DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 17/763,414, filed on 03/24/2022, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/076965, filed on 09/25/2020, and which claims foreign priority to UK 1913835.3, filed on 09/29/2019.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 09/29/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21-24, 26, 40, 45, 46, 51, 57, 58, 60, and 65 are currently pending.
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 25, 27-39, 41-44, 47-50, 52-56, 59, 61-64, and 66-68 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 14 are amended.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 57, 58, and 60 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21-24, 26, 40, 45, 46, 51, and 65 are examined below.
The Office’s objections to the Specification are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The Office’s objections to claims have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 09/29/2025 have been carefully considered.
The applicant argues that claims 2, 3, 6 are erroneously withdrawn because the applicant elected Group 1. The examiner reviewed both the Restriction Requirement and the applicant’s Reply dated 04/04/2025. The examiner notes that the applicant also elected without traverse Species A1 (page 2), and submitted to the Office that claims 2, 3, and 6 do not read upon the elected species. Because the applicant expressly identifies claims 2, 3, and 6 as reading on non-elected species, the examiner determines that these claims are properly withdrawn. Although the applicant is correct that claims 2, 3, and 6 are within elected group 1, the examiner concludes that they are not within elected species A1. The applicant is directed to further explain its position.
The applicant argues that the combination of LIU and YE could not possibly lead to the present invention because LIU teaches a pristine graphene, and this is allegedly different than YE’s graphene that is functionalized. The examiner understands that the applicant interprets claim 1 in a manner that the first charge transportation layer dopant must be the exact same conductive material that comprises the first electrode, rather than a broader interpretation where the same base material is used (i.e., pristine undoped graphene is different than functionalized graphene).
The examiner notes that the YE reference tests pristine graphene (Fig. 3b), but does not describe any dopant amount values or ranges. For this reason, the examiner finds that the claim amendment overcomes the obviousness rejection. No other prior art reference reviewed by this examiner teaches or suggests that from 0.1-3% of the conductive material of the first electrode dopes the first charge transportation layer.
The examiner now sets forth new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 112, and this action is made Non-Final.
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, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21-24, 26, 40, 45, 46, 51, and 65 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 the conductive material is deposited by ink deposition (for example, layered material inks such as graphene/graphite inks)” in lines 3-4. The examiner determines that the inclusion of the phrase “for example” is exemplary claim language that leads to confusion of the intended scope of the claim. Also, the examiner finds it unclear whether the parenthetical phrase in fact further limits the “conductive” material to only those materials including graphene or graphite, as opposed to non-carbonaceous conductive materials such as metals (see the various dependent claims reciting numerous types of materials for the conductive material, such as claim 8). All of the pending dependent claims depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected as they each incorporate by reference the unclear recitations of claim 1.
Claim 8, 12, 14, 40, and 46 each recites the exemplary and preferential terms “for example”, “e.g.” (claim 14) and “preferably”, and the examiner determines that the inclusion of the phrase “for example” is exemplary claim language that leads to confusion of the intended scope of the claim.
Claim 14 is further indefinite because it appears to recite an unbounded Markush group “selected from the group consisting of…”, however the claim apparently does not include a closed group, i.e., allows for optional substitution and extremely diverse compositions. Claim 14 also recites spiro-OMeTAD twice, and includes an extra period in the second-to-last line and “or or” in the third-to-last line. The claims also recites “CuInS2 (quantum dots)”, and it is not entirely clear whether this phrase is attempting to require that the CuInS2 be in quantum dot form.
Claim 17 recites “the nanoplate material”, but no nanoplate material was previously recited in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The ranges and values of the dopant are also confusingly written, and appear to also be redundant, further confusing the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 recites “the monovalent cation(s) is/are…”, however, claim 21 recites only a single monovalent cation. Thus, the recitation is indefinite and unclear as it recites multiple cations that are not previously recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed. This action is Non-Final.
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