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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/287,316, filed on April 21, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 38-48 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 38 recites the broad recitation “wherein M is Ca2+, Sr2+, Cd2+, Cu2+, Ni2+, Mn2+, Fe2+, Co2+, Pd2+, Ge2+, Sn2+, Pb2+, Yb2+, Eu2+, Bi3+, Sb3+, Pd4+, W4+, Re4+, Os4+, Ir4+, Pt4+, Sn4+, Pb4+, Ge4+ or Te4+,” and the claim also recites “preferably Cu2+, Pb2+, Ge2+, or Sn2+” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 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) 38-42, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cho et al, “Ligand-Mediated Modulation of Layer Thicknesses of Perovskite Methylammonium Lead Bromide Nanoplatelets,” Chemistry of Materials, vol. 28, no. 19, 28 September 2016, pages 6909-6916, XP055434127, ISSN: 089-4756.
In re claim 38, Cho et al discloses a composition comprising: (i) a compound of formula MXn, wherein: M is at least Pb2+, X is Br-, and n is 2; (ii) a compound of formula AX, wherein A is at least (R1NH3) +, wherein R1 is H, and X is I- (i.e. see at least Introduction); (iii) a non-polar organic solvent that is at least a hydrocarbon solvent (i.e. in this case, toluene) (i.e. see least p. 6910-6911); and (iv) a first organic amine comprising at least three carbon atoms (i.e. alkylamine, e.g. butylamine BA) (i.e. paragraph bridging p. 6910 and p. 6911), characterized in that the composition comprises the non-polar organic solvent and the first organic amine in a volume ratio (non-polar organic solvent):(first organic amine) of from 40:1 to 1:2 (i.e. see at least p. 6911, first paragraph).
In re claim 39, Cho et al discloses the non-polar organic solvent is toluene (i.e. see at least p. 6910 – 6911).
In re claim 40, Cho et al discloses the first organic amine (butylamine) is a first alkylamine of formula RANH2, wherein RA is a C4 alkyl group.
In re claim 41, Cho et al discloses wherein the first organic amine is a first alkylamine which is at least butylamine (i.e. paragraph bridging p. 6910 and p. 6911).
In re claim 42, Cho et al discloses wherein the volume ratio is in the range from 20:1 to 4: 1 (i.e. see at least p. 6911, first paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 43-48 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817