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 .
Drawings
The petition for the acceptance of color drawings has been granted. Applicants have meet all of the requirements for the acceptance of color drawings.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification teaches “a printable pattern comprising a film of the hydrochromic halide perovskite”. The meaning of this phrase is unclear since the term “printable pattern” means a pattern that can be produced by printing. Thus the phrase means the pattern has not yet been produced. Since the pattern has not yet been produced, it cannot comprise a film. Thus it is unclear if applicants are teachings a printed pattern comprising a film of the hydrochromic halide perovksite or a printable composition comprising the hydrochromic halide perovksite which can form a pattern comprising a film of the hydrochromic halide perovskite.
The specification teaches a hydrochromic halide perovskite comprising a CsxTbyFz doped with an lanthanide ion dopant which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under UV excitation. Page 3 teaches there can be a rare earth codopant in addition to the lanthanide ion dopant. The only hydrochromic halide perovskites disclosed in the specification as having these properties are Cs3TbF6:Eu, Cs3TbF6:Eu,Y and (Cs3-xRbx)TbF6:1 mol% Eu, where x is 0.6-3. It is unclear what other values of x, y and z and what other lanthanide ions and rare earth co-dopant ion, when present, applicants contemplated so as to produce a hydrochromic halide perovskite which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under UV excitation.
Page 3, lines 13-15 teaches that the water absorption ability of the Eu+3 doped CsxTbyFz can be adjusted. The only method of adjusting the water absorption ability of this compound is to alloy the cesium with rubidium, which forms Eu+3 doped (Cs,Rb)xTbyFz. It is unclear what other methods applicants contemplated to adjust the water absorption ability of the Eu+3 doped CsxTbyFz.
The specification appears to use the term “annealing” when referring to the temperature at which the halide perovskite is produced from the halide perovskite precursor mixture, based on the examples. The term “annealing” in the luminescent art means a heating step in an atmosphere such that ion state of all the dopant ions is changed to the desired ion state. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of the specification contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The specification does not clearly redefine the term :annealing” and sets forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that the term.
Finally, in lines 2-3 on page 4, the ratios should be 3:0.89:6:0.01:0.1 and 3:0.29:6:0.01:0.7 to match the teachings on page 15, lines 11-12 and in claim 24. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: A space should be between “0.1” and “to”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9-11, 14, 16-21, 23, 25 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The ratios of Cs:Rb:Tb:Tb:F in claim 26 are not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed ratio include a sixth value of “0.1” which is nowhere taught in the specification.
Claims 10 and 12 teach the hydrochromic halide perovskite can have and has the formula CsTb2F7, but the specification teaches the composition having this formula is not a perovskite in lines 16-17 on page 11. Claim 11 includes all the limitations of claim 10 and thus implicitly teaches the hydrochromic halide perovskite can have the formula CsTb2F7. Based on the teachings on page 11, the specification clearly does not teach this claimed embodiment.
Claim 1 teaches a hydrochromic halide perovskite comprising a CsxTbyFz doped with an lanthanide ion dopant which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under UV excitation. Claim 9 teaches a hydrochromic halide perovskite comprising a CsxTbyFz codoped with an lanthanide ion dopant and a rare earth metal ion which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under UV excitation. The only hydrochromic halide perovskites disclosed in the specification as having these properties are Cs3TbF6:Eu, and Cs3TbF6:Eu,Y. There are no other values of x, y and z bedsides x=1, y=1 and z=6 and no other lanthanide ions and rare earth co-dopant ions beside Eu+3 and Y+3 disclosed in the specification. There is no indication in the specification that applicants contemplated any other x, y and z values, lanthanide ions and rare earth ions which would produce a hydrochromic halide perovskite which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under UV excitation. These two compositions do not show applicants had possession of the entire scope of the claimed composition. A specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. Here one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understand that the inventor had invented, and was in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected since they include all the issues of claim 1. Claims 17, 18, 21, 23 and 25 are rejected since while they limit the dopants to Eu+3 and Y+3, they do not define the x, y and z values for the hydrochromic halide perovskite of claim 1.
Claim 14 teaches the water absorption ability of the Eu+3 doped CsxTbyFz can be adjusted. The only method of adjusting the water absorption ability of this compound is to alloy the cesium with rubidium, which forms Eu+3 doped (Cs,Rb)3TbF6. It is no indication applicants contemplated any other method of adjusting the water absorption ability of the Eu+3 doped Cs3TbF6. This single method does not show applicants had possession of the entire scope of claimed method. A specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand inventor to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. Here one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understand that the inventor had invented, and was in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed.
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 1, 9-12, and 14-27 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.
Claims 1, 9, 17 and 18 are indefinite since the variables x, y and z are not defined. Claims 16, 19-21, 23, 25 and 27, which include all the limitations of claim 1, are also indefinite for failing to define these variables.
Claims 10 and 11 teach the perovskite halide can have the formula CsTb2F7, CsTb2F6, CdTbF6, CdTbF7, Cs3TbF6, Cs3TbF7, Cs3Tb2F6, and Cs3Tb2F7. The only formula which is a perovskite halide is Cs3TbF6. CsTb2F7 is a non-perovskite halide. CsTb2F6, CdTbF6, CdTbF7, Cs3TbF7, Cs3Tb2F6, and Cs3Tb2F7 are all non-stoichiometric non-perovskite halides. Since only one of the possible formulas is a perovskite halide. These claims are indefinite.
Claim 12 teaches the perovskite halide has the formula CsTb2F7. CsTb2F7 is a non-perovskite halide and thus the claim is indefinite.
