DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1 May 2023 and 29 November 2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites in line 1 “A metal-free perovskite film characterized in that:” that uses the phrase “characterized in that”, this term raises a question as to the limiting effect of the language in the claim because it appears to suggest or make optional instead of positively reciting claimed limitations.
Claim 3 recites in line 1 “wherein the film is prepared with” that should be changed to “wherein the metal-free perovskite film is prepared with”.
Claim 4 recites in line 1 “wherein the film has” that should be changed to “wherein the metal-free perovskite film has”.
Claim 4 has a wrong punctuation: the claim ends with a coma instead of a period.
Claim 5 recites “A metal-free perovskite piezoelectric nanogenerator characterized by comprising the metal-free perovskite film of claim 1.” that uses the phrase “characterized by”, this term raises a question as to the limiting effect of the language in the claim because it appears to suggest or make optional instead of positively reciting claimed limitations.
Claim 6 recites “The metal-free perovskite piezoelectric nanogenerator of claim 5, further comprising: electrodes, piezoelectric material layers.” It appears a conjunction or a phrase or a punctuation was missing between “electrodes” and “piezoelectric material layers” to properly linking or joining similar elements for enhancing the phrase complexity and completion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrenreich et al. ("Mechanical Properties of the Ferroelectric Metal-free Perovskite [MDABCO](NH4)I3", Chem Commun 2019, 55, pages 3911-3914).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ehrenreich et al. (e. g. see page 3911) discloses a metal-free perovskite film characterized in that: formula of the metal-free perovskite is ABX3 ([MDABCO](NH4)I3), wherein A is MDABCO2 (MDABCO2 and MDABCO are closely related but represent different states of the same chemical compound within the context of metal-free perovskite research); B is ammonium cation (NH4); X is halide anion (I3); and the metal-free perovskite is free from lead ([MDABCO](NH4)I3 is a metal-free, lead-free organic-inorganic perovskite.)
Regarding claim 2, Ehrenreich et al. (e. g. see page 3912) discloses the halide anion is chloride ion, bromide ion, or iodide ion (iodide ion I3. The term “halide” refers to an anion of an element selected from Group 17 of the Periodic Table of the Elements, i.e., of a halogen. Typically, halide anion refers to a fluoride anion, a chloride anion, a bromide anion, an iodide anion or an astatide anion.)
Regarding claim 5, Ehrenreich et al. (e. g. see page 3911) discloses a metal-free perovskite film. The usage of a metal-free perovskite film by a metal-free perovskite piezoelectric nanogenerator is well known in the art to convert mechanical energy into electricity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrenreich et al. ("Mechanical Properties of the Ferroelectric Metal-free Perovskite [MDABCO](NH4)I3", Chem Commun 2019, 55, pages 3911-3914) in view of Snaith et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10797255).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrenreich et al. does not disclose “the film is prepared with metal-free perovskite precursor with a concentration of 0.25M-1M; and preheating temperature for substrate in the range of room temperature to 140°C.”
However, Snaith et al. (e. .g see claims 35 and 36, column 21 lines -10, column 34 line 67 – column 35 line 15-30 and column 35 lines 20-30) teaches the film is prepared with metal-free perovskite precursor with a concentration of 0.25M-1M (the ACN (Sigma Aldrich) which contained the perovskite precursors (1 MAI: 1.06 M PbI.sub.2) at a concentration of 0.5 M); and preheating temperature for substrate in the range of room temperature to 140°C (the substrate is heated to a temperature of from 50° C. to 200° C. After annealing, the substrates were allowed to cool to room temperature.) Snaith et al. does not explicitly teach “preheating temperature for substrate in the range of room temperature to 140°C”, but it is well known in the art that the metal-free perovskite films, often designed to avoid toxicity, require precise, usually low-to-moderate temperature (room temp to ~150°C) fabrication to avoid decomposition and achieve high crystallinity and one of key methods for controlling film morphology and stability is substrate preheating.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the ferroelectric metal-free perovskite of Ehrenreich et al. to include “the film is prepared with metal-free perovskite precursor with a concentration of 0.25M-1M; and preheating temperature for substrate in the range of room temperature to 140°C” as taught by Snaith et al. for the purpose of controlling film morphology and stability.
Since Ehrenreich et al. and Snaith et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (perovskite film and an additive to passivate defects and improve the stability of metal-halide perovskites), the purpose disclosed by Snaith et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Ehrenreich et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrenreich et al. ("Mechanical Properties of the Ferroelectric Metal-free Perovskite [MDABCO](NH4)I3", Chem Commun 2019, 55, pages 3911-3914) in view of Yao et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20060183249).
Regarding claim 4, Ehrenreich et al. does not disclose “the film has a piezoelectric constant of 1-179pm/V and a remnant polarization of 1-22µC/cm2”.
However, Yao et al. (e. g. see paragraphs [0163] and [0165]) teaches the film has a piezoelectric constant of 1-179pm/V ([0165] The effective d33 is estimated to be about 65 pm/V without taking into account the clamping effect of the substrate. The actual piezoelectric constant should be significantly higher than this value.) and a remnant polarization of 1-22µC/cm2 ([0163] The remnant polarization and coercive field are 20 µC/cm2 and 15 kV/cm, respectively.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the ferroelectric metal-free perovskite of Ehrenreich et al. to include “the film has a piezoelectric constant of 1-179pm/V and a remnant polarization of 1-22µC/cm2” as taught by Yao et al. for the purpose of maximizing the power output.
Since Ehrenreich et al. and Yao et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (perovskite film), the purpose disclosed by Yao et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Ehrenreich et al.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrenreich et al. ("Mechanical Properties of the Ferroelectric Metal-free Perovskite [MDABCO](NH4)I3", Chem Commun 2019, 55, pages 3911-3914) in view of Liu et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20230232719).
Regarding claim 6, Ehrenreich et al. does not disclose “electrodes, piezoelectric material layers.”
However, Liu et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1 and paragraph [0078]) teaches the piezoelectric nanogenerator (piezoelectric fiber) comprising: electrodes (conductive layer 2), piezoelectric material layers (first and second piezoelectric layers 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the ferroelectric metal-free perovskite of Ehrenreich et al. to include “electrodes, piezoelectric material layers” as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of improving stacked structure of the piezoelectric fiber with a good mechanical performance, good durability, and a better piezoelectric effect, and especially, the unique structure thereof enables the piezoelectric fiber to collect mechanical energy from different directions.
Regarding claim 7, Ehrenreich et al. does not disclose “the nanogenerator has an open-circuit voltage of 9-16V.”
However, Liu et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1 and paragraph [0078]) teaches the nanogenerator has an open-circuit voltage of 9-16V ([0078] (3) when the moving end of the generator was offset to 10 mm, the piezoelectric generator was bent, the corresponding open-circuit voltage was increased to 9 V, and the short-circuit current was 53 nA.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the ferroelectric metal-free perovskite of Ehrenreich et al. to include “the nanogenerator has an open-circuit voltage of 9-16V” as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of managing high open-circuit voltage (VOC) to effectively control the piezoelectric fiber.
Regarding claim 8, Ehrenreich et al. does not disclose “the nanogenerator has a short-circuit current of 38-55nA.”
However, Liu et al. (e. g. see FIG. 1 and paragraph [0078]) teaches the nanogenerator has a short-circuit current of 38-55nA ([0078] (3) when the moving end of the generator was offset to 10 mm, the piezoelectric generator was bent, the corresponding open-circuit voltage was increased to 9 V, and the short-circuit current was 53 nA.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, to modify the ferroelectric metal-free perovskite of Ehrenreich et al. to include “the nanogenerator has a short-circuit current of 38-55nA” as taught by Liu et al. for the purpose of managing low short-circuit current (ISC) to effectively control the piezoelectric fiber.
Since Ehrenreich et al. and Liu et al. are both from the same field of endeavor (perovskite film), the purpose disclosed by Liu et al. would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Ehrenreich et al.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sun et al. (U. S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 20220098209) discloses highly polarizable 3D organic perovskites of the general formula ABX3 having the potential of rationally-designed all-organic perovskites for use in on-chip modulators, electro-optic devices, piezoelectric devices, or silicon photonics devices.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
5 March 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837