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
After reconsideration, the Species Restrictions have been withdrawn. However, the Group Restriction has been maintained.
Applicant’s election of Group 1 in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2-3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/08/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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 1-6 and 8-12 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.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 11, the phrase "-like" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 1, it is uncertain the term “said first wire-likes element are parallel the ones to the others” means, as there is one identification of “the ones” and “the others”. For purposes of examination, is interpreted that some of the wire elements have to be parallel to each other.
Claims 2-6 and 8-12 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, it is uncertain the term “said second wire-likes element are parallel the ones to the others” means, as there is one identification of “the ones” and “the others”. For purposes of examination, is interpreted that some of the wire elements have to be parallel to each other.
Regarding Claim 9, it is uncertain the term “said second wire-likes element are parallel the ones to the others” means, as there is one identification of “the ones” and “the others”. For purposes of examination, is interpreted that some of the wire elements have to be parallel to each other.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “between 0 and 90 degrees, preferably between 0 and 45 degrees.” The phrase "preferably” renders the term indefinite, it as uncertain which range is required by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of Claim 10. The claim recites “so arranged that it forms an angle”. There is not identification what “it” is, which renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the wire elements and facet form an angle.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 4, it is uncertain how a matrix of a metal halide perovskite single crystal could comprise anything other than one metal halide perovskite single crystal. Therefore, Claim 4 fails to further limit Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 2, 4-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hettiarachchi (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, the term scaffold is interpreted to require the wires to enter into the crystal. Hettiarachchi teaches a composite comprising a matrix of a metal halide perovskite single crystal (Abstract) and a plurality of wire elements forming a two-dimensional scaffold within the crystal (Abstract), where the two dimensional scaffold comprises a first set of two parallel wires. (Page 42839) Hettiarachchi teaches the wire elements having a diameter of 12.5 + 0.125 microns (Page 42839). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 2, Hettiarachchi teaches the wire elements having a diameter of 12.5 + 0.125 microns (Page 42839). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, Hettiarachchi teaches the matrix is one metal halide perovskite single crystal. (Fig. 1; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Hettiarachchi teaches the one or segments of the wires are unembedded in the matrix of the crystal. (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Hettiarachchi teaches at least one segment of the wire structure being free of the matrix is at least one of the wire elements. (Fig. 1; Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Hettiarachchi teaches the single crystal has crystal facets and the scaffold consists of one set of parallel wire elements arranged so the facet and the wire elements form a 90 degree angle. (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hettiarachchi teaches the wire element is solid gold (Page 42839), a conductive material.
Regarding Claim 12, Hettiarachchi teaches the metal halide single crystal is MAPbBr3. (Page 42839)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
