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 § 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) 1-3 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rannou et al (US 2011/0139063).
Rannou et al teaches forming a layer of molecular feedstock over a surface of a substrate, the molecular feedstock comprising an organic solid crystal precursor ([0065], [0110], claim 3 teaches solid form of molecular organic semiconductor material (OSCM)); forming crystal nuclei (single crystal seed) from the organic solid crystal precursor within a nucleation region of the layer of molecular feedstock (Abstract teaches forming a single crystal seed from a melt of the OSCM); and growing the crystal nuclei to form an organic solid crystal thin film (Abstract teaches forming a single crystal film from the seed).
In regards to the limitation “maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region,” Rannou et al teaches to control the temperature profile, a plate 30 may contain temperature regulating systems, thus the temperature and cooling rate of the molecular OSCM can be controlled with accuracy; and Fig 1F depicts the plate 30 over only a portion of the substrate 10; and cooling according to a defined temperature profile in order to solidify the thin film, characterized in that the temperature of the substrate surface is equal to or above the melting point of the molecular OSCM at the moment of implementing step (a) and in that the temperature profile of step (b) comprises: a first part corresponding to a sufficiently slow controlled cooling of the molecular OSCM down to a temperature close to the crystallization temperature of the molecular OSCM, so as to cause only a single seed to appear in the thin film in melt form; and a second part corresponding to controlled cooling so that at least one single-crystal domain grows from this seed, wherein the examiner maintains that the temperature gradient would be formed because the nucleation region would be the region beneath the plate 30 where the seed is formed is at a temperature less than the region remote from the plate, i.e. the region not cover the by the plate (abstract; Fig 1F; [0130]).
Referring to claim 2, Rannou et al teaches teaching melting the solid OSCM and forming a seed crystal (Abstract).
Referring to claim 3, Rannou et al teaches an OSCM comprising thiophene ([0139]).
Referring to claim 5, Rannou et al teaches crystallizing organic semiconductor material (Abstract).
Referring to claim 6, Rannou et al teaches pyrene ([0087], [0157]).
Referring to claim 7, Rannou et al teaches a solid (powder) molecular OSCM at ambient temperature and then heating to melt ([0125]-[0128]), which requires heating a temperature less than the melting point, i.e. the temperatures between ambient and the melting point.
Referring to claim 8, Rannou et al teaches the receiver surface can be treated to form an oxide, such as SiO2, Al2O3, Ta2O5, to modify its wettability ([0103]-[0106]), which reads on a layer of non-volatile medium over the substrate and forming feedstock directly over the medium.
Referring to claim 9, Rannou et al teaches a seed and forming a single crystal from the seed from the OSCM melt (abstract; [0020], [0111], [0136]).
Referring to claim 10, Rannou et al teaches a cover plate 30 over the feedstock while growing the crystal ([0125]-[0131]).
Referring to claim 11, Rannou et al teaches a cover plate 30 and is shown to be inclined at an angle of approximately 0 degrees (Fig 1C, 1D). It also noted that nominal inclination would be inherent since the surface is not perfectly flat.
Referring to claim 12-13, Rannou et al teaches a single crystal film ([0022]) and desired structural organization between the amorphous state and crystalline state ([0001]) and polycrystalline OSCM ([0013]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rannou et al (US 2011/0139063), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Takimiya et al (US 2015/0303383).
Rannou et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, except molecular feedstock comprises a dopant selected from the group consisting of fluorine, chlorine, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus.
In a method of making organic crystals, Takimiya et al teaches doping can change the characteristics of an organic semiconductor layer by addition of a trace amounts of elements, atom groups, molecules, or polymers to the organic semiconductor layer, wherein the organic semiconductor layer can be doped with, for example, oxygen, hydrogen; halogen atoms; and metal atoms such as sodium and potassium or sulfuric acid or PF5, FeCl3 ([0117]). Takimiya et al also teaches doping during synthesis of the organic semiconductor compound and in a process of forming an organic semiconductor layer by using a composition, the dopant can be added to the composition, which clearly suggest the feed stock comprises dopant ([0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rannou et al by using molecular feedstock comprises a dopant selected from the group consisting of fluorine, chlorine, oxygen, sulfur, or phosphorus, as taught by Takimiya et al, to desirably change the characteristics of the organic semiconductor layer.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rannou et al (US 2011/0139063), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2006-3817), an English computer translation (CT) is provided.
Rannou et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, except forming a primary electrode over a first portion of the organic solid crystal thin film; forming a secondary electrode over a second portion of the organic solid crystal thin film; and changing a biased state between the primary electrode and the secondary electrode in an amount effective to change an optical property of the organic solid crystal thin film.
In a optical modulation device, Suzuki teaches a organic crystal formed on a substrate; and forming modulation electrodes that apply voltage to modulate the light emitted from a semiconductor layer, and the organic crystal exhibits an electro-optic effect in which a refractive index change occurs due to the electric field (CT [0005]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Rannou et al by forming electrodes of a first portion and second portion of the organic crystal film, as taught by Suzuki, to apply an electro-optic effect in which a refractive index change occurs due to the electric field.
Referring to claims 15-16, Suzuki teaches modulation electrodes and applying an electric field to cause a refractive index change (CT [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki by optimizing the electric field to produce a desired change in refractive index.
Referring to claim 17-18, the combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki does not explicitly teach changing the birefringence or amount of visible light absorbed is change. The combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki teaches a similar method of forming an organic single crystal and forming electrodes to change the electro-optics of the crystalline layer. Therefore, the change in birefringence or amount of visible light would be expected because a similar method is expected to produce a similar result. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki by optimizing the electric field to produce a desired change in optical properties.
Referring to claim 19, the combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki does not explicitly teach the claimed refractive indices and thickness refractive index. The combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki teaches an organic crystal film for opto-electronic devices (Rannou Abstract) and controlling the refractive index using electrodes (Suzuki (CT [0027]). Therefore, the refractive index is a known result effective variable, and the combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki teaches a variety of a suitable organic crystalline materials (Rannou [0033]-[0100]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Rannou et al and Suzuki to conduct routine experimentation with the disclosed material to determine materials and thickness having desired optical properties, i.e. refractive index.
Referring to claim 20, see remarks above regarding claim 14 which claims the same limitations.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/543,040 (‘040) in view of Rannou et al (US 2011/0139063). ‘040 claims all of the limitations of claim 1, except ‘040 does not claim maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region. Rannou et al teaches forming a layer of molecular feedstock over a surface of a substrate, the molecular feedstock comprising an organic solid crystal precursor ([0065], [0110], claim 3 teaches solid form of molecular organic semiconductor material (OSCM)); forming crystal nuclei (single crystal seed) from the organic solid crystal precursor within a nucleation region of the layer of molecular feedstock (Abstract teaches forming a single crystal seed from a melt of the OSCM); and growing the crystal nuclei to form an organic solid crystal thin film (Abstract teaches forming a single crystal film from the seed).
In regards to the limitation “maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region,” Rannou et al teaches to control the temperature profile, a plate 30 may contain temperature regulating systems, thus the temperature and cooling rate of the molecular OSCM can be controlled with accuracy; and Fig 1F depicts the plate 30 over only a portion of the substrate 10; and cooling according to a defined temperature profile in order to solidify the thin film, characterized in that the temperature of the substrate surface is equal to or above the melting point of the molecular OSCM at the moment of implementing step (a) and in that the temperature profile of step (b) comprises: a first part corresponding to a sufficiently slow controlled cooling of the molecular OSCM down to a temperature close to the crystallization temperature of the molecular OSCM, so as to cause only a single seed to appear in the thin film in melt form; and a second part corresponding to controlled cooling so that at least one single-crystal domain grows from this seed, wherein the examiner maintains that the temperature gradient would be formed because the nucleation region would be the region beneath the plate 30 where the seed is formed is at a temperature less than the region remote from the plate, i.e. the region not cover the by the plate (abstract; Fig 1F; [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ‘040 by maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region, as taught by Rannou et al, to control cooling so that at least one single-crystal domain grows from a seed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 17/702,219 (‘219) in view of Rannou et al (US 2011/0139063). ‘219 claims all of the limitations of claim 1, except ‘219 does not claim maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region. Rannou et al teaches forming a layer of molecular feedstock over a surface of a substrate, the molecular feedstock comprising an organic solid crystal precursor ([0065], [0110], claim 3 teaches solid form of molecular organic semiconductor material (OSCM)); forming crystal nuclei (single crystal seed) from the organic solid crystal precursor within a nucleation region of the layer of molecular feedstock (Abstract teaches forming a single crystal seed from a melt of the OSCM); and growing the crystal nuclei to form an organic solid crystal thin film (Abstract teaches forming a single crystal film from the seed).
In regards to the limitation “maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region,” Rannou et al teaches to control the temperature profile, a plate 30 may contain temperature regulating systems, thus the temperature and cooling rate of the molecular OSCM can be controlled with accuracy; and Fig 1F depicts the plate 30 over only a portion of the substrate 10; and cooling according to a defined temperature profile in order to solidify the thin film, characterized in that the temperature of the substrate surface is equal to or above the melting point of the molecular OSCM at the moment of implementing step (a) and in that the temperature profile of step (b) comprises: a first part corresponding to a sufficiently slow controlled cooling of the molecular OSCM down to a temperature close to the crystallization temperature of the molecular OSCM, so as to cause only a single seed to appear in the thin film in melt form; and a second part corresponding to controlled cooling so that at least one single-crystal domain grows from this seed, wherein the examiner maintains that the temperature gradient would be formed because the nucleation region would be the region beneath the plate 30 where the seed is formed is at a temperature less than the region remote from the plate, i.e. the region not cover the by the plate (abstract; Fig 1F; [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ‘219 by maintaining a temperature gradient across the layer of molecular feedstock such that a temperature proximate to the nucleation region is less than a temperature remote from the nucleation region, as taught by Rannou et al, to control cooling so that at least one single-crystal domain grows from a seed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach the claimed temperature gradient is noted but not found persuasive. As discussed above, Rannou et al teaches to control the temperature profile, a plate 30 may contain temperature regulating systems, thus the temperature and cooling rate of the molecular OSCM can be controlled with accuracy; and Fig 1F depicts the plate 30 over only a portion of the substrate 10; and cooling according to a defined temperature profile in order to solidify the thin film, characterized in that the temperature of the substrate surface is equal to or above the melting point of the molecular OSCM at the moment of implementing step (a) and in that the temperature profile of step (b) comprises: a first part corresponding to a sufficiently slow controlled cooling of the molecular OSCM down to a temperature close to the crystallization temperature of the molecular OSCM, so as to cause only a single seed to appear in the thin film in melt form; and a second part corresponding to controlled cooling so that at least one single-crystal domain grows from this seed, wherein the examiner maintains that the temperature gradient would be formed because the nucleation region would be the region beneath the plate 30 where the seed is formed is at a temperature less than the region remote from the plate, i.e. the region not cover the by the plate (abstract; Fig 1F; [0130]).
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 MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714