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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I directed to claims 1-30 in the reply filed on 03 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 43-46 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 and 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “device of 13” which should recite “device of claim 13”.
Claim 15 recites “device of 14” which should recite “device of claim 14”.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the organic electron donor and organic electron acceptor for a bulk heterojunction architecture in the active layer” where “for” should recite “form”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “the heteroarylene units” referring to more than one heteroarylene units but claim 5 from which claim 6 depends recites “one or more heteroarylene units” where it’s unclear if claim 6 is now limited to a situation where there are more than one heteroarylene units or if claim 6 means to include both instances of either one or more heteroarylene units. As such, the scope of claim 6 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-12 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 claim 1 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 selected from the group consisting of a fused aromatic ring structure and oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see L can be view at either three arylene units or a substituted acene fused ring structure).
Regarding claim 2 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (see DPADF above on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4 Kido discloses the compound of claim 2, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (see DPADF above on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
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_image3.png
136
220
media_image3.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_image4.png
236
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 12 Kido discloses the compound of claim 1 having a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV or wherein the HOMO-LUMO difference is 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_image5.png
106
626
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (KR 20130020503A, reference made to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses a compound of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See following compounds:
Compound 551 page 48
PNG
media_image6.png
234
396
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Compound 607 page 53
PNG
media_image7.png
232
394
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Compound 628 page 55
PNG
media_image8.png
232
398
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Compound 637 page 56
PNG
media_image9.png
230
398
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Compound 649 page 57
PNG
media_image10.png
234
398
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Compound 661 page 59
PNG
media_image11.png
234
398
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Compound 673 page 60
PNG
media_image12.png
228
398
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Compound 697 page 62
PNG
media_image13.png
230
396
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is selected from the group consisting of a fused aromatic ring structure and oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see above compounds have L group as either substituted fused aromatic ring structure or oligoarylene structure of at least three arylene or heteroarylene units).
Regarding claim 2 Kim discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (see compounds above all include an acene fused aromatic ring structure).
Regarding claim 3 Kim discloses the compound of claim 2, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is naphthalene (see compounds 551 and 649 each include a naphthalene substituent).
Regarding claim 4 Kim discloses the compound of claim 2, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (see compounds above all include an acene).
Regarding claim 5 Kim discloses the compound of claim 2, wherein fused aromatic ring structure comprises one or more heteroarylene units (see Compound 697 above including pyridyl substituents on the acene fused ring structure).
Regarding claim 7 Kim discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein A1 and A2 are each aryl (see compounds above).
Regarding claim 8 Kim discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein at least one of Fl1 and Fl2 is substituted with one or more alkyl substituents (see compounds above).
Regarding claim 9 Kim discloses the compound of claim 1 wherein at least one of Fl1 and Fl2 is of the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
136
220
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are independently alkyl (see compounds above).
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim’871 (WO 2010/064871A1).
Regarding claim 1 Kim’871 discloses a compound (page 64 reproduced below) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
190
390
media_image14.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are independently selected from the group consisting of aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are independently substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is a fused aromatic ring structure (anthracene).
Regarding claim 2 Kim’871 discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (anthracene).
Regarding claim 4 Kim’871 discloses the compound of claim 2, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (anthracene).
Regarding claim 7 Kim’871 discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein A1 and A2 are each aryl (see compound reproduced above).
Regarding claim 8 Kim’871 discloses the compound of claim 1, wherein at least one or Fl1 and Fl2 is substituted with one or more alkyl substituents (see compound reproduced above).
Regarding claim 9 Kim’871 discloses the compound of claim 1 wherein at least one of Fl1 and Fl2 is of the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
136
220
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are independently alkyl (see compound reproduced above).
Claims 1-7, 13-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (EP 2067767 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Lee discloses a compound (Examples 1843 and 4217 from Table 1 para [0063] beginning on page 54 reproduced below) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
212
614
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
316
604
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
372
600
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are selected from the group consisting of aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are independently substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is selected from the group consisting of a fused aromatic ring structure and oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see L above is considered either substituted anthracene or an oligoarylene of three arylene or heteroarylene units).
