Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/160,508

Composite Materials, Devices, and Methods of Encapsulating Perovskites

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Priority
Jan 28, 2022 — provisional 63/304,342
Examiner
LEBENTRITT, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
The Florida State University Research Foundation Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allowance Rate
935 granted / 1014 resolved
+24.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1028
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
§103
41.8%
+1.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.5%
-11.5% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1014 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
0Notice 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 . In view of the response to arguments filed on 09/01/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejections is set forth below. 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. Claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al, US 20150144196 A1 in further view of Huang et al, US 11335513 B2 and further in view of Kim et al, Low Temperature ( < 100 ° C ) Deposition of Aluminum Oxide Thin Films by ALD with O as Oxidant, Published 8 March 2006 • © 2006 ECS - The Electrochemical Society Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Volume 153, Number 5 Irwin teaches: providing a first film comprising a perovskite (2617); and depositing, a first oxide or a first nitride (2627) on a surface of the first film (2617) to form on the surface of the first film (2617) a second film (2627) comprising the first oxide or the first nitride, See figure 3 and paragraphs 22, 32, and 35, 77 Irwin fails to teach: wherein the second film has a thickness of about 3 nm to about 10 nm. Huang teaches: providing a first film comprising a perovskite (30); and depositing, a first oxide or a first nitride (40) on a surface of the first film (30) to form on the surface of the first film (30) a second film (40) comprising the first oxide or the first nitride, (figure 1a) Huang does not specifically teach: wherein the second film has a thickness of about 3 nm to about 10 nm. In regards, to the thickness, Haung teaches: The passivation layer 40 should generally have a thickness of between about 1 nm and about 30 nm (para 13) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Irwin and Huang fail to teach depositing via atomic film deposition. Kim teaches low-temperature atomic layer deposition of aluminum oxide thin films using trimethylaluminum and ozone as precursor and oxidant, respectively, and teaches that Al2O3 films may be deposited at low temperature, including temperatures as low as about 100 °C, with reasonable dielectric properties suitable for thin-film applications. See Kim et al., abstract; Experimental; Results and Discussion. Kim et al. further teaches that ALD is suitable for forming thin, controlled-thickness oxide films. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Irwin, Huang and Kim, because Kim teaches that the films grown at a temperature as low as 100 C are suitable as gate dielectric of low-temperature poly-Si thin-film transistors on plastic substrates in a flexible display and a passivation layer of organic light-emitting diode to improve the long-term stability of the device. (abstract) Accordingly, the further limitations of claims 2–7 would have been obvious in view of the broad perovskite composition teachings of Irwin et al. and Huang et al., combined with the encapsulation/passivation approach described above. Irwin further teaches: 2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the perovskite is a 3D perovskite or a 2D perovskite. 3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the perovskite is of formula (I) or formula (II): ABX₃ formula (I); A₂BX₄, formula (II); wherein A is an organic cation, wherein B is a metal ion, and wherein X is a halide. (para 62, 77) 4. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein A is an alkyl ammonium cation. (para 48, 77) 5. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 3, wherein A is a methyl ammonium cation. (para 48, 77) 6. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein B is Pb²⁺ or Sn²⁺. (para 18, 22) 7. (Original) The method of claim 3, wherein X is selected from the group consisting of I-, Br⁻, and Cl⁻. (para 58) 8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the oxide is selected from the group consisting of Al2O₃, SnO₂, TiO2, and ZnO; and wherein the nitride is selected from the group consisting of Si₃N₄ and TiN. (para 35,38) It would have been obvious to select these known oxide materials for use in the claimed encapsulation/passivation layer because such materials were known in the art as useful semiconductor and interfacial materials for perovskite-based devices. 10. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising disposing a third film on the second film, wherein the third film comprises a second nitride or a second oxide. (para 38) It would have been obvious to select these known oxide materials for use in the claimed encapsulation/passivation layer because such materials were known in the art as useful semiconductor and interfacial materials for perovskite-based devices. In regards to claim 12, Irwin teaches: providing a first film comprising a perovskite (2616); and depositing a first oxide or a first nitride (2627) on a surface of the first film to form on the surface of the first film (2616) a second film (2627) comprising the first oxide or the first nitride; wherein the perovskite is of formula (I) or formula (II)- ABX₃ formula (I), A₂BX₄, formula (II); wherein A is an alkyl ammonium cation, wherein B is a metal ion selected from the group consisting of Pb²⁺ and Sn²⁺, and wherein X is a halide. See figures 3, 11, para 22, 32, 35, 58, and 77 Irwin fails to teach: wherein the second film has a thickness of about 3 nm to about 10 nm. Huang teaches: 12. (Previously Presented) A method of encapsulation, the method comprising: providing a first film comprising a perovskite (30); and depositing a first oxide or a first nitride on a surface of the first film to form on the surface of the first film a second film comprising the first oxide or the first nitride, wherein the perovskite is of formula (I) or formula (II)- ABX₃ formula (I), A₂BX₄, formula (II); wherein A is an alkyl ammonium cation, wherein B is a metal ion selected from the group consisting of Pb²⁺ and Sn²⁺, and wherein X is a halide. Huang does not specifically teach: wherein the second film has a thickness of about 3 nm to about 10 nm. In regards, to the thickness, Haung teaches: The passivation layer 40 should generally have a thickness of between about 1 nm and about 30 nm (para 13) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Irwin and Huang fail to teach depositing via atomic film deposition. Kim teaches: Low Temperature ( < 100 ° C ) Deposition of Aluminum Oxide Thin Films by ALD with O as Oxidant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Irwin, Huang and Kim, because Kim teaches that the films grown at a temperature as low as 100 C showed reasonable dielectric properties for dielectric film applications on flexible substrates. (abstract) Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, Huang and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al, WO 2015137324 A1. The above references fail to teach: 9. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising contacting the surface of the film comprising the perovskite with a vapor comprising 2- mercaptoethanol prior to the depositing of the oxide or the nitride on the surface of the film comprising the perovskite. Nakaumara teaches: The crystal growth controlling agent according to the present invention comprises at least one sulfur-containing compound selected from the group consisting of a compound that generates a thiolate anion. Specific examples of the thiol compound include thioglycerol, 2-mercaptoethano. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further include a pretreatment step contacting the perovskite surface with 2-mercaptoethanol prior to deposition of the oxide or nitride layer, because Nakamura et al. teaches that sulfur-containing thiol compounds, including 2-mercaptoethanol, can interact with and modify semiconductor surfaces through thiolate coordination and crystal-growth control. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a pretreatment could be used to modify the perovskite surface prior to subsequent thin-film deposition, particularly in view of the known benefits of surface treatment and passivation of perovskite layers taught by Huang et al. and the conformal deposition of thin oxide layers taught by Kim et al. The proposed modification would have been a predictable use of a known surface-modifying thiol compound in a known layered semiconductor processing sequence. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin US 20150144196 A1and Huang et al, US 11335513 B2 in view of Kim et al, Low Temperature ( < 100 ° C ) Deposition of Aluminum Oxide Thin Films by ALD with O as Oxidant, Published 8 March 2006 • © 2006 ECS - The Electrochemical Society Journal of The Electrochemical Society, Volume 153, Number 5 and further in view of Fang et al, CN 114188486 The above references fail to teach: 11. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein (i) before, (ii) after, or (iii) before and after the depositing of the oxide or the nitride, the film comprising the perovskite is not thermally annealed. Fang teaches: 11. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein (i) before, (ii) after, or (111) before and after the depositing of the oxide or the nitride, the film comprising the perovskite is not thermally annealed. (para 100,118,142,150) See previously cited machine translation It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the perovskite device structures of Irwin et al. and Huang et al. to employ the low-temperature ALD oxide deposition technique of Kim et al. and the ozone-activated perovskite coating approach of Fang et al., because the references collectively teach that perovskite materials are sensitive to thermal processing, that direct surface passivation and oxide encapsulation improve device stability, and that low-temperature ALD permits formation of a conformal oxide layer without the need for harsh thermal treatment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that omitting thermal annealing before, after, or both before and after oxide or nitride deposition would be an obvious and desirable modification when applying ALD and surface-passivation techniques to thermally sensitive perovskite materials, in order to preserve the integrity of the perovskite film and maintain the benefits of the enc Accordingly, claim 11 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Irwin et al., Huang et al., Kim et al., and Fang et al. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A J NISKANEN et al, CN 104046955 B teaches: . Abstract The name of the invention is used in low-temperature Si precursor deposition of SiN. provided for by atomic layer deposition (ALD) to deposit a silicon nitride film method and precursor. In some embodiments, the silicon precursor comprises iodine ligand. When deposited on the three-dimensional structure such as FinFET or other type of multi-grid electrode of the FET, silicon nitride film having relatively uniform in the vertical average of the etch rate on the horizontal part. In some embodiments, thermal oxide removal rate using dilute HF (0.5%) etching rate of the various smaller than half of a silicon nitride film. Li et al, “Method for Aluminum Oxide Thin Films Prepared through Low Temperature Atomic Layer Deposition for Encapsulating Organic Electroluminescent Devices”, Materials 2015, 8, 600-610 teaches: Low temperature ALD of oxides for encapsulation. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEBENTRITT whose telephone number is (571)272-1873. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Mon- Fri 8:30 am- 6 pm. 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571)272-1236. 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. MICHAEL . LEBENTRITT Primary Examiner Art Unit 2893 /MICHAEL LEBENTRITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Feb 16, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 01, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Sep 01, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12751015
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEM INCLUDING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745434
FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTOR CRESCENT-SHAPED DIELECTRIC ISOLATION
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12745647
HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSISTOR
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740427
RF AMPLIFIERS WITH IMPROVED STABILITY BY SOURCE INDUCTANCE ADJUSTMENT
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12727326
DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
3y 10m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+6.2%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1014 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month