DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 31-41 and 43 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson (7,772,487) in supported by Sager et al. (2005/0121068).
As for claims 31, 39, 40 and 41, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows in Figs. 2, 3 and related text an organic photosensitive optoelectronic device comprising:
two electrodes 302/304 comprising an anode 304 and a cathode 302 in superposed relation;
at least one donor material 308 (i.e. CuPc, Col. 6, line 59-60) and at least one acceptor material (upper portion of) 306, wherein the at least one donor material and the at least one acceptor material are adjacent to one another and form a photoactive region 301 between the two electrodes (Col. 6, lines 33-35); and
at least one electron blocking layer 310 (i.e. pentacene, Col. 6, lines 65) located between the two electrodes and adjacent to the at least one donor material, wherein the at least one electron blocking layer:
has a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Molecular Orbital (LUMO) energy level or lowest conduction band at least 0.2 eV higher than a LUMO energy level of the donor material (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 65-67; note: LUMO energy levels of CuPc and pentacene are -3.2 eV and -2.9 eV, respectively),
has a Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) energy level that is equal to or higher than a HOMO energy level of the at least one donor material (Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 50-52; note: HOMO energy levels of CuPc and pentacene are -5.2 eV and -5 eV, respectively);
has a thickness in a range (Col. 5, line 5; Col. 6, lines 1-3), and
comprises at least a first organic semiconductor, wherein the first organic semiconductor is chosen from tris-(8-hydroxyquinolinato)aluminium(lll) (AIq3), subphthalocyanine (SubPc), pentacene, zinc phthalocyanine (ZnPc), chloroaluminum phthalocyanine (CIAIPc), and tris(2-phenylpyridine)iridium (Ir(ppy)3).
Robinson (and Sager et al.) does not disclose that the thickness of the at least one electron blocking layer is in the range from 20 Å to 90 Å (20 Å to 60 Å; 20 Å to 40 Å) (claims 31, 39 and 40); and at least one hole blocking layer has a thickness ranging from 20 Å to 500 Å (claim 41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the thickness of the at least one electron blocking layer being in the range from 20 Å to 90 Å (20 Å to 60 Å; 20 Å to 40 Å); and the at least one hole blocking layer having a thickness ranging from 20 Å to 500 Å, in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As for claim 32, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows at least one hole blocking layer (lower portion of) 306 located between the two electrodes and adjacent to the at least one acceptor material, wherein the at least one hole blocking layer comprises at least a second organic semiconductor, a second inorganic semiconductor, a polymer, or a metal oxide (Col. 6, lines 21-24).
As for claim 33, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the second organic semiconductor chosen from naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), and 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanoquinodimethane (TCNQ) (Note: the limitation in the claim will not be considered when the metal oxide is chosen).
As for claim 34, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the hole blocking layer comprises TiO2, GaN, ZnS, ZnO, ZnSe, SrTiO3, KaTiO3, BaTiO3, MnTiO3, PbO, WO3, and SnO2 (Col. 6, line 24).
As for claim 35, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the at least one donor material comprises copper phthalocyanine (CuPc), tin phthalocyanine (SnPc), or squaraine (Col. 6, lines 59-60).
As for claim 36, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the at least one acceptor material comprises C60 or 4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic bis(benzimidazole) (PTCBI) (Col. 13, lines 30-35; Sager: [0084], lines 5-6; [0086]; [0143], lines 1-4).
As for claim 37, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the at least one donor material and the at least one acceptor material are photoconductive organic semiconductor material selected to have spectral sensitivity in the visible spectrum 212 (Cols. 1-2; Fig. 2; Sager: [0061]).
As for claim 38, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the at least one donor material and the at least one acceptor material forms at least one of a mixed heterojunction, a planar heterojunction, a bulk heterojunction, a nanocrystalline-bulk heterojunction, or a hybrid planar-mixed heterojunction (Col. 5, lines 61-62; Col. 13, lines 11-36).
As for claim 43, Robinson (and Sager et al.) shows the organic photosensitive optoelectronic device is an organic solar cell (Brabec: [0115]).
Claim 33 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson (7,772,487) in supported by Sager et al. (2005/0121068) and in view of Mishima (2003/0184221)
Robinson (and Sager et al.) disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 32 above, except the at least one hole blocking layer comprises at least one material chosen from naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), and 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanonequinodimethane (TCNQ).
Mishima teach in Fig. 1 and related text the at least one hole blocking layer comprises at least one material chosen from naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), and 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanonequinodimethane (TCNQ) ([0048], lines 7-9 and 12-14; [0060], lines 1-11; [0067]).
Robinson (and Sager et al.) and Mishima are analogous art because they are directed to a stacked organic photosensitive optoelectronic device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Robinson (and Sager et al.) with the specified feature(s) of Mishima because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), or 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanonequinodimethane (TCNQ), as the at least one hole blocking layer, as taught by Mishima, in Robinson (and Sager et al.)'s device, in order to improve and optimize the performance of the device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 42 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson (7,772,487) in supported by Sager et al. (2005/0121068) and in view of Brabec et al. (2008/0236657).