Regarding claim 2 Lee compound of claim 1, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (anthracene or substituted anthracene).
Regarding claim 3 Lee discloses the compound of claim 2, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is naphthalene (see compounds 1843-1847 each include a naphthalene substituent).
Regarding claim 4 Lee compound of claim 2, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (anthracene or substituted anthracene).
Regarding claim 5 Lee compound of claim 2, wherein fused aromatic ring structure comprises one or more heteroarylene units (Compounds 4217-4222 above include Benzothiazole substituents).
Regarding claim 6 Lee compound of claim 5, wherein the heteroarylene units comprise azole (substituted anthracene including benzothiazole).
Regarding claim 7 Lee compound of claim 1, wherein A1 and A2 are each aryl (see compounds above).
Regarding claim 13 Lee discloses an organic photovoltaic device (paras [0031] see: present invention includes organic solar cells which comprises one or more organic electroluminescent compound(s) represented by Chemical Formula (1)) comprising:
an anode; a cathode (para [0032] see: device includes first and second electrodes); and
at least one active layer residing between the anode and the cathode (paras [0031]-[0032] see: active layer including compound(s) represented by Chemical Formula (1) between electrodes),
the active layer comprising an organic electron donor and organic electron acceptor (paras [0031]-[0032], [0053], see: active layer including compound(s) represented by Chemical Formula (1) and can further be mixed with an electron oxidative dopant that is an acceptor compound),
the organic electron donor comprising a compound of Formula (I):
(Examples 249, 1843 and 4217 from Table 1 para [0063] beginning on page 54 reproduced below, however many other compounds also meet limitations of Formula (I)) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
212
614
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
46
602
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
316
604
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
372
600
media_image17.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are selected from the group consisting of aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are independently substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is selected from the group consisting of a fused aromatic ring structure and oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see L above is considered either substituted anthracene or an oligoarylene of three arylene or heteroarylene units).
Regarding claim 14 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of 13, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (anthracene or substituted anthracene).
Regarding claim 15 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of 14, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is naphthalene (see compounds 1843-1847 each include a naphthalene substituent).
Regarding claim 16 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 14, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (anthracene or substituted anthracene).
Regarding claim 17 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 14, wherein fused aromatic structure comprises one or more heteroarylene units (Compounds 4217-4222 above include Benzothiazole substituents).
Regarding claim 20 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, wherein the device is a single junction device (paras [0031]-[0032], see: active layer including compound(s) represented by Chemical Formula (1) considered as a single junction cell).
Regarding claim 21 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, wherein the organic electron donor and organic electron acceptor for a bulk heterojunction architecture in the active layer (paras [0031]-[0032], [0053], see: active layer including compound(s) represented by Chemical Formula (1) and can further be mixed with an electron oxidative dopant that is an acceptor compound).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’871 (WO 2010/064871A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, and 7-9 above.
Regarding claims 10-12 Kim’871 discloses the compound of claim 1 (page 64 reproduced below) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
190
390
media_image14.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly disclose the further properties of the compound having a peak absorption less than 440 nm or having a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV or wherein the HOMO-LUMO difference is at least 2.8 eV.
However, the above compound is almost identical to applicant’s compound AAFP of Fig. 1. Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows bandgap and thus difference between HOMO and LUMO and thus peak absorption primarily determined by the conjugated core which is disclosed by the compound of Kim’871. As such these claims are obvious over the prior art of Kim’871 as one skilled in the art would have expected these properties in the compound of Kim’871 as well.
See MPEP 2144.09:
I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
Claims 10-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (EP 2067767 A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 13-17, and 20-21 above.
Regarding claims 10-12 Lee discloses the compound of claim 1 as compound 249:
PNG
media_image15.png
212
614
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
46
602
media_image18.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly disclose the further properties of the compound having a peak absorption less than 440 nm or having a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV or wherein the HOMO-LUMO difference is at least 2.8 eV.
However, the above compound 249 is almost identical to applicant’s compound AAFP of Fig. 1 having the claimed properties and has the same utility as an electroluminescent compound usable in organic solar cell absorber layers. Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows bandgap and thus difference between HOMO and LUMO and thus peak absorption primarily determined by the conjugated core which is disclosed by compound 249 of Lee. As such these claims are obvious over the prior art of Lee as one skilled in the art would have expected these properties in the compound 249 of Lee as well.
See MPEP 2144.09:
I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
Regarding claims 18 and 19 Lee discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, Lee discloses the compound of claim 13 as compound 249:
PNG
media_image15.png
212
614
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
46
602
media_image18.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the compound of Formula (I) has the further properties of a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV or wherein peak absorbance of electromagnetic radiation by the active layer is in the range of 250 nm to 440 nm.
However, the above compound 249 is almost identical to applicant’s compound AAFP of Fig. 1 having the claimed properties and has the same utility as an electroluminescent compound usable in organic solar cell absorber layers. Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows bandgap and thus difference between HOMO and LUMO and thus peak absorption primarily determined by the conjugated core which is disclosed by compound 249 of Lee. As such these claims are obvious over the prior art of Lee as one skilled in the art would have expected these properties in the compound 249 of Lee as well. See MPEP 2144.09 as recited above.
Claims 13-14, 16, 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 claim 13 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 selected from the group consisting of a fused aromatic ring structure and oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see L can be view at either three arylene units or a substituted acene fused ring structure).
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 14 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (see DPADF above on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 16 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 14, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (see DPADF above on page 150 and in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 18 modified Kido discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Kido discloses wherein the compound of Formula (I) has a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV (see bottom of page 4 of translation and Table 9 showing band gap Eg of 2.9 eV of DPADF compound).
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 13-14, 16, 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 13-14, 16, 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.
Claims 10-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 20130020503A, reference made to attached English machine translation) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-9 above, and in further view of Barr (WO 2018232358A1).
Regarding claims 10-12 Kim discloses the compound of claim 1 (Compound 607) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
232
394
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly disclose the further properties of the compound having a peak absorption less than 440 nm or having a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV or wherein the HOMO-LUMO difference is at least 2.8 eV.
However, the above compound is almost identical to applicant’s compound AAFP of Fig. 1. Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows bandgap and thus difference between HOMO and LUMO and thus peak absorption primarily determined by the conjugated core which is disclosed by the compound of Kim. As such these claims are obvious over the prior art of Kim as one skilled in the art would have expected these properties in the compound of Kim which is also an electroluminescent material for use in active layers of OLED or OPV devices.
See MPEP 2144.09:
I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
In the alternative, as Barr teaches providing active layer compounds with such bandgaps of at least 2.8eV or a peak absorption less than 440 nm for absorption in the UV spectrum allows the use of the compound for visually transparent organic solar cells (Barr, Abstract, [0212]-[0214] Figs. 3-4). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compound of Kim in view of Barr such that the compound has a peak absorption less than 440 nm or has a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV a HOMO-LUMO difference of at least 2.8 eV to allow the organic solar cell including the compound to absorb in the UV spectrum and function as a visually transparent organic solar cell (Barr, Abstract, [0212]-[0214] Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 13 Kim discloses an organic photovoltaic device comprising:
an anode; a cathode; and at least one active layer residing between the anode and the cathode, the active layer comprising an organic electron donor (Kim, bottom of page 3 of translation see: optical device can functionally be a solar power generation device of a first electrode, second electrode, and active organic film of the Compounds recited below), the organic electron donor comprising a compound of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See following compounds:
PNG
media_image6.png
234
396
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
232
394
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
232
398
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
230
398
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
234
398
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
234
398
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
228
398
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
230
396
media_image13.png
Greyscale
wherein A1 and A2 are aryl; and
wherein Fl1 and Fl2 are substituted fluorenyl; and
wherein L is selected from the group consisting of a fused aromatic ring structure and oligoarylene, wherein the oligoarylene comprises at least three arylene or heteroarylene units (see above compounds have L group as either substituted fused aromatic ring structure or oligoarylene structure of at least three arylene or heteroarylene units).
Kim does not explicitly disclose the details of the active layer further comprising an organic electron acceptor, however, Barr discloses for such organic photovoltaic cells, the active layer comprises the electron donor compound with an electron acceptor (Barr, [0194], Figs. 1A-1B).
Kim and Barr are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of organic photovoltaic 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 Kim in view of Barr such that the active layer of Kim further comprises an electron acceptor as taught by Barr (Barr, [0194], Figs. 1A-1B) with the donor compound of Formula (I) of Kim for the express purpose of forming a photoactive donor/acceptor heterojunction for photovoltaic power generation.
Regarding claim 14 modified Kim discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, wherein L is the fused aromatic ring structure (see compounds above all include an acene fused aromatic ring structure).
Regarding claim 15 modified Kim discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 14, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is naphthalene (see compounds 551 and 649 each include a naphthalene substituent).
Regarding claim 16 modified Kim discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 14, wherein the fused aromatic ring structure is an acene (see compounds above all include an acene).
Regarding claim 17 modified Kim discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 14, wherein fused aromatic structure comprises one or more heteroarylene units (see Compound 697 above including pyridyl substituents on the acene fused ring structure).
Regarding claim 18 modified Kim discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13 including the compound (Compound 607) of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
106
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
232
394
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But does not explicitly disclose the further property of the compound having a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV.
However, the above compound is almost identical to applicant’s compound AAFP of Fig. 1. Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows bandgap and thus difference between HOMO and LUMO and thus peak absorption primarily determined by the conjugated core which is disclosed by the compound of Kim. As such these claims are obvious over the prior art of Kim as one skilled in the art would have expected this property in the compound of Kim which is also an electroluminescent material for use in active layers of OLED or OPV devices.
See MPEP 2144.09:
I. REJECTION BASED ON CLOSE STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY IS FOUNDED ON THE EXPECTATION THAT COMPOUNDS SIMILAR IN STRUCTURE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In rePayne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In rePapesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) and In reDillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) for an extensive review of the case law pertaining to obviousness based on close structural similarity of chemical compounds. See also MPEP § 2144.08, subsection II.A.4.(c).
In the alternative, as Barr teaches providing active layer compounds with such bandgaps of at least 2.5eV for absorption in the UV spectrum allows the use of the compound for visually transparent organic solar cells (Barr, Abstract, [0212]-[0214] Figs. 3-4). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the compound of Kim in view of Barr such that the compound has a difference between the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) and the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) of at least 2.5 eV to allow the organic solar cell including the compound to absorb in the UV spectrum and function as a visually transparent organic solar cell (Barr, Abstract, [0212]-[0214] Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 19 modified Kim discloses the organic photovoltaic device of claim 13, and Barr discloses wherein peak absorbance of electromagnetic radiation by the active layer is in the range of 250 nm to 440 nm (Barr, Abstract, [0212]-[0214] Figs. 2-4 see: active layer compound with peak absorption in the UV spectrum).
Regarding claim 20 modified Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim et al (KR 20130020503A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Barr (WO 2018/232358A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-23 and 25-28 above, and in further view of Huang et al (US 2012/0074392 A1).
Regarding claim 24 modified Kim 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 Kim, 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 Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim et al (KR 20130020503A, reference made to attached English machine translation) in view of Barr (WO 2018/232358A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-23 and 25-28 above, and in further view of Lunt et al (WO 2019/139945 A1).
Regarding claims 29 and 30 modified Kim 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 Kim 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 Kim 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seo et al (US 2014/0117322) discloses structures HM 30 and HM 31 that meet the limitations of the claimed compound of Formula I.
Shimamura (JP 2001226331A, reference made to attached English machine translation) discloses compounds F-31 and F-32 below:
PNG
media_image19.png
276
510
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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