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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election of Group I, claims 1-12 was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 19, 2025. However, in reviewing closely the prior art relied upon in the lack of unity restriction, it is now determined that the prior art does not actually teach, nor can it be said to be inherent, the common technical feature as previously asserted and as such, the Groups are rejoined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected because the use of the parenthesis renders the scope unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the elements listed in the parenthesis are actually being positively recited in the claim or whether the listed elements are merely examples of what the material recited materials could be.
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are also rejected because they each use the phrase “preferably” after a broader listing of elements in parenthesis which is a narrow limitation together with a broad limitation.
Note that a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While the closest prior art of record (see ISR, IDSs and references cited herein) may teach or suggest laminated perovskites (ABO3) films, upon close review the prior art does not actually teach or suggest the specific film stack claimed meeting the compositional requirements claimed.
Initially note that the ISR, as well as the previous lack of unity restriction requirement, correctly indicated that the closest prior art of record was that of Document D1 in the ISR which does teach a first TCO perovskite layer meeting the claimed formula laminated to a third transparent wide-bandgap semiconductor perovskite layer meeting the claimed formula, however the art does not actually teach an intervening second layer having a formula with the requirements claimed. While the ISR and restriction requirement attempted to assert such a second layer to be implicit due to unavoidable intermixing during pulsed laser deposition and pointed to a NPL document (VIII.5 in ISR) to support the assertion, upon close review of the art, asserting that a second layer of the required formula requirements to be implicit would be improper.
Initially, regardless of whether or not intermixing occurs in the NPL document, note that the NPL document is experimenting with, and discussing interfaces of specific material combinations which are different than that used in D1 and simply because the material combination used in the NPL document may result in certain interfaces when deposited according to their method does not necessarily mean, nor can it reasonably be concluded with certainty, that a completely different material combination would have the same results. For instance, while perovskites may all generally have the formula ABO3, depending on the elements of A and B used, they have different properties (i.e. melting points, etc.) and therefore, one cannot say for certain that the same results of intermixing will occur even if deposited similarly or at the same temperatures. Further, even if one attempted to assert intermixing and possible intermixing does occur, note that claim 1 requires the second layer to be a specific formula with specific stoichiometry requirements and there is nothing in either reference that would clearly suggest that the specific formula requirements and stoichiometry will necessarily result.
Additionally, while there are other references cited (IDSs and references cited herein) that may also similarly disclose or suggest a first TCO perovskite layer meeting the claimed formula laminated to a third transparent wide-bandgap semiconductor perovskite layer meeting the claimed formula and may even mention interface characteristics, the references also do not clearly teach specifically a second intervening layer having the specific formula requirements and stoichiometry required by claim 1.
Note that the closest prior art that teaches a resulting second layer having the specific formula requirements and stoichiometry is that of Willmott et al. (see “Structural Basis for the Conducting Interface between LaAlO3 and SrTiO3” cited by Applicants, pg. 155502-3 Col. 2, par 1-2 discussing a resulting intervening second layer La1-xSrxTiO3 with x=0.86, 0.17, 0.1 and 0.05 to 0.95), however, the first perovskite layer used in Willmott in the production of Willmott’s second layer is not a TCO which is a requirement of the claim. Instead, Willmott’s first layer requires LaAlO3 which is an insulator in the art, completely different in functionality than a TCO, and there is nothing to reasonably conclude it would have been obvious to replace an insulator with a TCO perovskite without undermining the required insulator objectives of Willmott nor is there anything in the art to conclude that even if one were to attempt to replace such an insulator with that of a TCO perovskite, that the required second layer would still be produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784