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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1- 20 of A. F. Palmstrom , et al., US 18 / 553 , 888 ( 10/04/2023 ) are pending . Claims 19-20 are withdrawn as drawn to the non-elected Group II. Claims 1-18 are under examination on merits and are rejected. Election/Restrictions Pursuant to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected Group I, without traverse , in the reply filed on 03/11/2026 . Claims 19-20 drawn to nonelected Group II are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b). T he restriction requirement is made as FINAL. Claims Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp ., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a). Claim 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because " substantially " recited by claim 1 is a relative term and the specification provides definitions for the claim term " substantially " as follows: As used herein the term "substantially" is used to indicate that exact values are not necessarily attainable . By way of example, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that in some chemical reactions 100% conversion of a reactant is possible, yet unlikely. Most of a reactant may be converted to a product and conversion of the reactant may asymptotically approach 100% conversion . So, although from a practical perspective 100% of the reactant is converted, from a technical perspective, a small and sometimes difficult to define amount remains. For this example of a chemical reactant, that amount may be relatively easily defined by the detection limits of the instrument used to test for it. However, in many cases, this amount may not be easily defined, hence the use of the term "substantially". In some embodiments of the present invention, the term "substantially" is defined as approaching a specific numeric value or target to within 20%,15%,10%, 5%, or within 1% of the value or target . In further embodiments of the present invention, the term "substantially" is defined as approaching a specific numeric value or target to within 1%,0.9%,0.8%,0.7%,0.6%,0.5%,0.4%,0.3%, 0.2%, or 0.1% of the value or target . See specification at page 6, line 6-19, emphasis added. Clearly the specification has different definitions for the claim ed term " substantially " , therefore, one of skill in the art does not know which of these values is imported into the claims. 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. 35 USC § 102 Rejection over Javier Claims 1-1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (a)(2) as being anticipated by V-B. Javier, et al, US 20180204682 A1 (2018)(“ Javier ”) evidenced with M. M. Hamada, et al , 505, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A , 517-520 (2003)(“ Hamada ”) . Javier teaches a method of preparing o rganolead halide perovskites (CH 3 NH 3 PbX 3 ) by precipitation from solution as follows: [0048] Briefly, for the solution phase synthesis of halide methylamine precursors, hydroiodic acid (10 mL, 0.075 mol) or hydrobromic acid. (8.6 mL, 0.075 mol) or hydrochloric acid (6.2 mL, 0.075 mol) was added to a solution of excess methylamine (24 mL, 0.192 mol) in ethanol (100 mL) at 0° C., and the mixture was stirred for 2 hours. The mixture was concentrated and dried under vacuum at 60° C. for 12 hours, and recrystallized from ethanol. Lead(II) iodide (99%) and lead(II) bromide (98+%) were purchased from Acros Organics ( Geel , Belgium) ; lead(II) chloride (99.999%) and methylamine solution (33 wt % in ethanol) from Sigma-Aldrich, Inc. (St. Louis, Mo.); hydroiodic acid (ACS, 55-58%), hydrobromic acid (ACS, 47.0-49.0%), hydrochloric acid (ACS, 37.2%), N,N -dimethylformamide (“ DMF ,” 99.9%), and toluene (99.9%) from Fisher Scientific (Porto Salvo, Portugal); acetonitrile (HPLC grade, 99.8%) from EMD Millipore (Darmstadt, Germany). All chemicals were used as received. [0049] For solution phase synthesis, CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 was synthesized by dissolving PbI 2 (0.08 mmol) and CH 3 NH 3 I (0.24 mmol) in acetonitrile (20 mL) , followed by precipitation via the addition of excess toluene . CH 3 NH 3 PbBr 3 and CH 3 NH 3 PbCl 3 were synthesized by dissolving PbBr 2 (0.2 mmol) and CH 3 NH 3 Br (0.2 mmol) or PbCl 2 (0.2 mmol) and CH 3 NH 3 Cl (0.2 mmol) in DMF (5 mL) followed by precipitation via the addition of excess toluene. . . . . the resulting solid could be annealed at 100° C. for 1 hour. . . Javier at page 4, left col. [0048]-[0049], emphasis added. The Javier method for the preparation of halide perovskite CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 comprises: ( i ). preparing a mixture by dissolving two halide perovskite precursors that are PbI 2 and CH 3 NH 3 I in acetonitrile; (ii). forming a halide perovskite crystal that is CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 by precipitation from the solution; and (iii). separating the halide perovskite crystal CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 from the mixture, wherein the precursor PbI 2 contains 1% impurity, and the halide perovskite crystal is substantially free of the impurity because its structure is confirmed by powder X-ray diffraction ( XRD ) analysis as Hamada teaches that: the XRD pattern of CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 matches the tetragonal standard pattern of its most stable room temperature phase , while those of CH 3 NH 3 PbBr 3 and CH 3 NH 3 PbCl 3 match their cubic standard patterns . Javier at page 4, right col. [0051], line 7-10, emphasis added. The Javier method meets each and every limitation of claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is anticipated. Claim 2 is anticipated because Javier teaches that the synthesized halide perovskites CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 is tetragonal , therefore, it is a 3D crystal . Claim 3 is anticipated because CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 is a ABX 3 perovskite , wherein, A is CH 3 NH 3 , B is Pb and X is I. Claim s 4-5 are anticipated because CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 maps the Cs z (FA x MA 1-x ) 1-z Pb( Cl w (I y Br 1-y ) 1-w ) 3 as each of z, x and w is 0 and y is 1. Claims 6-7 are anticipated because Javier teaches that the precursors are PbI 2 and CH 3 NH 3 I ; and the purity of PbI 2 is 99% which anticipates the claimed 95%-99.99%. Claims 8-9 are anticipated because the evidence from Hamada indicated that 99.0% commercial PbI 2 comprise impurity of metals Na, K, Ag, Mn, Co, Fe, W, and Au. See Hamada at page 518, left col. 2. Materials and method , line 1-5, and Table 1 at page 519. Claim 10 is anticipated because acetonitrile is a polar solvent. Claim 11 is anticipated because Javier teaches to add toluene to the reaction mixture. Claim 12 is anticipated because Javier teaches the preparation is conducted at room temperature that anticipates the claimed 20-180ºC. Claim 1 3-14 are anticipated because Javier teaches to concentrate and dry the mixture. Claim 15-16 are obvious because the impurities from PbI 2 remains in the reaction mixture. Once the precipitation of perovskite CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 is formed, two phases are formed, one of which is the solid perovskite CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 and another one is the liquid phase containing the impurity. Claim 1 7 is anticipated because Javier teaches to anneal the formed perovskite CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 , through which any remaining portion of the impurity is removed. Claim 18 is anticipated because Javier also teaches a method of forming a bilayer perovskite film consisting of a CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 and a CH 3 NH 3 PbBr 3 with isolated CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 as follows: [0082] Specifically, CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 and CH 3 NH 3 PbBr 3 precursor solutions were made by dissolving PbI 2 (155 mg) and CH 3 NH 3 I (53.4 mg) in γ-butyrolactone (3 mL) or by dissolving PbBr 2 (200 mg) and CH 3 NH 3 Br (61 mg) in N,N -dimethylformamide (2 mL), respectively . Each single halide perovskite was precipitated as a powder by diluting each precursor solution to 50 mL with toluene. Approximately 100 mg of each perovskite was added to a separate 6 mL scintillation vial with 0.15 mL toluene followed by stirring to form a thick paste. Four to five drops of each perovskite paste was added to separate pieces of Kapton polyimide tape of 19 mm (0.75″) width from a Pasteur pipette to form a sample spot size of 7 mm×7 mm (0.25″ x 0.25″) as shown in FIGS. 16A and 16B, which depict CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 powder and CH 3 NH 3 PbBr 3 powder, respectively. Both pieces of Kapton tape were then pressed together to form a bilayer perovskite film consisting of a CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 and a CH 3 NH 3 PbBr 3 layer on top of each other (FIGS. 16C and 16D). Kapton tape was used due to its reported temperature stability up to 260° C. and also because it mimics a transparent flexible substrate for thin film devices; in addition, Kapton tape is impermeable to gases. Javier at page 8, right col. [0082], emphasis added. 35 USC § 102 Rejection over Snaith Claims 1 , 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (a)(2) as being anticipated by H. J. Snaith, et al, US 20190115549A 1 (2019)(“Snaith”) evidenced with M. M. Hamada, et al, 505, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 517-520 (2003)(“Hamada”). Snaith teaches a process for producing a layer of crystalline A/M/X comprising a compound of formula [A] a [M] b [X] c , wherein the process comprises disposing on a substrate a precursor composition comprising: (a) a first precursor compound comprising a first cation (M), which first cation is a metal or metalloid cation; and (b) a solvent, wherein the solvent comprises; ( i ). acetonitrile, propionitrile, acetone or a mixture thereof; and (ii). an alkylamine. Snaith at page 2, [0014]-[0026]. Snaith teaches that: Typically, the process further comprises removing the solvent to form the layer comprising the perovskite compound. Removing the solvent may comprise heating the solvent, or allowing the solvent to evaporate. Snaith at page 11, [017 1 ]. Snaith specifies that: In one embodiment, the process