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 .
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 25, 29, 33, 37, and 38 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.
Each of claims 25, 29, 33, 37, and 38 recite limitations conjoined with the term “and/or”, rendering each of these claims indefinite as it is unclear if the claim requires those limitations in the alternative or together. For the purposes of examination with regard to the prior art, each of these incidences of the term “and/or” will be read as if reciting --or--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 21-25, 30-32, 35-38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al., "Effect of Flexibility on the formation of conducting Layers at Organic Single Crystal Heterointerfaces", 2010, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 120201.
With regard to claim 21, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, a controlled organic semiconductor device comprising: a crystalline first organic semiconductor layer (rubrene) on or over a substrate, the crystalline first organic semiconductor layer having a first conductivity type (p-type); and a crystalline second organic semiconductor layer (TCNQ) on or over the first organic semiconductor layer, the crystalline second organic semiconductor layer having a second conductivity type (n-type), the first conductivity type being different from the second conductivity type (page 120201-2, column 2, paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 22, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the first organic semiconductor layer comprises a first crystallinity, and the second organic semiconductor layer comprises a second crystallinity, wherein the second crystallinity is less than or equal to the first crystallinity (page 120201-2, column 1, paragraph 2).
With regard to claim 23, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the first organic semiconductor layer comprises or is formed from a first type of low molecular weight conjugated molecules (rubrene), and wherein the second organic semiconductor layer comprises or is formed from a second type of low molecular weight conjugated molecules (TCNQ), wherein the second kind of conjugated molecules and the first kind of conjugated molecules are the same or are derivatives of a same kind of conjugated molecules.
With regard to claim 24, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the first organic semiconductor layer comprises or is formed from rubrene or a derivative thereof; and/or wherein the second organic semiconductor layer comprises or is formed from rubrene or a derivative thereof (page 120201-2, column 1, paragraph 2).
With regard to claim 25, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the second organic semiconductor layer is epitaxially formed on the first organic semiconductor layer, and/or wherein at least the second organic semiconductor layer is free of solvent (page 120201-1, column 2, paragraph 2).
With regard to claim 30, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the substrate comprises an organic crystal growth layer (PDMS), wherein the first organic semiconductor layer is directly disposed on the organic crystal growth layer.
With regard to claim 31, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the substrate comprises a first electrode (doped Si) of the controlled organic semiconductor device, and further comprising a second electrode (instance of Ag adjacent TCNQ layer on the right in the figure) on or over the second organic semiconductor layer.
With regard to claim 32, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that a third electrode (instance of Ag adjacent TCNQ layer on the left in the figure), wherein at least a portion of the third electrode is embedded in the second organic semiconductor layer.
With regard to claim 35, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, a method of forming a controlled organic semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a crystalline first organic semiconductor layer (rubrene) on or over a substrate, the first organic semiconductor layer comprising a first conductivity type (p-type); and forming a crystalline second organic semiconductor layer (TCNQ) on or over the first organic semiconductor layer, the second organic semiconductor layer having a second conductivity type (n-type), the first conductivity type being different from the second conductivity type (page 120201-2, column 2, paragraph 1).
With regard to claim 36, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the first organic semiconductor layer is formed with a first type of low molecular weight conjugated molecules (rubrene), and wherein the second organic semiconductor layer is formed with a second type of low molecular weight conjugated molecules (TCNQ), wherein the second kind of conjugated molecules and the first kind of conjugated molecules are the same or are derivatives of a same kind of conjugated molecules.
With regard to claim 37, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the first organic semiconductor layer comprises or is formed from rubrene or a derivative thereof; and/or wherein the second organic semiconductor layer comprises or is formed from rubrene or a derivative thereof (page 120201-2, column 1, paragraph 2).
With regard to claim 38, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the second organic semiconductor layer is formed on the first organic semiconductor layer by an epitaxial process, and/or wherein at least the second organic semiconductor layer is formed using a solvent-free process (page 120201-1, column 2, paragraph 2).
With regard to claim 40, Watanabe teaches, in Fig 3b, that the substrate comprises an organic crystal growth layer (PDMS), wherein the first organic semiconductor layer is formed directly on the organic crystal growth layer.
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(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., "Effect of Flexibility on the formation of conducting Layers at Organic Single Crystal Heterointerfaces", 2010, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 120201 in view of Leo et al. (US 2012/0075013).
With regard to claim 26, Watanabe teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 21.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach that the first organic semiconductor layer comprises a first dopant and the second organic semiconductor layer comprises a second dopant, different from the first dopant.
Leo teaches, in Fig 1, that the first organic semiconductor layer (3) comprises a first dopant and the second organic semiconductor layer (4) comprises a second dopant, different from the first dopant ([0091]) to provide, “a promising alternative to silicon-based electronics,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Watanabe with the doping of Leo to provide a promising alternative to silicon-based electronics.
With regard to claim 27, Watanabe teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 21.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach a crystalline third organic semiconductor layer disposed between the first organic semiconductor layer and the second organic semiconductor layer, wherein the third organic semiconductor layer is undoped or substantially undoped, and wherein the third organic semiconductor layer is directly adjacent to at least one of the first organic semiconductor layer and the second organic semiconductor layer; and wherein the third organic semiconductor layer has a third crystallinity that is less than or equal to the first crystallinity of the first organic semiconductor layer.
Leo teaches, in Fig 1, a crystalline third organic semiconductor layer (5) disposed between the first organic semiconductor layer (3) and the second organic semiconductor layer (4), wherein the third organic semiconductor layer is undoped or substantially undoped ([0083]), and wherein the third organic semiconductor layer is directly adjacent to at least one of the first organic semiconductor layer and the second organic semiconductor layer; and wherein the third organic semiconductor layer has a third crystallinity that is less than or equal to the first crystallinity of the first organic semiconductor layer (first semiconductor layer is described in Watanabe as single crystal at page 120201-1, column 2, paragraph 2, thus any crystallinity of the third organic semiconductor layer will meet this limitation) to provide, “a promising alternative to silicon-based electronics,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Watanabe with the third semiconductor layer of Leo to provide a promising alternative to silicon-based electronics.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., "Effect of Flexibility on the formation of conducting Layers at Organic Single Crystal Heterointerfaces", 2010, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 120201 in view of Kaneko (US 2017/0110566).
With regard to claim 33, Watanabe teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 32.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach that the third electrode comprises a patterning, the patterning comprising one or more finger shapes and/or a meander shape.
Kaneko teaches, in Fig 1, that the third electrode (110, 120, or 130) comprises a patterning, the patterning comprising one or more finger shapes and/or a meander shape ([0086]) thereby, “reducing current collapses and gate parasitic capacitances of a semiconductor device,” ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Watanabe with the electrode shapes of Kaneko thereby reducing current collapses and gate parasitic capacitances of a semiconductor device.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., "Effect of Flexibility on the formation of conducting Layers at Organic Single Crystal Heterointerfaces", 2010, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 120201 in view of Forrest (US 2005/0275056).
With regard to claim 34, Watanabe teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 21.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach that the device is configured as an organic bipolar transistor.
Forrest teaches that the device is configured as an organic bipolar transistor ([0007]) to provide, “a very high bandwidth, high gain heterojunction bipolar,” ([0013]) transistor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Watanabe with the organic bipolar transistor configuration of Forrest to provide a very high bandwidth, high gain heterojunction bipolar transistor.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., "Effect of Flexibility on the formation of conducting Layers at Organic Single Crystal Heterointerfaces", 2010, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 49 120201 in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2006/0202196).
With regard to claim 39, Watanabe teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 35.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach that at least the second organic semiconductor layer comprises a second dopant introduced into the second organic semiconductor layer using a co-evaporation process.
Kawakami teaches that at least the second organic semiconductor layer comprises a second dopant introduced into the second organic semiconductor layer using a co-evaporation process ([0051]) to provide doping, “easily,” ([0051]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the process of Watanabe with the co-evaporation process of Kawakami to provide doping easily.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 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.
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious claimed limitations of a fourth organic semiconductor layer disposed on or above the second organic semiconductor layer, wherein the fourth organic semiconductor layer has the same or substantially the same conductivity type as the first organic semiconductor layer; and wherein the fourth organic semiconductor layer has a fourth crystallinity that is less than or equal to the second crystallinity of the second organic semiconductor layer, as set forth in claim 28, when taken in concert with all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 29 depends from claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights