DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/946,426, filed on 11/13/2024, which is a DIV of 18/245,387, now U.S. Patent No. 12,185,620, filed on 03/15/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said surface treatment method is scalable.” The examiner determines that this recitation fails to sufficiently describe the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Whether a method is “scalable” is entirely subjective, and on its own. A method could be economically/profitably scalable, physically scalable, etc. Page 20, lines 12-14 of the instant specification states: “scalable” refers to a method that can easily be scaled up or down. For example, the methods disclosed herein can be implemented in a roll-to-roll process. The examiner cannot determine what other processes besides roll-to-roll would or would not satisfy the requirement to be “scalable”. Is there a required throughput, like N sqm/min? Whether something is “easily” scalable is also entirely subjective. Are all roll-to-roll processes “scalable”? The examiner concludes that skilled artisans would have absolutely no method or ability to reasonably determine whether their own similar surface treatment method is or is not “scalable”, or whether it would infringe upon claim 1 if allowed. Claims 2-12 are also rejected because they each incorporate the indefinite limitation by dependency to independent claim 1.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The following below is the examiner’s statement of the prior art references reviewed.
ZHAO (CN 111244281 A) is considered the closest prior art reference of record. ZHAO describes a surface treatment method for producing a single crystal perovskite film and then polishing the film. ZHAO does not teach or suggest a method including each of the steps recited in claim 1.
The examiner also reviewed references discussing the use of the recited solvents with the production of perovskite films, but located no references, teachings, or other motivations that would lead a skilled artisan to pursue the recited surface treatment method.
Further search and review of the prior art did not reveal any embodiments thereof or motivations to modify in such ways.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner