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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 19 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. Claim 19 merely recites “A system for generating power that uses the electronic ratchet device of claim 1.” However, claim 1, from which claim 19 depends, already recites “An electronic device for generating power …” Since the claimed electronic ratchet device is itself a “system”, the entirety of the subject matter of claim 19 is directed to the same subject matter as the recitation in the preamble of claim 1. Thus, claim 19 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (US 2018/0145271) in view of Kovalenko et al. (US 2018/0179440) and Wheeler et al. (US 2018/0330891).
With regard to claim 1, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, an electronic ratchet device for generating power ([0039]) comprising organic compounds ([0045]) and a pair of first and second electrodes (source, drain); a dielectric layer (dielectric); a gate electrode layer (FE); and a transport layer (BHJ) comprising a semiconductor film ([0045]).
Kedem does not explicitly teach that the semiconductor film comprises a network of enriched semiconducting perovskite.
Kovalenko teaches that the semiconductor film comprises a network of enriched semiconducting perovskite ([0057]) to provide, “materials that show high stability,” ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Kedem with the perovskite materials of Kovalenko to provide high stability.
Kedem/Kovalenko do not explicitly teach at least one semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotube.
Wheeler teaches, in Fig 8A, at least one semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) to provide, “a hole transport layer of single-walled carbon nanotubes wrapped in poly(3-hexylthiophene) (SWCNT/P3HT). This layer is porous, visibly transparent,” ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Kedem/Kovalenko with the SWCNT of Wheeler to provide a hole transport layer that is porous and visibly transparent.
With regard to claim 2, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the transport layer connects the first and second electrodes, and the dielectric layer separates the transport layer and the gate electrode layer (see figure).
With regard to claim 3, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the first and second electrodes comprise a pair of electrodes and wherein both the first and the second electrode are fabricated from the same metal ([0049]).
With regard to claim 4, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the first and second electrodes are fabricated from metal with dissimilar work functions ([0073]).
With regard to claim 5, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the first and second electrodes are fabricated from metal selected from the group consisting of gold, silver, and aluminum ([0049]).
With regard to claim 6, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the dielectric layer comprises an insulating layer with high capacitance ([0046]).
With regard to claim 7, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the dielectric layer comprises an insulating layer selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, hafnium dioxide, and zirconium dioxide ([0046]).
With regard to claim 8, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, that the gate electrode comprises a conductive layer ([0047]).
With regard to claim 12, Kovalenko teaches that the semiconductor film comprises nanocrystal CsPbI3 ([0061]).
With regard to claim 13, Kovalenko teaches that the semiconductor film comprises 2D layered perovskite C7H10N ([0073]-[0083]).
With regard to claim 14, In reference to the claim language referring to "having an Isc of greater than about 2.88 mA" intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above with regard to claim 1, Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler’s device.
With regard to claim 15, In reference to the claim language referring to "having a Voc of greater than about 19 V" intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above with regard to claim 1, Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler’s device.
With regard to claim 16, In reference to the claim language referring to "capable of generating power of greater than about 2.24×10^−2 W" intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above with regard to claim 1, Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler’s device.
With regard to claim 17, In reference to the claim language referring to "having an Isc of greater than about 2.88 mA, a Voc of greater than about 19 V, and capable of generating power of greater than about 2.24×10^−2 W" intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above with regard to claim 1, Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler’s device.
With regard to claim 18, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, a method for making the electronic ratchet device of claim 1 ([0057]-[0065]).
With regard to claim 19, Kedem teaches, in Fig 2, a system for generating power that uses the electronic ratchet device of claim 1 ([0039]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kedem et al. (US 2018/0145271) in view of Kovalenko et al. (US 2018/0179440), Wheeler et al. (US 2018/0330891), and Sharma et al. (US 2019/0305121).
With regard to claim 9, Kedem/Kovalenko/Wheeler disclose the claimed invention except for the use of Pt instead of doped silicon. Sharma teaches ([0032]) that doped silicon and Pt are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these conductive gate materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute doped silicon for Pt since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to a general allegation that the cited references cannot render the instant claims obvious. The rejection set forth above fully responds to these arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights