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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/26/24 has been considered except for NPL document 5, which has been lined through. There is no concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of this reference that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. Per MPEP 2111.03 ‘The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps'. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Supporting Information for “Supramolecular Approach for Fine-Tuning of the Bright Luminescence from Zero-Dimensional Antimony(III) Halides” by Morad et al. (hereinafter Morad SI).
Regarding claim 16, Morad SI discloses a method of generating a halide perovskite compound, the method comprising:
dissolving (i) a metal halide and (ii) an alkali metal halide and a crown ether in an organic solvent to provide a precursor solution, wherein the metal halide makes contact with at least one of the alkali metal and the crown ether in the precursor solution; and
contacting the organic solvent with an anti-solvent, wherein the halide perovskite compound crystalizes from the precursor solution (page S1, para 2).
Regarding claim 17, Morad SI discloses the method of claim 16, comprising at least one of wherein the organic solvent comprises N, N-Dimethylformamide (DMF) or acetonitrile (ACN), and
wherein the anti-solvent comprises diethyl ether (DEE) (page S1, para 2).
Regarding claim 18, Morad SI discloses the method of claim 16, wherein (i) the metal halide and (ii) the alkali metal and the crown ether are dissolved in the organic solvent at about 80°C (page S1, para 2), which falls completely within the instantly claimed range of about 60-100°C.
Regarding claim 19, Morad SI discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the generated halide perovskite compound is deemed free of impurities. Morad SI anticipates the method of making a halide perovskite product, as discussed above. See MPEP 2112.01(I), which states that ‘Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established…"When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not."…Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product’. Morad SI anticipates the method of making the same product. Therefore, the Morad SI perovskite product is deemed free of impurities.
Regarding claim 20, Morad SI discloses a halide perovskite compound (S1, page 3) comprising the halide perovskite compound generated by the method of claim 16. Claim 20 is a product by process claim. Morad SI does explicitly teach the claimed process as written. Also see MPEP 2113 which states that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
MPEP 2113 also states “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)”. In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The instant claims contain the transitional phrase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03, cited above. This open-ended definition has been taken into consideration in the following rejections.
Claim 1, 4-8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “How to GIWAXS: Grazing Incidence Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering Applied to Metal Halide Perovskite Thin Films” by Steele et al. (hereinafter Steele).
Regarding claim 1, Steele discloses a halide perovskite compound comprising alkali metal bound crown ethers in double perovskites (page 16, para 3) wherein the double perovskites have the formula:
A₂B’B”X₆ wherein A is an alkali metal, B’ is a cation selected from a group of metals that includes tetravalent metals (Fig. 2A, page 4), B” is an additional metal cation, and X is a halide anion (Fig. 2A, page 4).
Although Steele does not display the instantly claimed formula as written, the reference does teach that the crown ether is bound to the alkali in a double perovskite (page 16, para 3). Therefore, the Steele perovskite compound is expected to overlap and encompass the instantly claimed formula:
(crown ether@A)₂M(IV)X₆, wherein
the M(IV) is at least one tetravalent metal cation,
the X is at least one halide anion, and
the crown ether@A is at least one alkali metal-bound crown ether formed between an alkali metal cation A and oxygen atoms of a crown ether.
It is noted that Steel teaches the presence of an additional cation B” that is not expressly recited in the instant claim. However, the instant claim does recite the transitional term “comprising” which allows for the presence of additional components. The instant claim also recites that M(IV), at a B-site, comprises at least one tetravalent metal cation. This allows for the presence of an additional B-site cation.
Regarding claim 4, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 1, comprising a dumbbell-shaped structural unit formed by two [crown ether@A]⁺s and one [M(IV)X6]²- (page 16, para 3 and Fig. 13, supramolecular lattice).
Regarding claim 5, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 1 but is silent regarding the limitation “comprising greater photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) as compared to a control compound A2M(IV)X₆ without the crown ether and comprising the same A, M(IV), and X as the halide perovskite compound”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Steele compound to have greater PLQY under the same conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 6, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 5 but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the PLQY of the halide perovskite compound is greater than 90% under excitation at 275 nm, measured at 445 nm, or greater than 80% under excitation at 295 nm, measured at 530 nm”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Steele compound to have overlapping PLQY when measured under the same conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 1 but is silent regarding the limitation “comprising increased air stability as compared to a control compound A₂M(IV)X₆ without the crown ether and comprising the same A, M, and X as the halide perovskite compound”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap and comprise the same A, M and X elements, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Steele compound to have overlapping properties including overlapping air stability, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 8, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 7 but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the air stability of the halide perovskite compound is increased by about 1 hour to about 3 days as compared to the control
Compound”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap and comprise the same A, M and X elements, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Steele compound to have an air stability that at least overlaps the instantly claimed range of about 1 hour to about 3 days as compared to the control compound, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 20, Steele discloses a halide perovskite compound (Fig. 2A and page 16, para 3) comprising the halide perovskite compound generated by the method of claim 16. Claim 20 is a product by process claim. Steele does not explicitly teach the claimed process as written. See citation of MPEP 2113 above.
In the instant case, it is found that the instantly claimed process of making the claimed product does not impart any structural or functional characteristics to the claimed product, absent evidence to the contrary.
The limitations directed to the method for producing the claimed composition are not considered to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. It is well settled that if the examiner can find a product in the prior art that is the same or so similar as to have been obvious, the burden can be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the process for producing the composition somehow imparts a patentable distinction to the composition under examination.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele in view of “Host-guest complexation in hybrid perovskite optoelectronics” by Ferdowsi et al. (hereinafter Ferdowsi).
Regarding claim 2, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 1, wherein
the M(IV) (B-site cation) is selected from a group comprising one or more of Te⁴⁺, Sn⁴, Zr⁴⁺, Hf4+, and Ce⁴⁺;
the X is one or more of Cl, Br, and I; and
the A is one or more of Cs⁺, Rb+, and K⁺ (Fig. 2A, page 4).
Steele does not further disclose the crown ether, particularly wherein the crown ether is one or more of 18-Crown-6 (18C6) and 21-Crown-7 (21C7).
However, Ferdowsi does teach a hybrid perovskite comprising crown ethers bound to alkali metals with particular selectivity to different cations (page 2, para 4). Fig. 2 shows 18-Crown-6 bound to K and 21-Crown-7 bound to Rb.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the Ferdowsi crown ether, that is one or more of 18-Crown-6 (18C6) and 21-Crown-7 (21C7), as the crown ether of Steele when the alkali metal is K or Rb. 18C6 is selective toward K. 21C7 is selective toward Rb. Use of 18C6 and/or 21C7 in K and/or Rb halide perovskites would facilitate tailoring the morphology and passivation of the perovskites and ultimately stabilize the materials during operation in devices (Ferdowsi, page 3, para 1 and Steele, page 16, para 3).
Regarding claim 3, Steele discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 1, wherein the halide perovskite compound is (crown ether@K)₂HfBr₆, as discussed above when A is K and X is Br. However, Steele does not further disclose the crown ether, particularly wherein the crown ether is 18-Crown-6.
However, Ferdowsi does teach a hybrid perovskite comprising crown ethers bound to alkali metals with remarkable selectivity to different cations (page 2, para 4). Fig. 2 shows 18-Crown-6 bound to K.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the Ferdowsi 18-Crown-6 (18C6) as the crown ether of Steele, when the alkali metal is K. 18C6 is selective toward K and would facilitate tailoring the perovskite structures and ultimately stabilize the materials during operation in devices (Ferdowsi, page 3, para 1 and Steele, page 16, para 3).
Claims 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Supramolecular Approach for Fine-Tuning of the Bright Luminescence from Zero-Dimensional Antimony(III) Halides” by Morad et al. (hereinafter Morad), provided in the IDS filed 7/26/24.
. Regarding claim 9, Morad discloses a halide perovskite compound according to the formula:
[C@Rb]2SbBr5 where C is 18-Crown-6 (page 845, para 2 and Fig. 2A), which overlaps and encompasses instantly claimed formula:
(crown ether@A)M(III)X5 wherein
the M(III) is at least one trivalent metal cation (Sb),
the X is at least one halide anion (Br),
the A is Rb, and
the crown ether@A is at least one alkali metal-bound crown ether.
Morad does not expressly recite the crown ether@A as formed between an alkali
metal cation A and oxygen atoms of a crown ether.
However, Morad does teach that the structure adopts a supramolecular concept of host-guest coordination of the alkali ions and the crown ethers (page 845, para 1). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect a similar alkali metal crown ether bond, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 12, Morad discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 9, comprising a structural unit formed by one [crown ether@A]²⁺ and one [M(III)X5]²- (Fig. 2A, first row).
Regarding claim 13, Morad discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 9, but is silent regarding the limitation “comprising greater photoluminescence quantum yield (PLQY) as compared to a control compound AM(III)X5 without the crown ether and comprising the same A, M(III), and X as the halide perovskite compound”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Morad compound to have greater PLQY under the same conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 14, Morad discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 13 but is silent regarding the limitation “wherein the PLQY of the halide perovskite compound is greater than 80% under excitation at 449 nm, measured at 513 nm”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Morad compound to have overlapping PLQY when measured under the same conditions, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 15, Morad discloses the halide perovskite compound of claim 13 but is silent regarding the limitation “comprising increased air stability as compared to a control compound AM(III)X5 without the crown ether and comprising the same A, M(III), and X as the halide perovskite compound”. However, see MPEP 2112.01(I), cited above. The crown ether compounds overlap and comprise the same A, M(III) and X elements, as discussed above. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the Morad compound to have overlapping properties including overlapping air stability, absent evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art, Morad, teaches a similar halide perovskite compound but does not teach or suggest the “A” cation as barium (Ba).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNNE EDMONDSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2678. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, 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.
/L.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/Matthew E. Hoban/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights