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 claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-20 have been cancelled in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extra spacing between “actual” and “lanthanide”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (CN 109097039).
Citations to Zeng et al. refer to the machine translation document included with this office action.
Regarding claims 1-3, Zeng et al. discloses KPb2Br5 perovksite crystalline material in nanoparticle form. (Abstract, Fig. 1 of original document and Example 1, page 6), which satisfies the formula of claim 1 where X is Br.
Zeng et al. does not explicitly disclose that the crystalline material is stable at ambient relative humidity conditions. However, given that the crystal is compositionally identical to the KPb2X5 as claimed, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that the properties claimed in the present invention is inherent in the crystalline material of Zeng et al. such that it would meet the limitation of being “stable” at ambient relative humidity conditions. Because the PTO has no means to conduct analytical experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicants to prove that the properties are not inherent. See In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Regarding claim 4, example 1 of Zeng et al. discloses particle diameters of 25-35 nm, lying within the presently claimed range.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (CN 109097039) in view of Hyde et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0194808).
Zeng et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Zeng et al. does not disclose that the crystalline material includes a lanthanide dopant.
Hyde et al. teaches that light emitting compositions including KPb2Cl5 crystal can be doped with Nd3+ for providing upconversion of energy. (par. [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Nd3+, a lanthanide, as a dopant material in the crystalline material taught by Zeng et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include Nd3+ as a dopant material in order to form a material that has the capability of upconverting light sources to change the wavelength of the light emitted by the light emitting crystalline composition of Zeng et al.
Regarding claim 6, Hyde et al. teaches that the lanthanide may be Nd3+. (par. [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng in view of Hyde et al. does not disclose the specific content of the lanthanide dopant. However, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II). Given that the dopant material is known in the art to be included in the lattice of the KPb2Cl5 crystals, it would have been a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to find a optimal concentration or content of the dopant that may be incorporated into the crystalline lattice of KPb2Cl5 to provide the upconversion effects. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of criticality of the presently claimed range, the specific amount of dopant in the KPb2Cl5 crystal is not considered to confer patentability to the present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 09/15/2026
