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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 10961−10967).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, 12, Jo teaches a composition comprising two donor materials (page 10961). The donors are represented by PTDPP2T (first electron donor) and (TDPP)2Ph (second electron donor):
PNG
media_image1.png
238
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The uv−vis spectrum of PTDPP2T shows broad absorption onset at 940 nm and (TDPP)2Ph exhibits strong absorption in the range
of 450−700 nm with the onset absorption at shorter wavelength (747 nm) (page 10963). (per claims 1-2).
PTDPP2T (first electron donor) is a polymer (per claims 4-5) showing thiophene repeating units (per claim 7).
The acceptor material PC71BM contains a fullerene unit (page10962):
PNG
media_image2.png
234
164
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(per clam 9).
The active layer was composed of PTDPP2T, (TDPP)2Ph, and carefully optimized by varying the solvent conditions (page 10963) (per claim 12).
Regarding Claims 13-14 and 16, Jo teaches a photovoltaic cell represented by glass/ITO/PEDOT:PSS/active layer/Ca/Al. The active layer containing the donors are represented by PTDPP2T (first electron donor) and (TDPP)2Ph (second electron donor) and acceptor material PC71BM (page 10962).
ITO is viewed as the anode; Ca/Al is viewed as the cathode. The active layer is viewed as corresponding to applicants’ photosensitive layer. The photovoltaic cell is equivalent to the solar cell which can be viewed as a photoresponsive device (as commonly known in the art) (per claims 13-14).
The office views a photovoltaic cell as a photosensor (as commonly known in the art) (per claim 16).
Regarding Claim 15, Jo teaches the method to form the device including the ITO-coated glass was cleaned with acetone and isopropyl alcohol. After complete drying at 150 °C for 30 min, the ITO-coated glass was treated with UV−ozone for 15 min. PEDOT:PSS was spin-coated on the ITO glass at 3000 rpm for 40 s and annealed at 150 °C for 20 min. Then, the active layer solution was spin-coated onto the PEDOT:PSS-coated ITO glass at 50 °C. There was used a solvent of 5 vol % DCB in CF. After the active layer was dried completely, Ca (25 nm) and Al (100 nm) were thermally deposited under 3 × 10−6 Torr (page 10962) (per claim 15).
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.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 10961−10967).
Regarding Claim 3, Jo teach the composition of claim 1. The weight ratio of the two donor materials is as follows: the amount of (TDPP)2Ph is 5, 10, and 15 wt % relative to the weight of PTDPP2T (page 10963).
The weight ratio of Jo while not the same as applicant does show an overlapping portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 3).
Regarding Claim 17, Jo’s photovoltaic cell as a photosensor was discussed above. The light source emission is viewed as a matter of experimental design based on the target emission region encompassed by active layer. The selection of materials with the desired emission parameters are viewed as well within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results (per claim 17).
Allowable Subject Matter I
Claims 6, 8 and 10-11 are 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.
The prior art of record fails to show:
the first organic electron donor material and the second organic electron donor material is an electron donor polymer comprising an electron donating repeat unit and an electron accepting unit (per claim 6)
electron donor polymer (per claim 8)
the organic electron acceptor is a non-fullerene compound (per claim 10)
the weight of the first donor material is at least the same as the weight of the second donor material (per claim 11)
Allowable Subject Matter II
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter as applicant claims the method of claim 18.
The prior art of record fails to show the claimed method.
Claim 18 allowed.
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