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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 5/28/26 is acknowledged.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al US 2018/0005764.
Pertaining to claim 1, Jones teaches a method of forming an optical switch comprising an organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite, comprising:
depositing at least one feature formed of a metal halide having the formula BX2 on to a substrate [0047] “metal halide MX2”,
exposing the feature to a vapor [0047] “deposition of the perovskite precursor vapour” having a compound of formula AX [0055] “prevoskite precursor comprises formula AX” to convert the metal halide to an organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite having the formula ABX3, wherein,
A is one or more of methylammonium, butylammonium, formamidinium, phenethylamine, 3-(aminomethyl)piperidinium, 4-(aminomethyl)piperidinium, cesium, and rubidium [0055] “A comprises ammonium group”,
B is a metal cation [0055] “M comprises a metal cation” note AMX3 equivalent to ABX3, and
X is a halogen [0055] “X= F, Cl, Br or I”.
Jones discloses the claimed invention except for the specific ammonium compounds but does specifically teach ammonium compounds as a material choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select known ammonium compounds for use in the method, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Pertaining to claim 2, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, wherein B is selected from the group consisting of lead, tin, europium, and germanium [0055], and/or X is one or more of I, Br, Cl, F, and At [0055].
Pertaining to claim 4, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, wherein feature is exposed to the vapor (see claim 1 above) but is silent with respect to the amount of time being for about 10 seconds to about 10 hours. However, given the enormous range of time encompassing a nearly limitless number of possibilities, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the exposure time through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the exposure time is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Pertaining to claim 6, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, comprising depositing a plurality of features formed of the metal halide on the substrate, the plurality of features being deposited in a pattern. See element 110 Figure 3
Pertaining to claim 8, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, where in the feature formed of the metal halides has a feature size of about 10 microns to about 50 nanometers. [0046]
Pertaining to claim 9, Jones teaches the method of claim 1, including the hybrid organic-inorganic metal perovskites (see claim 1 above), but is not specific as to their having a size of about 10 microns to about 50 nanometers. However, given that Jones teaches the same materials as claimed, and the size range is rather large (10,000 nanometers to 50 nanometers is an enormous size range at this scale encompassing a nearly limitless amount of possibilities), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the particle size through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the particle size is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertaining to claim 3, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the vapor is formed by heating a powder comprising the compound of structure AX in an organic ammonia.
Pertaining to claim 5, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein the feature is exposed to the vapor at a temperature of about 1004C to about 200 4C.
Pertaining to claim 7, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein depositing the features comprises using polymer pen evaporation-crystallization polymer pen lithography.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights