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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 as amended and new claims 47-50 as set forth in applicant’s response dated 03 August 2026 are presently under consideration. Claims 31-46 are cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejections and claim objections of record which are thus withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art grounds of rejection of record with the exception of the anticipation and obviousness grounds of rejection under Kido et al (JP 2009292806A) as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks where applicable are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11-12 and 18 each recite band gap ranges that are broader than and do not further limit the band gap ranges recited in the independent claims 1 or 13 from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 7-12, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kido et al (JP 2009292806A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12 Kido discloses a compound (DPADF on page 150 and in Fig. 14) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
194
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is an oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see L is three arylene units (phenylene and anthracenediyl)); and
wherein a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.8 eV (see bottom of page 4 of translation and Table 9 below showing band gap Eg of 2.9 eV of DPADF compound).
PNG
media_image3.png
106
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein A1 and A2 are each aryl (see DPADF above and on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein at least one or Fl1 and Fl2 is substituted with one or more alkyl substituents (see DPADF above on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 9 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein at least one of Fl1 and Fl2 is of the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
136
220
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are independently selected from the group consisting of alkyl (see DPADF above on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 10 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1 having a peak absorption less than 440 nm (see bottom of page 4 of translation and Fig. 16 below showing peak absorption of DPADF compound below 440 nm).
PNG
media_image5.png
236
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 49 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein the linker is oligoarylene (see L is three arylene units (phenylene and anthracenediyl)).
Regarding claim 50 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein the difference is 3 eV to 4 eV (see bottom of page 4 of translation and Table 9 above showing band gap Eg of 2.9 eV of DPADF compound where 2.9eV expressed to one significant digit as claimed is ~3eV and considered to anticipate the claimed range).
Claims 13, 18-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al (JP 2009292806A, reference made to attached English machine translation) and in further view of Barr (WO 2018232358A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 18 Kido discloses an organic optoelectronic device comprising:
an anode; a cathode (see top of page 6 of translation, device fabricated with DPADF between ITO and Al electrodes); and
compound (DPADF on page 150 and in Fig. 14) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
194
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see L is three arylene units (phenylene and anthracenediyl)); and
wherein a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.8 eV (see bottom of page 4 of translation and Table 9 below showing band gap Eg of 2.9 eV of DPADF compound).
PNG
media_image3.png
106
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kido does not explicitly disclose the device as a photovoltaic device where an active layer comprises an organic electron donor and organic electron acceptor, the organic electron donor comprising said compound of Formula (I).
However, Barr discloses forming organic photovoltaic devices having an active layer comprises an organic electron donor and organic electron acceptor (Abstract, Figs. 1A-1B and 2-4 see: photoactive layer 140 with donor and acceptor materials) that are visually transparent by absorbing in the UV/NIR spectrums (Abstract and Figs. 2-4).
Barr and Kido are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of optoelectronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the compound of Formula (I) of Kido (DPADF) as an organic electron donor with an organic electron acceptor in an organic photovoltaic device as the compound of Formula (I) of Kido shows absorption in the UV spectrum (Fig. 16 of Kido) and Barr teaches such UV absorbing compounds can thus provide a visually transparent UV/NIR absorbing organic photovoltaic device (Abstract and Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 19 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Kido discloses wherein peak absorbance of electromagnetic radiation by the active layer is in the range of 250 nm to 440 nm (see bottom of page 4 of translation and Fig. 16 below showing peak absorption of DPADF compound at about 250 nm).
Regarding claim 20 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Barr discloses wherein the device is a single junction device (Barr, [0194], Figs. 1A-1B see: Photoactive layer 140 formed as a single junction configuration).
Regarding claim 21 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Barr discloses wherein the organic electron donor and organic electron acceptor for a bulk heterojunction architecture in the active layer (Barr, [0194] Fig. 1B see: photoactive layer 140 formed as a bulk heterojunction of mixed donor/acceptor material).
Regarding claim 22 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Barr discloses wherein the active layer has a thickness of 50-300 nm (Barr, [0012], [0195] see: photoactive layer having a thickness of 1 nm to 300 nm, such as 50 nm-300 nm).
Regarding claim 23 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Barr discloses wherein the device exhibits an inverted architecture (Barr, [0342] see: device can be formed in an electrically inverted architecture).
Regarding claims 25 and 26 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13 and regarding the claim 25 limitation “having an open circuit voltage (Voc) of at least 1.5 V” and claim 26 limitation “having an open circuit voltage (Voc) of 1.5 V to 3 V” Barr teaches in paras [0210] and [0214] that solar cell Voc can be varied by adding more subcells in series within the solar cell or by increasing the difference in the LUMO level of the acceptor and the HOMO level of the donor to increase the open circuit voltage to achieve better efficiency while maintaining visual transparency.
As such, the open circuit voltage of the organic photovoltaic device of modified Kido is a result effective variable. The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the open circuit voltage in the organic photovoltaic device of modified Kido to achieve the optimized efficiency and visual transparency of the organic photovoltaic device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claims 27 and 28 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13 and Barr discloses having an average photopic-response-weighted visible transmittance of at least 75% or having an average photopic-response-weighted visible transmittance of at least 80% (Barr, [0059]-[0060], [0188]-[0189] see: device can have an average visual transmittance (AVT) of at least 75% or at least 80%).
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al (JP 2009292806A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Barr (WO 2018/232358A1) as applied to claims 13, 18-23, and 25-28 above, and in further view of Huang et al (US 2012/0074392 A1).
Regarding claim 24 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 23 and regarding the claim 24 recitation “further comprising an organic light outcoupling layer over the anode” Barr teaches optical layers 114, 112 provided over the transparent electrodes in Fig. 1A (paras [0068], [0187]) which appear to meet the definition of an organic light outcoupling layer.
In the alternative where it’s not clear this limitation is disclosed by modified Kido, Huang discloses applying organic light outcoupling layers over the anode or cathode of an optoelectronic device (Huang, [0024]-[0025] Fig. 1) as Huang teaches such layers prevent light from being trapped within the device and all more light to be emitted out of the device (Huang, [0061]).
Huang and modified Kido are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of optoelectronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of modified Kido in view of Huang such that the device has an organic light outcoupling layer over the anode as in Huang (Huang, [0024]-[0025] Fig. 1) as Huang teaches such layers prevent light from being trapped within the device and all more light to be emitted out of the device (Huang, [0061]) which would be beneficial in a visually transparent photovoltaic device.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kido et al (JP 2009292806A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Barr (WO 2018/232358A1) as applied to claims 13, 18-23, and 25-28 above, and in further view of Lunt et al (WO 2019/139945 A1).
Regarding claims 29 and 30 modified Kido discloses the photovoltaic device of claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose having a color rendering index of at least 90.0 or having a color rendering index of at least 95.0.
Lunt teaches for visibly transparent solar cells, a color rendering index (CRI) greater than about 90 or greater than or equal to about 95 is desirable to allow objects on an opposing side of the transparent photovoltaic cell than the human observer appear substantially (or completely) in their natural color and substantially without (or without) tint or haze (para [0116]).
Lunt and modified Kido are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of visibly transparent solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of modified Kido in view of Lunt such that the device has a color rendering index of at least 90.0 or having a color rendering index of at least 95.0 as taught by Lunt (para [0116]) to allow objects on an opposing side of the transparent photovoltaic cell than the human observer appear substantially (or completely) in their natural color and substantially without (or without) tint or haze.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 14-17, and 47-48 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.
Claim 2 recites where L in the compound is the fused aromatic ring structure which is not taught, disclosed or made obvious over the prior art of record.
Kido et al (JP 2009292806A) does not teach this structure where L in the compound is the fused aromatic ring structure and having terminal ring attachment of the nitrogen atoms recited in claim 1 and required in claim 2.
Newly cited prior art of Senoo et al (US 6,517,957) recites the organic compound of Formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
86
144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With notable compound 30:
PNG
media_image7.png
168
338
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where although L is the fused aromatic ring structure having terminal ring attachment of the nitrogen atoms, Senoo does not explicitly disclose an embodiment with the substituted fluorenyl compounds at Fl1 and Fl2 as in applicant’s claimed formula 1 with the further limitations of claimed formula 1 where a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.8 eV.
The further prior art of record does not make up for the deficiencies of Kido or Senoo.
Claims 3-6, 14-17, and 47-48 either depend from claim 2 or otherwise require the same allowable subject matter as claim 2 and would be allowable for the same reasons as recited above if provided independent form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As recited above, the recited Compound DPADF in Kido discloses L as the oligoarylene and anticipate the limitations of claim 1 or render the limitations of claim 13 obvious. Applicant’s further arguments to Kido are moot in view of this point as they are directed to the fused aromatic ring structure species not relied upon.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 and 47-50 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights