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
Claims 20-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1, on which claims 2-6 depend, introduces "double perovskite nanocrystals". Subsequently, claims 2-6 refer back to them as "the double perovskite nanomaterial" as opposed to "nanocrystal". Nanocrystals are understood to be nanomaterials. For consistency, examiner recommends changing "nanomaterial" to "nanocrystal" so that it is clear that dependent claims 2-6 are referencing the same double perovskite nanocrystals of claim 1 as opposed to "nanomaterial". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 4-5 and 9-13 use the term “about” when referring to length ranges (claims 4-5) or when referring to peak wavelength emission (claims 9-13). Per paragraph [0021] of the instant specification, “about” means 10% deviation from the stated value.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dong et al (CN114410304A).
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses a rare earth-based lead-free double perovskite nanocrystal of formula: Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln (equivalent to “B” of the instant application) is any one or more of “La, Ce, Sm, Eu, Tb, Er, Yb” and X is any of Cl, Br, or I. In this case, Na is “A” of the instant application, an alkali metal. Therefore, Dong teaches the claimed “Double perovskite nanocrystals represented by the formula Cs2ABX6, wherein: A is an alkali metal; B is one or more lanthanide selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; and X is a halide selected from Br, Cl, or I”.
Regarding claim 2, Dong teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. Furthermore, in Figs. 7a and 7d (see embodiments 1-6), Dong discloses PLQY and luminescent properties of the nanomaterial when X is Cl (Cs2NaLnCl6). Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein X is Cl”.
Regarding claim 3, Dong teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. Furthermore, Dong teaches examples whereby Na is always included as “the alkali metal”. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein the alkali metal is Na”.
Regarding claim 4, Dong teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. In Fig. 3, Dong provides a TEM image of Cs2NaLnCl6 nanocrystals which have a “monodisperse four-square shape”, thus in 3D are cuboid in morphology. Dong also teaches that the size of these nanocrystals is about 11-12nm. Thus, if they are square or cuboid, the size would correspond to the edge length. Therefore, the edge lengths are 11-12nm. Dong teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein the nanocrystals have a cuboid morphology and an edge length from about 5 to about 20 nm”.
Regarding claim 5, Dong teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 4. Furthermore, Dong discloses edge lengths of 11-12nm for the Cs2NaLnCl6 nanocrystals as described in the rejection of claim 4. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 4, wherein the edge length is from about 7.5 to about 15 nm”.
Regarding claim 6, Dong teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. Furthermore, in examples 8-9, Dong teaches inclusion of both Tb and Eu at specific ratios for Ln in their disclosed formula (Cs2NaTbEuCl6). Therefore, Dong teaches an alloy comprising a plurality of lanthanides. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein the nanomaterial is an alloy comprising a plurality of lanthanides”.
Regarding claim 7, Dong discloses a rare earth-based lead-free double perovskite nanocrystal of formula: Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln (equivalent to “B” of the instant application) is any one or more of “La, Ce, Sm, Eu, Tb, Er, Yb” and X is any of Cl, Br, or I. In this case, Na is “A” of the instant application, an alkali metal. Further, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “A light emitting material comprising a material comprising double perovskite nanocrystals represented by the formula Cs2ABX6, wherein: A is an alkali metal; B is one or more lanthanide selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; and X is a halide selected from Br, Cl, or I”.
Regarding claim 14, Dong teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. Further, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal (thus the double perovskite nanocrystals are alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides) as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein the double perovskite nanocrystals are alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides”.
Regarding claim 15, Dong discloses a rare earth-based lead-free double perovskite nanocrystal of formula: Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln (equivalent to “B” of the instant application) is any one or more of “La, Ce, Sm, Eu, Tb, Er, Yb” and X is any of Cl, Br, or I. In this case, Na is “A” of the instant application, an alkali metal. Further, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10). Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “A light emitting device comprising a light emitting material comprising double perovskite nanocrystals represented by the formula Cs2ABX6, wherein: A is an alkali metal; B is one or more lanthanide selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; and X is a halide selected from Br, Cl, or I”.
Regarding claim 16, Dong teaches the light emitting device of claim 15. Furthermore, in the aforementioned examples, Dong provides the nanocrystal into a light emitting device whereby the device is a white light emitting diode. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the device is a light emitting diode”.
Regarding claim 19, Dong teaches the light emitting device of claim 15. Furthermore, in the aforementioned examples, Dong provides the nanocrystal as an alloy comprising a plurality of lanthanides. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the double perovskite nanocrystals are alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides”.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Du et al (CN111453758A)
Regarding claim 1, Du discloses in paragraph [0041] a perovskite nanocrystal of generic formula AaA’a’RbR’b’R’’b’’XcX’c’ whereby “A and A' are respectively selected from one or more combinations of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, Au, Hg and Tl positive monovalent ion; R, R ' and R " are selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd, Sn, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Ir, Cu, Ru, Ti, Tl, In, Ga, Sb, Bi, Nb, Ta, V, Zr, W, Mo, W, Re, one or two or more than two of Sc, Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu positive bivalent, positive trivalent or positive quadrivalent ion; X and X ' are respectively selected from one or two or more than two combinations of F, Cl, Br and I”. a and a’ are between 0 and 3. b, b’, and b’’ are between 0 and 2. c and c’ are between 0 and 9. The sum of a and a’, the sums of b, b’, and b’’, and the sum of c and c’ is between 1 and 3, 1 and 2, and 3 and 9, respectively. Furthermore, Du discloses in embodiment 3 preparation of rare earth halide perovskite Cs2NaTbCl6 (thus A = Na, B = Tb, and X = Cl). Thus, Du teaches the claimed “Double perovskite nanocrystals represented by the formula Cs2ABX6, wherein: A is an alkali metal; B is one or more lanthanide selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; and X is a halide selected from Br, Cl, or I”.
Regarding claim 2, Du teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. Du discloses in embodiment 3 preparation of rare earth halide perovskite Cs2NaTbCl6 (thus A = Na, B = Tb, and X = Cl). Thus, Du teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein X is Cl”.
Regarding claim 3, Du teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. Du discloses in embodiment 3 preparation of rare earth halide perovskite Cs2NaTbCl6 (thus A = Na, B = Tb, and X = Cl). Thus, Du teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein the alkali metal is Na”.
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.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al (CN114410304A).
Regarding claim 8, Dong teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. In embodiments 1-6, Dong provides a light emitting nanocrystal Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln is La, Ce, Sm, Eu, Tb, Er or Yb (Figs. 3-5). Although Dong does not specifically teach a light emitting material comprising a material comprising such nanocrystals, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. Additionally, Dong discloses that nanocrystals with solely Tb or solely Eu emit light at 545 nm (green) and 617 nm (red), respectively. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the perovskite nanocrystal composition of the white light emitting material for any other disclosed nanocrystal composition as known alternative sources to prepare a light emitting material to emit light of a desired wavelength. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein the material luminesces at a wavelength ranging from 260 to 1550 nm”.
Regarding claim 10, Dong teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. In embodiments 1-6, Dong provides a light emitting nanocrystal Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln is Tb (Figs. 3-7). Dong teaches that such nanocrystal emits light at 545 nm (green). Although Dong does not specifically teach a light emitting material comprising a material comprising such nanocrystals, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the perovskite nanocrystal composition of the white light emitting material for the Tb-based nanocrystal composition as a known alternative source to prepare a light emitting material to emit green light. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Tb, and the material has a peak emission from about 540 nm to about 560 nm”.
Regarding claim 11, Dong teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. In embodiments 1-6, Dong provides a light emitting nanocrystal Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln is Sm (Figs. 3-7). Dong does not disclose the emission peak for such a composition. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified perovskite nanocrystalline materials to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. Although Dong does not specifically teach a light emitting material comprising a material comprising such nanocrystals, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the perovskite nanocrystal composition of the white light emitting material for the Sm-based composition as a known alternative source to prepare a light emitting material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Sm, and the material has a peak emission from about 590 nm to about 610 nm”.
Regarding claim 12, Dong teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. In embodiments 1-6, Dong provides a light emitting nanocrystal Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln is Yb (Figs. 3-7). Dong does not disclose the emission peak for such a composition. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified perovskite nanocrystalline materials to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. Although Dong does not specifically teach a light emitting material comprising a material comprising such nanocrystals, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the perovskite nanocrystal composition of the white light emitting material for the Yb-based composition as a known alternative source to prepare a light emitting material and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Yb, and the material has a peak emission from about 990 nm to about 1000 nm.”.
Regarding claim 13, Dong teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. In embodiments 1-6, Dong provides a light emitting nanocrystal Cs2NaLnX6 whereby Ln is Eu (Figs. 3-7). Dong teaches that such nanocrystal emits light at 617 nm (red). Although Dong does not specifically teach a light emitting material comprising a material comprising such nanocrystals, in examples 8-9, Dong provides a Cs2NaTbEuCl6 nanocrystal as a light emitting rare earth material implemented into a white light emitting device (Fig. 10), which is considered a light emitting material. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the perovskite nanocrystal composition of the white light emitting material for the Eu-based nanocrystal composition as a known alternative source to prepare a light emitting material to emit red light. Thus, Dong teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Eu, and the material has a peak emission from about 600 nm to about 620 nm”.
Claims 6-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al (CN111453758A).
Regarding claim 6, Du teaches the double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1. Du discloses in paragraph [0041] a perovskite nanocrystal of generic formula AaA’a’RbR’b’R’’b’’XcX’c’ whereby “A and A' are respectively selected from one or more combinations of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, Au, Hg and Tl positive monovalent ion; R, R ' and R " are selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd, Sn, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Ir, Cu, Ru, Ti, Tl, In, Ga, Sb, Bi, Nb, Ta, V, Zr, W, Mo, W, Re, one or two or more than two of Sc, Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu positive bivalent, positive trivalent or positive quadrivalent ion; X and X ' are respectively selected from one or two or more than two combinations of F, Cl, Br and I”. a and a’ are between 0 and 3. b, b’, and b’’ are between 0 and 2. c and c’ are between 0 and 9. The sum of a and a’, the sums of b, b’, and b’’, and the sum of c and c’ is between 1 and 3, 1 and 2, and 3 and 9, respectively. Thus, the formula provided by Du provides enough overlapping elements and amounts of elements to arrive at the double perovskite nanocrystals as claimed (Cs2ABX6, whereby B is an alloy comprising a plurality of lanthanides). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Du teaches embodiment 4 whereby Cs2NaY0.6Tb0.25Ho0.15Cl6 is prepared, thus case whereby B is an alloy comprising a plurality of lanthanides. However, Y does not overlap with the claimed limitation of B. Regardless, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute Y with any of the overlapping disclosed lanthanides as known alternative lanthanides for preparing a double perovskite nanocrystal and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Du teaches the claimed “The double perovskite nanomaterial of claim 1, wherein the nanomaterial is an alloy comprising a plurality of lanthanides”.
Regarding claim 7, Du discloses in paragraph [0041] a perovskite of generic formula AaA’a’RbR’b’R’’b’’XcX’c’ whereby “A and A' are respectively selected from one or more combinations of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, Au, Hg and Tl positive monovalent ion; R, R ' and R " are selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd, Sn, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Ir, Cu, Ru, Ti, Tl, In, Ga, Sb, Bi, Nb, Ta, V, Zr, W, Mo, W, Re, one or two or more than two of Sc, Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu positive bivalent, positive trivalent or positive quadrivalent ion; X and X ' are respectively selected from one or two or more than two combinations of F, Cl, Br and I”. a and a’ are between 0 and 3. b, b’, and b’’ are between 0 and 2. c and c’ are between 0 and 9. The sum of a and a’, the sums of b, b’, and b’’, and the sum of c and c’ is between 1 and 3, 1 and 2, and 3 and 9, respectively. Thus, the formula provided by Du provides enough overlapping elements and amounts of elements to arrive at the double perovskite nanocrystals as claimed (Cs2ABX6). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, Du discloses in embodiment 3 preparation of rare earth halide perovskite Cs2NaTbCl6 (thus whereby A = Na, B = Tb, and X = Cl). Though Du only provides the perovskite as a nanocrystal, Du also broadly teaches that the perovskite can be provided as a material which can comprise a light emitting material such as a laser, a scintillator, lower conversion illumination, or up-conversion luminescent biological imaging material. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the prepared rare earth halide perovskite nanocrystal into a material which comprises a light emitting material as a known application of perovskite nanocrystals to produce a scintillator. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “A light emitting material comprising a material comprising double perovskite nanocrystals represented by the formula Cs2ABX6, wherein: A is an alkali metal; B is one or more lanthanide selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; and X is a halide selected from Br, Cl, or I”.
Regarding claim 8, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. Furthermore, in embodiment 3, Du prepares a rare earth halide perovskite of formula Cs2NaTbCl6 which emits the “characteristic peak of the rare earth Tb ion”. Under 380 nm UV lamp excitation, the emission peak is between 480nm and 700nm. Under a 365nm UV lamp, the compound emits “green light”. Thus, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein the material luminesces at a wavelength ranging from 260 to 1550 nm”.
Regarding claim 9, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. As described in the rejection of claim 7 above, Du broadly teaches that rare earth elements such as Pr can be included in their perovskite composition. In embodiment 3, Du provides Tb as the rare earth component. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to alternatively include Pr as a known substitute for a rare earth element to produce a light emitting material containing a rare earth halide perovskite and arrive at the invention as claimed. Though Du does not disclose the peak emission in the case for including Pr, this luminescent property is understood to be inherent to the included rare earth element of the perovskite composition. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified perovskite nanocrystalline materials to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. In embodiment 3, when including Tb, Du discloses that the material emits the “characteristic peak of the rare earth Tb ion”. Regardless, it is well understood in the art, that inclusion of a rare earth element into a composition, drives the peak emission of the composition to the emission of the included rare earth element. For instance, in embodiment 4, Du includes both Tb and Ho as rare earth elements, and the corresponding composition displays characteristic emission peaks of Tb and of Ho (Fig. 10). Thus, it would be expected that substitution of Tb for Pr entirely would drive emission towards the peak emission of Pr, and that arrival to the material formula as claimed (Cs2NaPrX6), would subsequently have peak emission “from about 260 nm to about 270 nm”. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Pr, and the material has a peak emission from about 260 nm to about 270 nm”.
Regarding claim 10, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. In embodiment 3, Du provides Tb as the rare earth component (Cs2NaTbCl6). Du discloses a peak emission of 540nm for this embodiment. Thus, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Tb, and the material has a peak emission from about 540 nm to about 560 nm”.
Regarding claim 11, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. As described in the rejections of claims 7 and 9 above, Du broadly teaches that rare earth elements such as Sm can be included in their perovskite composition. In embodiment 3, Du provides Tb as the rare earth component. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to alternatively include Sm as a known substitute for a rare earth element to produce a light emitting material containing a rare earth halide perovskite and arrive at the invention as claimed. Though Du does not disclose the peak emission in the case for including Sm, this luminescent property is understood to be inherent to the included rare earth element of the perovskite composition. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified perovskite nanocrystalline materials to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. In embodiment 3, when including Tb, Du discloses that the material emits the “characteristic peak of the rare earth Tb ion”. Regardless, it is well understood in the art, that inclusion of a rare earth element into a composition, drives the peak emission of the composition to the emission of the included rare earth element. For instance, in embodiment 4, Du includes both Tb and Ho as rare earth elements, and the corresponding composition displays characteristic emission peaks of Tb and of Ho (Fig. 10). Thus, it would be expected that substitution of Tb for Sm entirely would drive emission towards the peak emission of Sm, and that arrival to the material formula as claimed (Cs2NaSmX6), would subsequently have peak emission “from about 590 nm to about 610 nm”. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Sm, and the material has a peak emission from about 590 nm to about 610 nm”.
