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 .
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.
Claim(s) 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanatzidis in US20160211083.
Regarding Claim 58-59: The instant claims are set forth in terms of product by process limitations. Product by process limitations are given patentable weight based on the implications of the process on the product made and not to the actual manipulations as set forth in the claims. The instant claim sets forth a film that is made by a process of forming said film from solution in a manner of claim 1 and precipitating the AMX material in said film. The product-by-process limitations are noted for including a hydrohalic acid in the organic solution (See step a). Zhong does not teach the presence of such an acid; however, as the claims are in terms of a dried film, such a film would not contain solvents or acids. Kanatzidis teaches the creation of the same film as set forth and its incorporation into a photovoltaic device, such as a solar cell (See Example 8 and 12-13). In the solar cells of Kanatzidis, the AMX material is an A2MX6 perovskite wherein A is Cs, M is Sn and X is a mixture of halides (See Table 9). This solar cell is of the same composition and structure as claimed and meets all of the implications of the product-by-process limitations as set forth.
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 nonobviousness.
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(s) 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in WO2016180364 (wherein US20180298278 is cited herein as an English language equivalent; IDS 5/19/25).
Regarding Claim 58-59: The instant claims are set forth in terms of product by process limitations. Product by process limitations are given patentable weight based on the implications of the process on the product made and not to the actual manipulations as set forth in the claims. The instant claim sets forth a film that is made by a process of forming said film from solution in a manner of claim 1 and precipitating the AMX material in said film. The film of Zhong contains quantum dots of said AMX material and Zhong obviates the precipitation and grown in a film form through the drying process (See Paragraph 15, 38, and 155). The product-by-process limitations are noted for including a hydrohalic acid in the organic solution (See step a). Zhong does not teach the presence of such an acid; however, as the claims are in terms of a dried film, such a film would not contain solvents or acids. Thus the film according to Zhong is of the same composition and structure as that which is claimed and obviates all of the implications of the claimed material as it is a thin film created through a deposition process on a substrate. Zhong teaches that such a film may be provided in a photovoltaic device or solar cell, obviating the creation of the claimed device (See Paragraph 60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-40 and 42-57 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims are allowable over the art of record. The closest prior art is Zhong or Kanatzidis, which teach the creation a film containing a crystalline AMX material using both organic and aqueous solvents with particular precursors. The method of the prior art precipitates the particles into a film. The claimed method includes the use of hydrohalic acids (like HF, HCl, etc) in the organic solvent containing the element M. The prior art to Zhong or Kanatzidis teach the addition of the component M in an organic solvent and teaches the addition of a hydrohalic acid, such as hydroiodic acid, in the aqueous solution containing the element A, but do not teach that the organic solvent further contains a hydrohalic acid. Those of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to arbitrarily use these acids in the organic solution based on the art of record.
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
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 2/9/26, with respect to the rejections under USC 112, ODP, and the rejections under USC 102 and 103 over claims 30-40 and 42-57 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections of the claims have been withdrawn on the basis set forth by applicant.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 in terms of the rejection of claims 58-59 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Instant claims 58-59 are drawn to a product created by the process of allowed claim 30. Product by process limitations are given patentable weight based on the implications of the process on the product made and not to the actual manipulations as set forth in the claims. The prior art teaches films that are materially the same as those claimed and devices containing said films. The prior art does not teach the presence of such an acid in the process of making such a film; however, as the claims are in terms of a dried film, such a film would not contain solvents or acids. Thus the film according to the prior art is of the same composition and structure as that which is claimed and meets all of the implications of the claimed material as it is a thin film created through a deposition process on a substrate. No particular argument is made in terms of the subject matter of claim 58-59 other than its reference to claim 30.
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 MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights