perovskite thin film deposited onto a glass substrate).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durstock alone or, still alternatively, over Durstock in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0066383 to Bakr, et al. (“Bakr”).
Regarding claim 28, Durstock teaches that the film is a CsPbBr3 film (see col. 9, ll. 9-46 which teach that the deposited thin film may be comprised of an ABX3 perovskite where B is Pb and X is Br with Cs+ as a metal ion additive). Alternatively, in Figs. 1.1A-C and ¶¶[0064]-[0079] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Bakr teaches an analogous method of producing an ABX3 perovskite by solution growth which, as disclosed specifically in ¶[0065] and claims 3 & 11, results in the formation of a CsPbBr3 thin film. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the method of Durstock may be utilized to produce a CsPbBr3 film having the film thickness and grain size as claimed with the motivation for doing so being to produce a perovskite thin film having the desired materials properties for a specific application. It is pointed out that deposition of a single crystal CsPbBr3 film may be broadly considered as being constituted of a single “grain” whose vertical dimension is necessarily equal to its thickness.
Response to Amendment
The declaration of Manuel Quevedo-Lopez under 37 CFR 1.132 filed June 19, 2026, (hereinafter “the Quevedo-Lopez declaration”) is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 12-15, 17-18, 20, 23, and 29 as set forth in the final Office Action dated February 20, 2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20, 23, and 29 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or reasonably suggest a method for depositing a film on a substrate comprising preparing a source material comprising single crystals using an antisolvent vapor crystallization process, providing the source material on a first heater, providing the substrate on a second heater, the substrate being disposed a first distance of less than 10 mm from the source material, performing a close space sublimation (CSS) process to deposit the film of the source material on the substrate by simultaneously heating the source material with the first heater to a first temperature and heating the substrate with the second heater to a second temperature, while controlling the first temperature, the second temperature, and a time of the CSS process such that a grain size of the film is the same as a thickness of the film; after performing the CSS process, allowing the substrate to cool to room temperature; and after allowing the substrate to cool to room temperature, performing a post-deposition annealing on the film by heating it to a third temperature for a predetermined period of time, wherein the third temperature is at least 450 °C and the predetermined period of time is at least 1 hour, wherein the film has the same stoichiometry as the source material, and wherein the film has a thickness in a range of from 100 nm to 100 mm as recited in the context of claim 1. Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20, 23, and 29 are also deemed to be in condition for allowance due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
The closest prior art of record includes U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0242812 to Grenet, et al. (hereinafter “Grenet”), U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0277365 to Burst, et al. (“Burst”), a publication to Murata, et al. entitled “Effect of high-temperature post-deposition annealing on cesium lead bromide thin films deposited by vacuum evaporation,” AIP Advances, Vol. 10, p. 045031 (2020) (“Murata”), and a publication to Rakita, et al. entitled “Low-temperature solution-grown CsPbBr3 single crystals and their characterization,” Crystal Growth & Design, Vol. 16, pp. 5717-25 (2016) (“Rakita”). As explained in ¶¶[2]-[4] of the Quevedo-Lopez declaration, since Burst relates to the growth of CdTe, the volatility, phase stability, and defect chemistry differs significantly from those of CsPbBr3 and, consequently, the optimization strategies of Burst cannot be readily applied to Grenet. Then in ¶[6] the Quevedo-Lopez declaration explains that the annealing process in Murata is performed on a deposited film that is not fully converted to CsPbBr3 while in Grenet the deposited layer is already nominally a perovskite and presents a different risk profile upon annealing and, as such, there is no motivation to apply the annealing process of Murata to the teachings of Grenet. Finally, in ¶¶[8]-[13] the Quevedo-Lopez declaration asserts that in Rakita the crystals are grown from DMSO-based solutions which leads to trapped solvent while Grenet utilizes a dry, solid inorganic target for sublimation in a CSS furnace. Consequently, a PHOSITA would not be motivated to utilize the CsPbBr3 crystals produced in the method of Rakita as a source material in the CSS method of Grenet.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 19, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20, 23, and 29 in view of the Quevedo-Lopez declaration. It is noted, however, that claims 26-28 are considered to be product-by-process claims and, consequently, are defined by the structure of the product rather than its method of manufacture. In this regard, at least U.S. Patent No. 9,570,240 to Durstock, et al. has been relied upon to teach a perovskite thin film that possesses the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights