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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 2/26/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Grossmann (US Pub No. 2023/0108986)
Regarding Claim 1-4, and 7, Grossmann et al. teaches a light-receiving device [0007] comprising: a light-receiving layer between a pair of electrodes [0007], wherein the light-receiving layer comprises a hole-transport layer [0007, claim 39] and an active layer [0007], wherein the hole-transport layer [Claim 39] comprises a first organic compound [0098], and wherein the first organic compound is an aromatic monoamine compound or a heteroaromatic monoamine compound comprising at least one skeleton of biphenylamine, carbazolylamine, dibenzofuranylamine, dibenzothiophenylamine, fluorenylamine, and spirofluorenylamine [0098, the compound below meets the limitations of claim 4].
PNG
media_image1.png
230
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US Pub No. 2021/0319957) in view of Wu (Tetrahedron 73 (2017) 4610-4615)
Regarding Claim 1-2, and 7, Nishimura et al. teaches a light-receiving device [Fig. 1, 0006] comprising: a light-receiving layer between a pair of electrodes [4 and 8, Fig. 1, 0006], wherein the light-receiving layer comprises a hole-transport layer [7, Fig. 1, 0006] and an active layer [6, Fig. 1, 0006], wherein the hole-transport layer [7, Fig. 1, 0006] comprises a first organic compound [0029, the figure below is what is taught by Nishimura et al.], and silent on wherein the first organic compound is an aromatic monoamine compound or a heteroaromatic monoamine compound comprising at least one skeleton of biphenylamine, carbazolylamine, dibenzofuranylamine, dibenzothiophenylamine, fluorenylamine, and spirofluorenylamine
PNG
media_image2.png
219
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wu et al. teaches the use of DFA and TFA as efficient hole transport materials due to their excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
PNG
media_image3.png
253
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since Nishimura et al. teaches the use of a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to modify the hole transport layer of Nishimura et al. with the DFA of Wu et al. in order to provide a hole transport material with excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
Regarding Claim 2-3 and 5, within the combination above, Nishimura et al. is silent on general formula Gh-1, Gh-2, and Gh-4.
Wu et al. teaches the use of DFA and TFA as efficient hole transport materials due to their excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
PNG
media_image3.png
253
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since Nishimura et al. teaches the use of a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to modify the hole transport layer of Nishimura et al. with the TFA of Wu et al. in order to provide a hole transport material with excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, Nishimura et al. is silent on general formula Gh-5.
Wu et al. teaches the use of DFA and TFA as efficient hole transport materials due to their excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
PNG
media_image3.png
253
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since Nishimura et al. teaches the use of a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to modify the hole transport layer of Nishimura et al. with the DFA of Wu et al. in order to provide a hole transport material with excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, Nishimura et al. teaches wherein the light receiving layer further comprises an electron-transport layer [5, Fig. 1, 0006] comprising a second organic compound [0185-0186], and wherein the active layer [6, Fig. 1, 0006] is positioned between the electron transport layer [5, Fig. 1, 0006] and the hole transport layer [7, Fig. 1, 0006].
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, Nishimura et al. teaches wherein the second organic compound is a Pi-electron deficient heteroaromatic compound [0185-0186].
Regarding Claim 10, within the combination above, Nishimura et al. teaches wherein the second organic compound is any one of a metal complex comprising a quinoline skeleton, a metal complex comprising a benzoquinoline skeleton, a metal complex comprising an oxazole skeleton, a metal complex comprising a thiazole skeleton, an oxadiazole derivative, a triazole derivative, an imidazole derivative, an oxazole derivative, a thiazole derivative, a phenanthroline derivative, a quinoline derivative comprising a quinoline ligand, a benzoquinoline derivative, a quinoxaline derivative, a dibenzoquinoxaline derivative, a pyridine derivative, a bipyridine derivative, and a pyrimidine derivative [[0185-0186], at least a quinone compound].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US Pub No. 2021/0319957) in view of Wu (Tetrahedron 73 (2017) 4610-4615) as applied above in addressing claim 1, in further view of Sommer (Adv. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 1493–1500) and Kim (Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 33 (2016) 209–220)
Regarding Claim 11-12, within the combination above, Nishimura et al. is silent on the compounds of the claims for the active layer.
Sommer et al. teaches a compound used in the active layer of a solar cell which can provide improved power conversion efficiency [Abstract, and figure 1, page 1494, top of page]. Compound includes PvDMTPD-b-PPerAcr.
PNG
media_image4.png
390
1070
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Since Nishimura et al. teaches the use of an active layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the active layer of Nishimura et al. with the compound of Sommer et al. in order to provide a higher power conversion efficiency [Abstract, and figure 1, page 1494, top of page].
Kim et al. teaches an anthracene base polymer used for an active layer of solar cell [page 210, middle left of page]. The anthracene based compounds resulted in improved efficiency for the solar cells. The compound include the following [page 211, bottom of page, Scheme 1]:
PNG
media_image5.png
307
417
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Since modified Nishimura et al. teaches the use a active layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the anthracene based compound of Kim et al. in the active layer of modified Nishimura et al. in order to provide higher efficiencies of the solar cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about Grossmann et al., applicant argues about the light receiving layer, examiner notes Grossmann et al. teaches an electronic device consisting of a solar cell [0179, 0219] that utilizes a hole transport layer [0181] comprising the compound in claim 1 in para. 7. [See 0097-0098 in conjunction with para. 7] .
Furthermore, an emitting layer can act as a light receiving layer as many optoelectronic devices work in reverse. For example, OLEDs or LEDs typically injects electrical current to emit light. However, if that same device is exposed to light and connected to a circuit instead of a power source, the organic layers can absorb photons and generate an electrical current, essentially functioning as an organic photodiode or solar cell.
Therefore, a light emitting layer of a light-emitting device can technically function as a light-receiving layer. Just as they convert electrical current into light, the reverse photoelectric effect allows LEDs to absorb incoming photons and generate a measurable electrical current or voltage.
Regarding the arguments about Nishimura et al. and Wu et al., Wu et al. teaches the use of DFA and TFA as efficient hole transport materials due to their excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
PNG
media_image3.png
253
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Since Nishimura et al. teaches the use of a hole transport layer, it would have been obvious to modify the hole transport layer of Nishimura et al. with the DFA or TFA of Wu et al. in order to provide a hole transport material with excellent thermal stability [Abstract, and Scheme 1 on page 4611, bottom left of page].
The combination relied upon the hole transport layers of each reference, specifically modifying the hole transport layer of Nishimura et al. with the DFA or TFA hole transport material of Wu et al. in order to provide excellent thermal stability. The entire device structure of Wu et al. was not relied upon for the combination.
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
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 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
Prosecution Insights