DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 4 are essentially duplicate claims which differ only the ordering of the terms “electron donor” and “electron acceptor” terms along with the presence or absence of a colon ‘:”. One claim should be amended or deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burroughes (WO 2019/193331 A2).
Regarding Claims 1-4, 8, Burroughes teaches an organic photodetector (OPD) comprises: a first electrode, which may be the anode or the cathode; a second electrode, which may be the other of the anode or the cathode; and a photosensitive organic layer (applicants’ activation layer) positioned between the electrodes, wherein the photosensitive organic layer comprises a donor compound and an acceptor compound wherein the acceptor compound does not comprise a fullerene group (page 12). The acceptor material is GF1 (page 7):
PNG
media_image1.png
474
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
466
1004
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 37).
GF1 is in the photosensitive organic layer (applicants’ activation layer ) (per claims 1 and 8).
Burroughes’s R1 is a 1-20 alkyl group corresponds to applicants’ R1 and R2 (per claim 2)
Burroughes’s General Formula 1 (GF1) is an acceptor material (corresponding to applicant electron acceptor material) (per claims 3-4)
Regarding Claim 13, Burroughes teaches an organic photodetector (OPD ) comprises: a first electrode, which may be the anode or the cathode; a second electrode, which may be the other of the anode or the cathode; and a photosensitive organic layer (applicants’ activation layer) positioned between the electrodes (page 12). The device may comprise a hole transport layer (HTL) located between the anode 107 and the heterojunction layer 105 (page 10).
The office notes that the hole transport layer is located between the anode and the activation layer (per claim 13).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burroughes (WO 2019/193331 A2) in view of Shi (Nanomaterials 2018, 8, 713; doi:10.3390/nano8090713).
Regarding Claim 12, Burroughes teaches the organic photodetector of claim 1, but fails to mention a p-dopant in the activation layer.
Shi teaches a photodetector wherein the active (activation) layer is doped with PbS (p-dopant, known in the art) (abstract). Shi teaches that doping the active layer with PbS quantum dots increases external quantum efficiency (EQE) over an undoped active layer which was limited to 40% EQE (page 18 of 27). The office interprets this to mean that the doped active layer in a photodetector device shows 60% EQE while the undoped showed 40% EQE.
With the expectation of improving the EQE, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have modified the active layer in the OPD of Burroughes which would have included doping the active layer with PbS (which reads on the instant limitations) since Shi teaches said doping improves EQE, absent unexpected results (per claim 12).
Claims 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burroughes (WO 2019/193331 A2).
Regarding Claims 5-7 and 9-10, Burroughes an OPD comprises a cathode 103 supported by a substrate 101, an anode 107 and a 20 bulk heterojunction layer 105 located between the anode and the cathode comprising a mixture of an electron acceptor (GF1) and an electron donor (page 10).
GF1 was described above as an electron acceptor material. The bulk heterojunction layer also contains an electron donor material.
The office takes the position that the term mixture also includes applying a film of GF1 and a film of the electron donor material which constitutes a mixture of said material to form the bulk heterojunction layer (activation layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have considered the electron acceptor GF1 and the electron donor material mixture as inclusive of two layers in contract with each other which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results. (per claims 5-7, 9-10).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burroughes (WO 2019/193331 A2) in view of Yoon (US 20220402859 A1).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Burroughes an OPD of claim 1, but fails to mention an apparatus.
Yoon teaches an electronic apparatus may include the organic photodetector and the electronic apparatus may further include a light-emitting device (paragraph 26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the ODP of Burroughes in known fields of application which would have included in an apparatus containing a light emitting device as taught by Yoon which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 15-16).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burroughes (WO 2019/193331 A2) in view of Malandraki (US 2022/0367814 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Burroughes teaches the OPD of claim 1, but fails to mention an electron transport layer. Burroughes also teaches a drawback with OPDs is the presence of dark current, i.e. current flowing through the device in the absence of any photons incident on the device, which may affect the limit of detection of the device (page 7). The GF1 compound(s) were found to reduce dark current in OPDs compared to OLEDs containing fullerene materials (page 11).
Malandraki teaches organic photodetectors typically consist of a sequence of layers, which include an anode, an optional electron transport layer, a bulk heterojunction (BHJ) layer, an optional hole transport layer, and a cathode. To a significant degree the performance of an organic photodetector is determined by the BHJ layer, which serves as the photoactive layer, and will depend upon the BHJ layer's efficiency in absorbing light (i.e. photons) as well as its efficiency in charge separation. Typical preferred requirements in terms of device performance are a low dark current (preferably <10−7 A/cm.sup.2), an on/off ratio of preferably above 10.sup.3, linearity across a wide range of light intensities, and reasonable external quantum efficiency (EQE) (paragraph 3).
The office interprets the above as showing the both Burroughes and Malandraki have a similar objective which is to produce OPDs with lower dark current. While Burroughes uses non-fullerene materials such as GF1, Malandraki teaches it is known in the art that an OPD typically consist of a sequence of layers, which include an anode, an optional electron transport layer, a bulk heterojunction (BHJ) layer, an optional hole transport layer, and a cathode. Burroughes teaches the OPD can optionally contain a hole transport layer and Malandraki teaches the OPD can optionally contain a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer. The office views the incorporation of a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer as a further means of reducing dark current which would have been seen as advantageous to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have modified the OPD of Burroughes which would have included adding an electron transporting layer to further assist in reducing dark current which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 14).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burroughes (WO 2019/193331 A2) in view of Malandraki (US 2022/0367814 A1) and Yoon (US 20220402859 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Burroughes in view of Malandraki teach an OPD comprising an electron transport layer and a hole transport layer but fails to mention an apparatus containing multiple pixels and light detention region.
Yoon teaches an electronic apparatus includes: a substrate including a light detection region and a light emission region; an organic photodetector (OPD) on the light detection region; and a light-emitting device on the light emission region, wherein the organic photodetector includes: a first pixel electrode; a second electrode facing the first pixel electrode; and a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, and an activation layer arranged sequentially between the first pixel electrode and the second electrode, wherein the hole transport layer includes: a first hole transport layer including a p-dopant; and a second hole transport layer not including a p-dopant, the light-emitting device includes: a second pixel electrode; the second electrode facing the second pixel electrode; and the hole injection layer, the second hole transport layer, and an emission layer arranged sequentially between the second pixel electrode and the second electrode, the first pixel electrode, the first hole transport layer, and the activation layer at least partially overlap the light detection region, the second pixel electrode and the emission layer at least partially overlap the light emission region, and the hole injection layer, the second hole transport layer, and the counter electrode overlap substantially the entirety of the light detection region and the light emission region (paragraph 28).
The office views the ODP of Yoon as meeting all the functional layers and material requirements of claim 17 with the exception of the activation layer material.
The activation layer material requirement was taught above met by Burroughes, GF1.
The electron transport layer requirements was taught above as met by Malandraki.
The office views the OPD of Burroughes in view of Malandraki as functionally equivalent to the OPD of Yoon used in the above electronic apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of invention to have used the ODP of Burroughes in view of Malandraki in known fields of application which would have included in replacing the ODP of Yoon in the above electronic apparatus which reads on the instant limitations, absent unexpected results (per claim 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to show:
a layer comprising a mixture of a hole transporting material and the compound represented by Formula 1 (per claim 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY D CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7087. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Chriss can be reached on 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY D CLARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786