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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on July 21st, 2025 are acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 14-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-13 as follows.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 2019/0140388, hereinafter as Park ‘388) in view of Tobjork (US 2020/0400600, hereinafter as Tobj ‘600) and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0035981, hereinafter as Lee ‘981).
Regarding Claim 1, Park ‘388 teaches an NO2 detection device (see Fig. 1A, (OTFT); para. [0013]) comprising: a substrate (see para. [0017]-[0018] and [0023]); a drain (Drain; [0017]); a source (source; [0017]); a p-type polymer semiconductor layer (an organic semiconductor layer; [0017]) formed on the substrate, between the drain (Drain) and the source (Source); and an n-type metal-organic framework layer (MOF; (HKUST-1); [0014]) located over the p-type polymer semiconductor layer, wherein the n-type metal-organic framework layer has apertures having a size (0.9-1.5µm) larger than a size of the NO2 molecules (see Fig. 12a; para. [0137]) so that the NO2 molecules pass through the apertures of n-type metal-organic framework layer (HKUST-1) to arrive at the p-type polymer semiconductor layer (P3HT) to increase an electrical current (see Fig. 17a; para. [0143]-[0144] and [0162]). Examiner notes that HKUST-1 indicates an n-type behavior (see pp. 82 of Wei Guo (Metal lons and Nanoparticles Embedded into Surface-Mounted Metal Organic Frameworks, Ph. D Thesis), 02/09/2016).
Thus, Park ‘388 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a drain and a source formed on the substrate”.
Tobj ‘600 teaches a drain (Fig. 5A, (219); [0081]) and a source (217; [0081]) formed on the substrate (211; [0078]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park ‘388 by having a drain and a source formed on the substrate for the purpose of providing an organic thin film transistor device (see para. [0006]) as suggested by Tobj ‘600.
Thus, Park ‘388 and Tobj ‘600 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the p-type polymer semiconductor layer and the n-type metal-organic framework layer form a heterojunction”.
Lee ‘981 teaches the p-type polymer semiconductor layer (electron donor (P3HT); [0144]) and the n-type organic layer (electron acceptor (PCBM); [0144]) form a heterojunction (see Fig. 14).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park ‘388 and Tobj ‘600 by having the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type layer form a heterojunction in order to improve lateral and vertical electric charge mobility of organic electronic device (see para. [0024]) as suggested by Lee ‘981.
Amended claim 1 contains functional limitation “so that to form a heterojunction” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to form a heterojunction” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
214
189
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1a (Park ‘388)
PNG
media_image2.png
240
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5A (Tobj ‘600)
Regarding Claim 6, Tobj ‘600 teaches a distance between the drain and source is about less than 100 µm (see para. [0079]) which overlap the claim of 10 µm.
Regarding Claim 7, Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a thickness of the p-type polymer semiconductor layer is between 15 and 70 nm, and a thickness of the n-type metal- organic framework layer is between 10 and 100 nm”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness of the p-type polymer semiconductor layer is between 15 and 70 nm, and a thickness of the n-type metal- organic framework layer is between 10 and 100 nm on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a thickness of the p-type polymer semiconductor layer is between 15 and 70 nm, and a thickness of the n-type metal- organic framework layer is between 10 and 100 nm in order to improve the performance of the sensor device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Park ‘388 teaches an entire top surface of the p-type polymer semiconductor layer is coated by the n-type metal-organic framework layer (see Fig. 12a).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an entire top surface of the p-type polymer semiconductor layer is coated by the n-type metal-organic framework layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 9, Tobj ‘600 teaches the current response is substantially proportional to the NO2 current concentration (see para. [0004] and [0060]).
Claims 2-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung (US 2017/0346013, hereinafter as Chun ‘013).
Regarding Claim 2, Tobj ‘600 teaches the p-type polymer semiconductor layer (see para. [0095]).
Thus, Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a Diketopyrrolopyrrole (DPP) copolymer having thiophene donor blocks”.
Chun ‘013 teaches a Diketopyrrolopyrrole (DPP) copolymer having thiophene donor blocks (see para. [0246]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 by having a Diketopyrrolopyrrole (DPP) copolymer having thiophene donor blocks in order to improve stretchability together with enhanced electrical properties (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Chun ‘013.
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the n-type metal-organic framework layer includes [M'2L2(M"F6)]n, where M' is a metal with octahedral geometry, L is ditopic nitrogen containing linker, and (M"F6) is an inorganic pillar”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a
[M'2L2(M"F6)]n material for the MOF layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See pp. 141-145 of Chernikova (“MOFs exploration: from synthesis and thin film fabrication to separation and sensing applications” Dissertation, 05/2018) as evidence.
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “M' is Ni and M" is Ti”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select M' is Ni and M" is Ti material for the MOF layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See pp. 141-145 of Chernikova (“MOFs exploration: from synthesis and thin film fabrication to separation and sensing applications” Dissertation, 05/2018) as evidence.
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Park ‘388, Tobj ‘600 and Lee ‘981 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “[Ni(TPyP)(TiF6)]n, where TPyP is 5,10,15,20-Tetra(4-pyridyl) porphyrin”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select “[Ni(TPyP)(TiF6)]n, where TPyP is 5,10,15,20-Tetra(4-pyridyl) porphyrin” material for the MOF layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See pp. 141-145 of Chernikova (“MOFs exploration: from synthesis and thin film fabrication to separation and sensing applications” Dissertation, 05/2018) as evidence.
Regarding Claim 13, Park ‘388 teaches the material has apertures having a size (0.9-1.5 µm) larger than a size of the NO2 molecules (see Fig. 12a; para. [0137]) so that the NO2 molecules pass through the material (HKUST-1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Wigglesworth et al. (US 2015/0243915 A1)
Bertin et al. (US 2014/0241023 A1)
Yeh et al. (US 2012/0061650)
Bertin et al. (US 2009/0184389 A1)
Coggan et al. (US 8,575,477 B1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893