The formula in claim 14, which depends from claim 6, and the first formula in claim 15, which depends from claim 14, are incorrect which means the claims are indefinite. The formula in claim 14 and the first formula in claim 15 should be Cs3TbF6, as taught in claim 6.
Claims 16-18 teach a printable pattern comprising a film of the hydrochromic halide perovskite. This phrase is unclear and makes the claims indefinite since the phrase means the pattern has not yet been produced and accordingly cannot comprise a film.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “annealing” in claims 19-27 is used by the claim to mean “the temperature at which the halide perovskite is produced from the halide perovskite precursor mixture,” while the accepted meaning is “a heating step in an atmosphere such that ion state of all the dopant ions is changed to the desired ion state.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The amount of Tb in the first ratio of claim 24 is incorrect which makes the claimed indefinite. It should be 0.89.
Claim 26 is indefinite since it teaches six molar amounts given in each ratio when there are only five elements (Cs, Rb, Tb, F and Eu) listed. This claim is also indefinite since it teaches that the molar amount of Cs can be 0, but the claimed process produces the perovskite of claim 1 which must include cesium, as per the claimed formula.
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 1-7 and 9-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by the Chen et al article.
Since this article lists other authors in addition to the inventor, it is not be readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. Accordingly, the article is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), until there is evidence of record that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies.
This article teaches a hydrochromic halide perovskite of Cs3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3, which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under 377 nm and 393 nm excitation. The article teaches the halide perovskite of Cs3TbF6, which is the pristine state, undergoes transformation to the wet state CsTb2F7 and that the transformation time, as defined as the time when transformation is 90% complete, is 20 msec. Figure 1(a) should that the optical emission of the taught perovskite changes from green at 377 nm to red at 393 nm. Figure 3(c) shows that the emission under 365 nm excitation of the Eu+3 doped halide perovskite of Cs3TbF6 changes from green to orange with a change in the amount of Eu+3. Thus the taught perovskite meets the requirements of claims 1-7 and 13.
The article teaches the Cs3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3 perovskite is produced by providing a mixture of CsCO3, TbF3, NH4F and EuF3 in a molar ratio of 3:0.99:6:0.01, grinding the mixture and heating the mixture at 300oC for 2 hours. This is the process of claims 19-22 and 27.
The article teaches changing the hydrochromic response time by producing Rb alloyed Cs3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3 which has a lower water absorption than the unalloyed Cs3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3. This teachings anticipates the limitations of claims 14 and 15. The article teaches Rb3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3 and the EXPERIMENTAL METHODS section indicates all the dopant samples were produced by the method used to produce Cs3TbF6:Eu. Thus the article appears to teach producing Rb3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3 by providing a mixture of RbCO3, TbF3, NH4F and EuF3 in a molar ratio of 3:0.99:6:0.01, grinding the mixture and heating the mixture at 300oC for 2 hours. This ratio corresponds with the claimed ratio of Cs:Rb:Tb:F:Eu of 0:3:0.99:6:0.01. This process is that of claims 19-21 and 25-27.
The articles also teaches the Cs3TbF6: Eu+3 perovskite can be codoped with Y+3 and figure 3 shows that the amounts of each of Eu+3 and Y+3 can change the emission under UV excitation. Figure 3 shows that concentration of Eu+3 is 1-30 mol% and the concentration of Y+3 is 0 mol% or 10-70 mol% when the amount of Eu+3 is 1 mol%. These amounts fall within that of claim 11 and these teachings anticipate the subject matter of claims 9 and 10. Figure 32(c) shows that the emission under 365 nm excitation of the wet state Eu+3 and Y+3 doped halide perovskite of CsTb2F7 changes from orange to green by adjusting the concentration of the Eu+3 and Y+3 dopants. Thus the articles teaches the subject matter of claim 12 The EXPERIMENTAL METHODS section indicates all the dopant samples were produced by the method used to produce Cs3TbF6:Eu. Thus the article teaches producing Cs3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3, M% Y3+ by providing a mixture of CsCO3, TbF3, NH4F, EuF3 and YF3 in a molar ratio of 3:0.89:6:0.01:0.1 to 3:0.29:6:0.01:0.7, grinding the mixture and heating the mixture at 300oC for 2 hours. This process is that of claims 19-24 and 27.
Figure 4(c) teaches a printed pattern comprising a film comprising a first layer comprising Cs3TbF6:1 mol% Eu+3, a second layer comprising Cs3TbF6:1 mol%Eu+3,70mol%Y+3, and a third layer comprising Cs3TbF6:1mol%Eu+3,40 mol%Y+3. Figure 4(g) teaches a printed pattern comprising a film comprising a second layer comprising Cs3TbF6, and a first layer comprising Cs3TbF6:Eu+3. These patterns read upon that of claims 16-18. The article clearly anticipates the claimed perovskite, pattern and process.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chen et al article.
As discussed above, this article teaches a hydrochromic halide perovskite of Cs3TbF6: Eu+3, which exhibits a water-inducted reversible phase transformation between the pristine state and the wet state and reversible change in optical emission under UV excitation. The article does not discuss the change in emission of the taught perovskite when excited at 393 nm as the amount of europium dopant changes. Since the article does show that the emission changes as the amount of europium dopant in Cs3TbF6 changes and the taught perovskite is identical to that claimed; one of ordinary skill would expect the taught Cs3TbF6: Eu+3 perovskite to inherently exhibit the emission change of claim 8, when excited at about 393 nm as the amount of europium changes, absent any showing to the contrary.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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 at 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
3/6/26