Robinson (and Sager et al.) disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 32 above, except the organic photosensitive optoelectronic device is an organic photodetector.
Brabec et al. teach in Fig. 1, 6 and related text the organic photosensitive optoelectronic device is an organic photodetector ([0015], [0089] and claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to form Robinson (and Sager et al.)'s device as an organic photodetector, as taught by Brabec et al., in order to use an application which requires an organic photodetector.
Claims 44 and 46-50 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brabec et al. (2008/0236657) in view of Mishima (2003/0184221).
As for claims 44 and 47, Brabec et al. show in Fig. 1 and related text an organic photosensitive optoelectronic device 200 comprising:
two electrodes comprising an anode 260 and a cathode 220 in superposed relation ([0111]-[0112]);
at least one donor material ([0069], i.e. P3HT) and at least one acceptor material, wherein the at least one donor material and the at least one acceptor material are adjacent to one another and form a photoactive region 240 between the two electrodes ([0037], lines 3-4; [0067]); and
at least one electron blocking layer 250 located between the two electrodes and adjacent to the at least one donor material ([0065]), wherein the at least one electron blocking layer has a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital (LUMO) energy level or lowest conduction band at least 0.2 eV higher than LUMO energy level of the at least one donor material ([0069]; note: LUMO energy levels of P3HT and MoO2 are -3.3 eV and -2.3 eV, respectively), comprises MoO3, has a thickness range ([0066]), and has a Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO) energy level that is equal to or higher than a HOMO energy level of the at least one donor material (note: HOMO energy levels of P3HT and MoO3 are -5.3 eV and -5.2 eV, respectively); and
at least one hole blocking layer 230 located between the two electrodes and adjacent to the at least one acceptor material.
Brabec et al. do not disclose the thickness of the at least one electron blocking layer is in the range from 20 Å to 90 Å (from 20 Å to 40 Å); and the at least one hole blocking layer comprises at least one material chosen from naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), and 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanonequinodimethane (TCNQ).
Mishima teach in Fig. 1 and related text the at least one hole blocking layer comprises at least one material chosen from naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), and 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanonequinodimethane (TCNQ) ([0048], lines 7-9 and 12-14; [0060], lines 1-11; [0067]).
Brabec et al. and Mishima are analogous art because they are directed to a stacked organic photosensitive optoelectronic device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Brabec et al. with the specified feature(s) of Mishima because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use naphthalene tetracarboxylic anhydride (NTCDA), p-bis(triphenylsilyl)benzene (UGH2), 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), or 7,7,8,8,-tetracyanonequinodimethane (TCNQ), as the at least one hole blocking layer, as taught by Mishima, and the thickness of the at least one electron blocking layer being in the range from 20 Å to 90 Å (from 20 Å to 40 Å), in Brabec et al.'s device, in order to improve and optimize the performance of the device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As for claim 46, the combined device shows the at least one acceptor material comprises C60 or 4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic bis(benzimidazole) (PTCBI) (Brabec: [0068]).
As for claim 48, the combined device shows the at least one hole blocking layer has a thickness ranging from 20 Å to 500 Å (Brabec: [0085]).
As for claim 49, the combined device shows the organic photosensitive optoelectronic device is an organic photodetector (Brabec: [0115]).
As for claim 50, the combined device shows the organic photosensitive optoelectronic device is an organic solar cell (Brabec: [0115]).
Claim 45 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brabec et al. (2008/0236657) and Mishima (2003/0184221) in view of Rand et al. (2009/0308456).
Brabec et al. and Mishima disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 44 above, except the at least one donor material comprises copper phthalocyanine (CuPc), tin phthalocyanine (SnPc), or squaraine.
Rand et al. teach the at least one donor material comprises copper phthalocyanine (CuPc), tin phthalocyanine (SnPc), or squaraine ([0142], line 3).
Brabec et al., Mishima and Rand et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a stacked organic photosensitive optoelectronic device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Brabec et al. and Mishima with the specified feature(s) of Rand et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use CuPc, SnPc or squaraine, as the donor material, as taught by Rand et al., in Brabec et al. and Mishima's device, in order to improve and optimize the performance of the device.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 4, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Table 1 demonstrates criticality of the claimed ranges of the EBL and “there is no motivation to decrease the thickness of EBL”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the evidence is insufficient to rebut the prime facie case of obviousness because the evidence (i.e. Table 1, by comparing 100 Å MoO3 and/or 300 Å MoO3 (outside the claimed range) with 30 Å MoO3 (inside the claimed range)) provided by the applicant did not show the claimed thickness ranges achieve unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEIYA LI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811