DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed December 22, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 22, 2025, the rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 4, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 22, 2025, the rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 4, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13, and 14 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 recite, “wherein the solar cell is a bulk heterojunction solar cell comprising polymers, small molecules, oligomers, and combinations thereof”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including wherein the solar cell is a bulk heterojunction solar cell comprising polymers, small molecules, oligomers, and combinations thereof.
The specification teaches preferred materials for forming the solar cells include organic semiconductors (e.g. polymers, small molecules, oligomers) but does not teach wherein the solar cell is a bulk heterojunction solar cell comprising polymers, small molecules, oligomers, and combinations thereof. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forrest et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0297234 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Forrest et al. discloses a method for reducing solar cell degradation comprising:
intermittently applying a reverse bias voltage during a current-voltage sweep of the solar cell (see Fig. 2a and [0034]), and wherein
the solar cell is a bulk heterojunction solar cell comprising polymers, small molecules, oligomers, and combinations thereof (see [0046] “organic semiconductor heterojunctions”).
With regard to claim 4, Forrest et al. discloses wherein
the current-voltage sweep occurs at least once per day (see Fig. 2a and [0034] cited to read on the claimed “at least once per day” as the cited sweep occurs at least once a day on the day it was performed).
With regard to claim 6, Forrest et al. discloses wherein
the current-voltage sweep occurs every time the solar cell has been irradiated with a predetermined wattage (such as when the solar cell was irradiated with a predetermined wattage during the cited sweep).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0297234 A1).
With regard to claim 3, Forrest et al. discloses a method for reducing solar cell degradation comprising:
intermittently applying a reverse bias voltage during a current-voltage sweep of the solar cell (see Fig. 2a and [0034]), and wherein
the solar cell is a bulk heterojunction solar cell comprising polymers, small molecules, oligomers, and combinations thereof (see [0046] “organic semiconductor heterojunctions”).
Forrest et al. teaches the current-voltage sweep scans up to +1V (see Fig. 2a) but does not disclose wherein the current-voltage sweep scans from less than -7V to +1V.
However, the range of voltages for the current-voltage sweep scans is a result effective variable and Forrest et al. teaches the lower end voltage range effects the slope during reverse bias which is due to the field dependent dissociation of thermally generated polaron pairs (see [0034]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the lower end voltage range in the method of Forrest et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to obtaining the slope during reverse bias across the range which is due to the field dependent dissociation of thermally generated polaron pairs.
With regard to claim 5, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Forrest et al. under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Forrest et al. does not disclose wherein the current-voltage sweep is performed in at most 15 seconds.
However, the time of the current-voltage sweep is a result effective variable directly affecting the time required to obtain the current-voltage curve depicted in Fig. 2a.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the current-voltage sweep time in the method of Forrest et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the time required to obtain the current-voltage curve.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0297234 A1) in view of Moon et al. (“Nanomorphology of PCDTBT:PC70BM Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells” Adv. Energy Mater. 2, 304-308 (2012)).
With regard to claim 13, independent claim 1 is anticipated by Forrest et al. under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as discussed above.
Forrest et al. teaches a heterojunction pi-conjugate organic semiconductor but does not specifically teach PCDTBT and PC70BM.
However, Moon et al. teaches a solar cell (see Title) and teaches a pi-conjugate organic semiconductor can include PCDTBT and PC70BM (see Title).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the PCDTBT and PC70BM material of Moon et al. for the heterojunction pi-conjugate organic semiconductor of Forrest et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a heterojunction pi-conjugate organic semiconductor for a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0297234 A1), and in further view of Moon et al. (“Nanomorphology of PCDTBT:PC70BM Bulk Heterojunction Solar Cells” Adv. Energy Mater. 2, 304-308 (2012)).
With regard to claim 14, independent claim 3 is obvious over Forrest et al. under 35 U.S.C 103 as discussed above.
Forrest et al. teaches a heterojunction pi-conjugate organic semiconductor but does not specifically teach PCDTBT and PC70BM.
However, Moon et al. teaches a solar cell (see Title) and teaches a pi-conjugate organic semiconductor can include PCDTBT and PC70BM (see Title).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the PCDTBT and PC70BM material of Moon et al. for the heterojunction pi-conjugate organic semiconductor of Forrest et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a heterojunction pi-conjugate organic semiconductor for a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the sweeps in Forrest et al. are typically performed for device characterization and not as apart of a recurring conditional protocol. However, the claims do not require performing any sweeps as a recurring conditional protocol and the rejections of the claims do not allege or rely on Forrest et al. to teach performing sweeps for a recurring conditional protocol.
Applicant argues that Forrest et al. does not provide any teaching or motivation for additional, intermittent sweeps to be carried out over time in the context of device characterization, nor is any such protocol disclosed or suggested. However, the claims do not require any additional, intermittent sweeps to be carried out over time in the context of device characterization or any such protocol and the rejections of the claims do not allege or rely on Forrest et al. to teach any additional, intermittent sweeps to be carried out over time in the context of device characterization or any such protocol.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 February 27, 2026