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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 11/25/2025 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all rejections in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 Claim 21, the values of R1, R2, Ar, Z, and Y are not listed; therefore, it is unclear as to what values are required for R1, R2, Ar, Z, and Y.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13, 22-23, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN105131258, machine translation) in view of Chang (Joule 2, 1039–1054) and Sellinger (US Pub No. 2012/0255615)
Regarding Claim 1-3, 13, and 22-23, Xiao et al. teaches the following compound for a photovoltaic device [middle of page 6/9, and Example 3, bottom of page 8/9]
In regards to the claims, Ar2 is nothing, X is Carbon, R is an alkyl, Q is Sulfur, and T is C-F
PNG
media_image1.png
585
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiao et al. is silent on a non-fullerene acceptor combined with the semiconducting material, and the non-fullerene acceptor, has a optical band gap of 1.2 eV or less, where the optical bandgap is difference between the HOMO and the LUMO of the non-fullerene accepter, forms a heterojunction directly between the semiconducting compound and the non-fullerene acceptor
Chang et al. teaches the use of IEICO-4F for an organic solar cell [Abstract] with a optical band gap of 1.24 eV [top of page 1047], overlapping the claimed range of 1.2 eV or less. Examiner notes 1.24 eV rounds down to 1.2 eV which meets the limitation of 1.2 eV.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Since Xiao et al. teaches the use of a semiconducting material with a fullerene [Example 3, bottom of page 8/9], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the fullerene acceptor of Xiao et al. with the IEICO-4F of Chang et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional acceptor for organic solar cells in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Within the combination above, modified Xiao et al. teaches so as to form a heterojunction useful in a solar cell or photodetector [bottom of page 5/9].
Sellinger et al. teaches an opv which comprises a configuration where a donor and acceptor are between two electrodes and directly forming a heterojunction for a solar cell [Fig. 1a-1b, 0004]. The donor and acceptor are shown to be separate layers or a mixture [Fig. 1a-1b, 0004].
Since modified Xiao et al. teaches a solar cell with a donor and acceptor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention before the filing of the invention to modify the semiconducting compound and non-fullerene acceptor of modified Xiao et al. with the configuration of Sellinger et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design for active layers in OPVs in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 17, within the combination above, modified Xiao et al. teaches further comprising a bulk heterojunction comprising the composition of matter, wherein the semiconducting compound comprises a donor forming an interconnected network with the non-fullerene acceptor [See rejection of claim 1], the donor and the acceptor are phase separated, and the donor phase is crystalline [Zhan: page 1800755, bottom right of page].
Regarding Claim 19, within the combination above, modified Xiao et al. teaches wherein the device comprises a solar cell, further comprising an active region comprising the composition of matter, wherein holes and electrons are generated in the active region in response to electromagnetic radiation incident on the active region, the electrons are collected in the non-fullerene acceptor and are transmitted through to a cathode, the holes are collected in the semiconducting compound comprising a donor and transmitted through to an anode, so that the device outputs current in response to the electromagnetic radiation [bottom half of page 8/9].
Regarding Claim 27, within the combination above, modified Xiao et al. teaches wherein the composition of matter is a binary donor-acceptor system that does not include another acceptor [see rejection of claim 1].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN105131258, machine translation) in view of Chang (Joule 2, 1039–1054) and Sellinger (US Pub No. 2012/0255615) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Brabec (US Pat No. 7407831)
Regarding Claim 20, within the combination above, modified Xiao et al. is silent on wherein the device comprises a photodetector,
Brabec et al. teaches the production of an organic solar cell or a photodetector, the photodetector comprising a first and second organic semiconductor layers, between a first and second electrode [Claim 1].
Since Xiao et al. teaches the formation of an organic solar cell with an active layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to apply the semiconductor layer of modified Xiao et al. in the photodetector of Brabec et al. as it is merely the selection of conventional material for semiconductor layers in photoelectric devices in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Within the combination above, modified Xiao et al. teaches further comprising an active region comprising the composition of matter, wherein holes and electrons are generated in the active region in response to electromagnetic radiation incident on the active region, the electrons are collected in the non-fullerene acceptor and are transmitted through to a cathode, the holes are collected in the semiconducting compound comprising a donor and transmitted through to an anode, so that the device outputs current in response to the electromagnetic radiation [Brabec: Claim 1].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4,13-14,17,19-25 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Xiao (CN105131258, machine translation), Chang (Joule 2, 1039–1054), and Sellinger (US Pub No. 2012/0255615) are the closest prior art.
Xiao et al. teaches the following compound for a photovoltaic device [middle of page 6/9, and Example 3, bottom of page 8/9]
In regards to the claims, Ar2 is nothing, X is Carbon, R is an alkyl, Q is Sulfur, and T is C-F
PNG
media_image1.png
585
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang et al. teaches the use of IEICO-4F for an organic solar cell [Abstract].
Sellinger et al. teaches an opv which comprises a configuration where a donor and acceptor are between two electrodes and directly forming a heterojunction for a solar cell [Fig. 1a-1b, 0004]. The donor and acceptor are shown to be separate layers or a mixture [Fig. 1a-1b, 0004].
Modified Xiao et al. teaches limitations of the claims but does not disclose the limitations corresponding with the non-fullerene acceptor structure in claim 8 and the non-fullerene acceptors of claim 13.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of reference in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations corresponding with the non-fullerene acceptor structure in claim 8 and the non-fullerene acceptors of claim 13.
Therefore; claims 5-12, 15-16, and 25 are allowed.
Furthermore, claim 1 is allowed once the rejections under 35 USC 112 are overcome and the limitations corresponding with the compounds in claim 13 are incorporated into claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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 Y SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728