Regarding claim 12, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. As described in the rejections of claims 7 and 9 above, Du broadly teaches that rare earth elements such as Yb can be included in their perovskite composition. In embodiment 3, Du provides Tb as the rare earth component. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to alternatively include Yb as a known substitute for a rare earth element to produce a light emitting material containing a rare earth halide perovskite and arrive at the invention as claimed. Though Du does not disclose the peak emission in the case for including Yb, this luminescent property is understood to be inherent to the included rare earth element of the perovskite composition. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified perovskite nanocrystalline materials to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. In embodiment 3, when including Tb, Du discloses that the material emits the “characteristic peak of the rare earth Tb ion”. Regardless, it is well understood in the art, that inclusion of a rare earth element into a composition, drives the peak emission of the composition to the emission of the included rare earth element. For instance, in embodiment 4, Du includes both Tb and Ho as rare earth elements, and the corresponding composition displays characteristic emission peaks of Tb and of Ho (Fig. 10). Thus, it would be expected that substitution of Tb for Yb entirely would drive emission towards the peak emission of Yb, and that arrival to the material formula as claimed (Cs2NaYbX6), would subsequently have peak emission “from about 990 nm to about 1000 nm”. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Yb, and the material has a peak emission from about 990 nm to about 1000 nm.”.
Regarding claim 13, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. As described in the rejections of claims 7 and 9 above, Du broadly teaches that rare earth elements such as Eu can be included in their perovskite composition. In embodiment 3, Du provides Tb as the rare earth component. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to alternatively include Eu as a known substitute for a rare earth element to produce a light emitting material containing a rare earth halide perovskite and arrive at the invention as claimed. Though Du does not disclose the peak emission in the case for including Eu, this luminescent property is understood to be inherent to the included rare earth element of the perovskite composition. While the reference does not disclose the claimed properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the exemplified perovskite nanocrystalline materials to inherently have the claimed properties absent any showing to the contrary since they fall within the claimed composition. See MPEP2112.01II. In embodiment 3, when including Tb, Du discloses that the material emits the “characteristic peak of the rare earth Tb ion”. Regardless, it is well understood in the art, that inclusion of a rare earth element into a composition, drives the peak emission of the composition to the emission of the included rare earth element. For instance, in embodiment 4, Du includes both Tb and Ho as rare earth elements, and the corresponding composition displays characteristic emission peaks of Tb and of Ho (Fig. 10). Thus, it would be expected that substitution of Tb for Eu entirely would drive emission towards the peak emission of Yb, and that arrival to the material formula as claimed (Cs2NaEuX6), would subsequently have peak emission “from about 600 nm to about 620 nm”. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Eu, and the material has a peak emission from about 600 nm to about 620 nm”.
Regarding claim 14, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7. As described in the rejection of claim 7 above, the teachings of Du allow for a combination of lanthanides to compose the R, R’, and R’’ elements, thus “alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides”. In embodiment 4, Du teaches inclusion of Tb and Ho (Cs2NaY0.6Tb0.25Ho0.15Cl6) but also provides the element Y which is not commensurate in scope to the invention as claimed. The corresponding composition displays characteristic emission peaks of Tb (485-600nm) and of Ho (about 665nm, Fig. 10). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose any lanthanide alternative for Y provided by Du as obvious elemental substitutions or to wholly replace Y by including larger amounts of Tb or Ho in order to drive the emission of the corresponding material towards blue-green of Tb or red-orange of Ho, as informed by Du. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein the double perovskite nanocrystals are alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides”.
Regarding claim 15, as described in the rejection of claim 7, Du provides a light emitting material (scintillator, laser etc.) which comprises a perovskite of generic formula AaA’a’RbR’b’R’’b’’XcX’c’ whereby “A and A' are respectively selected from one or more combinations of Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Cu, Ag, Au, Hg and Tl positive monovalent ion; R, R ' and R " are selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Zn, Cd, Sn, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cr, Ir, Cu, Ru, Ti, Tl, In, Ga, Sb, Bi, Nb, Ta, V, Zr, W, Mo, W, Re, one or two or more than two of Sc, Y, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu positive bivalent, positive trivalent or positive quadrivalent ion; X and X ' are respectively selected from one or two or more than two combinations of F, Cl, Br and I”. a and a’ are between 0 and 3. b, b’, and b’’ are between 0 and 2. c and c’ are between 0 and 9. The sum of a and a’, the sums of b, b’, and b’’, and the sum of c and c’ is between 1 and 3, 1 and 2, and 3 and 9, respectively. Thus, the formula provided by Du provides enough overlapping elements and amounts of elements to arrive at the double perovskite nanocrystals as claimed (Cs2ABX6). Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Although Du does not specifically implement the material into a light emitting device, Du does teach that the material can be used in application for “light emitting field” and implemented into “lower conversion illumination, up-conversion luminescent biological imaging material, a laser material, a scintillator material”. Du teaches that a rare earth halide perovskite scintillator material “can emit light under the excitation of X-ray” and would thus be obvious to implement as a light emitting device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the perovskite nanocrystal into any of the disclosed devices as known applications of nanocrystals in producing a light emitting device such as a laser or scintillator. Thus, Du teaches the claimed “A light emitting device comprising a light emitting material comprising double perovskite nanocrystals represented by the formula Cs2ABX6, wherein: A is an alkali metal; B is one or more lanthanide selected from the group consisting of La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, and Yb; and X is a halide selected from Br, Cl, or I”.
Regarding claim 18, Du teaches the light emitting device of claim 15. Furthermore, Du teaches that the perovskite nanocrystal can be implemented into a laser material. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the nanocrystal into a laser material as a known application of perovskite nanocrystals to make a laser light emitting device. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the device is a laser”.
Regarding claim 19, Du teaches the light emitting device of claim 15. As described in the rejections of claims 7 and 14 above, the teachings of Du allow for a combination of lanthanides to compose the R, R’, and R’’ elements, thus “alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides”. In embodiment 4, Du teaches inclusion of Tb and Ho (Cs2NaY0.6Tb0.25Ho0.15Cl6) but also provides the element Y which is not commensurate in scope to the invention as claimed. The corresponding composition displays characteristic emission peaks of Tb (485-600nm) and of Ho (about 665nm, Fig. 10). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to choose any lanthanide alternative for Y provided by Du as obvious elemental substitutions or to wholly replace Y by including larger amounts of Tb or Ho in order to drive more of the emission of the corresponding material towards blue-green of Tb or red-orange of Ho, as informed by Du. Therefore, Du teaches the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the double perovskite nanocrystals are alloys comprising a plurality of lanthanides”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tanner et al (NPL: "Excitation and Emission Spectra of Cs2NaLnCl6 Crystals Using Synchrotron Radiation").
Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7 and allows for cases where “B” can be Sm in the perovskite nanocrystal but does not specifically disclose what the corresponding peak emission would be for that material. Analogously, Tanner teaches emission and excitation spectra of Cs2NaLnCl6 crystals and specifically the case where Ln is Sm (see Sm3+ section and Fig. 3). In Fig. 3c, Tanner shows that at temperatures of 10K and 298K, the Cs2NaSmCl6 crystal emits light at 604.5 nm and 600 nm (under 226.2 nm and 225 nm excitations), respectively. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute the Tb element for a known alternative of Sm, as informed by Tanner, in order to produce a perovskite nanocrystal with a deeper red emission into the 600 nm range. Thus, Du and Tanner teach the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Sm, and the material has a peak emission from about 590 nm to about 610 nm”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lee et al (NPL: "Colloidal Synthesis of Lead-Free Silver−Indium Double-Perovskite Cs2AgInCl6 Nanocrystals and Their Doping with Lanthanide Ions").
Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7 and allows for cases where “B” can be Yb in the perovskite nanocrystal but does not specifically disclose what the corresponding peak emission would be for that material. Analogously, Lee teaches a double perovskite nanocrystal but synthesizes nanocrystals whereby Ag and In are used instead of an alkali metal and rare earth element and subsequently dopes with either Er, Yb, or both (doped Cs2AgInCl6). Upon doping with Yb, a sharp PL peak at 996 nm was observed upon excitation at 300 nm (see Fig. 4), which Lee teaches originates from the “f-band transition of Yb (2F5/2 to 2F7/2)” thus indicating that presence of Yb drives emission of the material towards Yb emission. Therefore, it would be expected that upon introduction of Yb into the crystal lattice of the perovskite nanocrystal (i.e., substituting Tb of Du for Yb of Lee), that the corresponding nanocrystal would maintain Yb-derived emission at ~996 nm. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute Tb in the nanocrystal of Du for a known alternative rare earth element of Yb, as informed by Lee, to produce a light emitting material capable of emission in the IR spectra. Thus, Du and Lee teach the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Yb, and the material has a peak emission from about 990 nm to about 1000 nm.”.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al as applied to claims 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Dong et al (CN114410304A).
Regarding claim 13, Du teaches the light emitting material of claim 7 and allows for cases where “B” can be Yb in the perovskite nanocrystal but does not specifically disclose what the corresponding peak emission would be for that material. Analogously, Dong teaches a double perovskite nanocrystal of similar formula (see rejections of claims 1-6 above). In embodiments 1-6, Dong teaches incorporation of Eu as “B” of the instant application whereby X is any of Cl, Br or I. In Fig. 7, Dong discloses emission spectra for Cs2NaEuX6 whereby there is peak emission of 617 nm “which is caused by the Eu3+ 5D0 to 7FJ (1,2) transition” and is an “Eu characteristic red light emission”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to substitute Tb for a known alternative rare earth element such as Eu, as informed by Dong, to produce a light emitting material with a deeper red emission. Therefore, Du and Dong teach the claimed “The light emitting material of claim 7, wherein B is Eu, and the material has a peak emission from about 600 nm to about 620 nm”.
Regarding claim 16, Du teaches the light emitting device of claim 15 but does not specifically disclose a light emitting diode. Although Dong does not teach specific implementation of the double perovskite nanocrystal into a light emitting device, Dong does teach that halide perovskite nanocrystals are widely applied to “light emitting diode field”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the perovskite nanocrystal of Du into a known alternative light emitting device, such as a light emitting diode as informed by Dong. Thus, Du and Dong teach the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the device is a light emitting diode”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du et al as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ma et al (NPL: "Low Band Gap Perovskite Concentrator Solar Cells: Physics, Device Simulation, and Experiment").
Du teaches the light emitting device of claim 15 but does not specifically disclose a solar concentrator. Analogously, Ma teaches the use and wide study of perovskites into solar cells and concentrator perovskite solar cells. ”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to implement the perovskite nanocrystal of Du into a known alternative light emitting device, such as a perovskite solar concentrator as informed by Ma. Thus, Du and Ma teach the claimed “The light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the device is a solar concentrator”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hu et al (2018) disclose double perovskites which can be doped with rare earth elements or lanthanides whereby the doping drives luminescent peak emission which is characteristic of the dopant. Pan et al disclose doping of single perovskites whereby the dopant (a lanthanide) also drives the corresponding luminescence, which is characteristic of the lanthanide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights