DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The office acknowledges the receipt of applicants’ response to the restriction requirement dated 01/06/2026.
Response to Restriction Traversal
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the office has not shown why (by explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as required in MPEP § 808.02)
This is not found persuasive because the office takes the position that the subspecies encompasses options that are patently distinct inventions which are not obvious variants as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The office has simply done an "elected of species" requirement.
Please note the section of the MPEP 808.01(a):808.01(a) IR-51 SpeciesWhere there is no disclosure of a relationship between species (see MPEP §806.04(b)), they are independent inventions. A requirement for restriction is permissible if there is a patentable difference between the species as claimed and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. See MPEP § 803 and § 808.02. Establishing a search query with parameters encompassing the scope of the claims would represent an extreme search burden.
In applications where only generic claims are presented, restriction cannot be required unless the generic claims recite or encompass such a multiplicity, of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claim. See MPEP § 803.02 and § 809.02(a). If applicant presents species claims to more than one patentably distinct species of the invention after an Office action on only generic claims, with no restriction requirement, the Office may require the applicant to elect a Single species for examination.
In the instant case, there is a disclosed relationship between the species. Thus the species are not independent inventions. The office has done the restriction because the genus is a serious burden to search and the species are patentably distinct. This is evident by the fact that prior art anticipating one species would not necessarily render obvious the other disclosed species. The additional searching required to examine all the claims would be a serious burden
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Elected Species
PNG
media_image2.png
559
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
853
707
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
699
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
223
668
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A search of the prior art did not show the elected species. As no claims where specifically drawn to applicants’ elected species in independent form, no claims have been indicated as allowable. Claims written in independent form which require all the limitations of the elected species along with any dependent claims which require all the limitations of the elected species would be allowable. Under MPEP 803.02, the search was expanded to find an examinable species.
Examinable Species
The examinable species is represented by H-1-STN:
PNG
media_image6.png
582
776
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The examinable species reads on claims 1-4, 9, 14-19. Claims 5-8, 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration as not reading on the examinable species.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 14-19 are 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.
Claim 1 recites D as a “first donor” but fails to define what type of donor. The office cannot determine the metes and bounds of the tern first donor moiety which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 and all claims requiring the limitation of claim one are thus rejected.
For purposes of examination D will be treated as a first electron donor moiety.
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, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 112920202 A)
Regarding Claims 1-4, Huang teaches as electron acceptor material represented by H-1 (page 6):
PNG
media_image7.png
426
876
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The office notes that the STN structure search showed a number specific compounds indexed in CN 112920202 A as represented by H-1-STN:
PNG
media_image6.png
582
776
media_image6.png
Greyscale
H-1-STN reads on applicants’ composition wherein A is
PNG
media_image8.png
212
188
media_image8.png
Greyscale
; D is
PNG
media_image9.png
241
234
media_image9.png
Greyscale
; A’ is
PNG
media_image10.png
198
98
media_image10.png
Greyscale
; Ar1 is
PNG
media_image11.png
180
156
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(per claim 1).
H-1-STN reads on
PNG
media_image12.png
190
452
media_image12.png
Greyscale
for reasons discussed above along with X = S; R = hexyl alkane (per claim 2).
H-1-STN reads on
PNG
media_image13.png
276
670
media_image13.png
Greyscale
for reasons discussed above along with Ar2 is
PNG
media_image14.png
94
90
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(per claims 3-4)
Regarding Claims 9 and 14, Huang teaches a solar cell wherein the active layer contains the receptor material (H-1-STN) and polymer donor (semiconducting) PCE10 (structure below; Ossila data sheet 2026):
PNG
media_image15.png
272
424
media_image15.png
Greyscale
(per claim 9). PCE10 is identical to applicants’ PTB7-Th (per claim 14).
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2015/0108409) in view of Huang (CN 112920202 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Mayer teaches an organic semiconductor in organic electronic (OE) devices, preferably as electron donor and a semiconducting or photoactive material. The devices further includes mixtures comprising one or more compounds of formula I as electron donor component, and further comprising one or more compounds having electron acceptor properties (paragraphs 27-28). The device include a heterojunction (paragraph 35).
The office takes the position that a heterojunction is known in the art to be placed between the electron acceptor and the electron donor to increase efficiency and enhancing performance by creating a better interface between the acceptor and the donor.
Mayer fails to teach applicants’ specific electron acceptor; however, Mayer teaches a number of compounds which have the thiadiazole quinoxaline ring system like Huang’ s H-1-STN. One such ring system part taught by Mayer is represented by A21 (page 12) and D26 (page 8):
PNG
media_image16.png
210
224
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
150
221
media_image17.png
Greyscale
also contained in
PNG
media_image6.png
582
776
media_image6.png
Greyscale
H-1-STN
As Mayer teaches an organic semiconductor in organic electronic (OE) device containing an electron acceptor and an electron donor wherein said electron acceptor contains a thiadiazole quinoxaline as taught by Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected from known thiadiazole quinoxaline based electron acceptors which would have included Huang’s H-1-STN which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 16).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 112920202 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Huang’s teaches that a typical solar cell contains conductive glass (anode), hole transport layer, active layer, electron transport layer and counter electrode (cathode). Among them, the acceptor material of the active layer is the core part, which absorbs sunlight to generate excitons. The excitons are separated into free charges and then transferred to the corresponding electrodes (machine trans page 14/23). The active layer PCE10 (semiconducting polymer donor) and H-1-STN (electron acceptor) (small molecules A1 or A2) (Huang’s Example 3).
As it is known in the art how a soler device functions, the office takes the position that the solar device of Haung shows an active layer (region) containing PCE10 (semiconducting polymer donor) and H-1-STN (electron acceptor) which receive holes from the anode and electrons from the cathode. Under exposure to sunlight (power source) electrons accumulate in the electron acceptor before being transferred to the cathode while holes are accumulated semiconducting polymer donor to be transferred to the anode (per claim 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached on 571-272-7783. 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.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786