comprises disposing on a substrate a precursor composition comprising: (a) PbI 2 ; (b) a solvent which comprises acetonitrile and methylamine; and (c) (CH 3 NH 3 )I. Snaith at page 11 , [0 173 ]. Snaith teaches working example for p recursor s olution as follows: PbI 2 (99% purity, Sigma Aldrich) and MAI ( Dyesol ) were combined in a vial in a 1:1 molar ratio. Acetonitrile ( ACN , Sigma Aldrich) was added to the vial such the resultant molarity was 0.5 M. The dispersion was then placed on a shaker for 5 minutes until a black powder was formed . A 40 wt % solution of methylamine in H 2 O (Sigma Aldrich) was placed in a bubbler which was connected to a drying tube. The methylamine solution was kept in an ice bath while nitrogen was flowed through the system. The bubbling system was then connected through the syringe to the ACN dispersion, and methylamine was bubbled through the black dispersion until a clear, pale yellow solution was obtained. methylamine was bubbled through the black dispersion until a clear, pale yellow solution was obtained . Snaith at page 1 3 , [0 243 ] , emphasis added . Snaith also teaches that the formed CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 is confirmed by UV-Vis absorption and steady-state PL measurement, therefore, the formed CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 is pure. Snaith at page 13, [02 52 ] . The Snaith method comprises: ( i ). preparing a mixture by dissolving PbI 2 and CH 3 NH 3 I in acetonitrile; (ii).forming a halide perovskite crystal ( CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 ) as a powder ; and (iii). separating the solid powder from the solvent , wherein the precursor PbI 2 contains 1% impurity, and the formed CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 is pure. Which meets each and every limitation of claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is anticipated. Claims 3-10 are also anticipated for the same reason as given above for the rejection over Javier . Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). Claims 1, 3-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15 and 19 of the U.S. Patent No. US 10,797,255B2 ( 2020 ) that has been published as US 20190115549A1 in view of V-B. Javier, et al, US 20180204682 A1 (2018)(“Javier”) as evidenced with M. M. Hamada, et al, 505, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, 517-520 (2003)(“Hamada”). Conflicting Claims The conflicting claim 1 claim s: 1. A process for producing a layer of crystalline A/M/X material, which crystalline A/M/X material comprises a compound of formula [A] a [M] b [X] c , wherein: [M] comprises one or more first cations, which one or more first cations are one or more metal or metalloid cations selected from Ca 2+ , Sr 2+ , Cd 2+ , Cu 2+ , Ni 2+ , Mn 2+ , Fe 2+ , Co 2+ , Pd 2+ , Ge 2+ , Sn 2+ , Pb 2+ , Yb 2+ , Eu 2+ , Bi 3+ , Sb 3+ , Pd 4+ , W 4+ , Re 4+ , Os 4+ , Ir 4+ , Pt 4+ , Sn 4+ , Pb 4+ , Ge 4+ and Te 4+ ; [A] comprises one or more second cations; [X] comprises one or more halide anions; a is an integer from 1 to 6; b is an integer from 1 to 6; and c is an integer from 1 to 18, and wherein the process comprises disposing on a substrate a precursor composition comprising: (a) a first precursor compound comprising a first cation (M), which first cation is a metal or metalloid cation; and (b) a solvent, wherein the solvent comprises; ( i ) acetonitrile, propionitrile, acetone or a mixture thereof; and (ii) an alkylamine. The conflicting claim 1 5 further claims: 15. A process according to claim 1, wherein the process further comprises removing the solvent to form the layer comprising the perovskite compound. The conflicting claim 19 further claim s: 19. A process according to claim 1, which process comprises disposing on a substrate a precursor composition comprising: (a) PbI 2 ; (b) a solvent which comprises acetonitrile and methylamine; and (c) (CH 3 NH 3 )I. The Difference Between the C onflicting C laim s and t he Instant Claim 1 The combination of the conflicting claims 15 and 19 differs from the instant claim 1 only in that the conflicting claims do not claim “ at least one of the halide perovskite precursors contains an impurity ”. V-B. Javier, et al, US 20180204682 A1 (2018)(“Javier”) Javier teaches that Lead(II) iodide (99%) from Acros Organics ( Geel , Belgium) can be used to prepare perovskite CH 3 NH 3 PbI 3 . Javier at page 4, left col. [0048] . Claims 1, 3-10 are Obvious Claim 1 is obvious because one ordinary skill seeking crystalline A/M/X material is motivated to conduct a combination of the conflicting claims 15 and 19 with commercial available Lead(II) iodide (99%) in view of the teaching from Javier , thus arrive at a method meeting each and every limitation of claim 1, therefore, claim 1 is obvious. Claims 3-10 are also o bvious for the same reason as given the 102 rejection above. Terminal Disclaimer A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1802 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)2705241 . 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. /FRANK S. HOU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /ALEXANDER R PAGANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692