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 .
The amendments in the applicant’s reply dated 25 March 2026 have been reviewed, and the non-final rejection of 31 December 2025 is withdrawn. A new rejection is provided herein below.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20140346466 A1, hereinafter “Lee”), in view of Park et al (US 20210066628 A1 hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Lee discloses an organic photodetector comprising: a first electrode (10 [0087]); a second electrode facing the first electrode (20 [0087] and Fig. 2); an activation layer (30 [0087]) arranged between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0087] and Fig. 2); an auxiliary layer (40 [0088] and Fig. 2) arranged between the first electrode and the activation layer.
Lee fails to expressly disclose the auxiliary layer comprises a compound having a refractive index of about 2.2 or more.
However, Lee discloses the auxiliary layer comprises MoOX ([0109]). The refractive index of MoO3, for example, is above 2.2 across the wavelength range of visible light, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I). (Data source: https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=MoO3&page=Lajaunie-β, accessed 27 May 2026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation using the suggested material of Lee.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to disclose a hole transport region between the first electrode and the auxiliary layer.
However, Park teaches a hole transport region (interpreted as 40b, included in 40 Park [0121-0122]) between first electrode (10 Park [0122]) and auxiliary layer (40a Park [0122] and Fig. 1).
Park presents a photoelectric conversion device, and is therefore analogous to Lee. Park teaches inclusion of a hole transport layer between the first electrode and auxiliary layer for the benefit of high charge extraction efficiency (Park [0133]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider incorporating a hole transport region between the first electrode and the auxiliary layer to obtain the expected result of high charge extraction efficiency.
PNG
media_image2.png
479
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
354
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the activation layer comprises: a p-type semiconductor layer (Lee [0079]); and an n-type semiconductor layer (Lee [0079]), the p-type semiconductor layer comprises a p-type semiconductor (Lee [0079]), the n-type semiconductor layer comprises a n-type semiconductor (Lee [0079]), and the p-type semiconductor layer and the n-type semiconductor layer form a PN junction (Lee [0079]).
Regarding Claim 3 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the activation layer comprises a p-type semiconductor and an n-type semiconductor (Lee [0060]), and the activation layer is a mixed layer in which the p-type semiconductor and the n- type semiconductor are mixed (Lee [0060]).
Regarding Claim 6 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park fails to expressly disclose a thickness of the activation layer is in a range of about 20 nm and about 100 nm.
However, the combination of Lee and Park discloses a thickness of the activation layer is in a range of 5-300 nm (Lee [0082]). The range taught by the combination of Lee and Park overlaps with the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation using the overlapping range of Lee modified by Park.
Regarding Claim 7 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses activation layer directly contacts the auxiliary layer (30 and 40 in direct contact, Lee Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park fails to expressly disclose a thickness of the auxiliary layer is in a range of about 1 nm and about 20 nm.
However, the combination of Lee and Park discloses thickness examples of the auxiliary layer of 5 nm (Lee [0127]), 20 nm, and 30 nm (Lee [0128]), representing a range of 5-30 nm. The range of examples taught by the combination of Lee and Park overlap the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation using the example range of Lee modified by Park.
Regarding Claim 9 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the compound includes an organic material (Lee [0085]).
Regarding Claim 10 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the compound includes an amine group-containing compound (Lee [0085]).
Regarding Claim 11 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park fails to expressly disclose the refractive index is in a range of about 2.2 and about 3.0.
However, the combination of Lee and Park discloses the auxiliary layer comprises MoOX (Lee [0109]). The refractive index of MoO3, for example, is in a range of about 2.2 and about 3.0 across the wavelength range of visible light, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I). (Data source: https://refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=MoO3&page=Lajaunie-β, accessed 27 May 2026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation using the overlapping range of Lee modified by Park.
Regarding Claim 12 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses an electron transport region (50 Lee [0088-0089]) between the activation layer and the second electrode (Lee Fig. 2), wherein the hole transport region comprises a hole injection layer, a hole transport layer, an electron blocking layer, or a combination thereof (Lee [0089]), and the electron transport region comprises a buffer layer, a hole blocking layer, an electron transport layer, an electron injection layer, or a combination thereof (Lee [0089]).
Regarding Claim 13 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the hole transport region comprises the hole transport layer (Lee [0089]).
Regarding Claim 15 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the hole transport layer directly contacts the auxiliary layer (40a and 40b directly contacting, Park [0122] and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses each of the activation layer and the hole transport layer directly contacts the auxiliary layer (30 and 40b directly contacting 40a, Park [0122] and Fig. 1).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20140346466 A1, hereinafter “Lee”), in view of Barr et al (US 20180266667 A1 hereinafter “Barr”), and further in view of Nomura et al (US 20110063485 A1, hereinafter “Nomura”).
Regarding Claim 4 – Lee modified by Barr discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Lee and Park fails to disclose the p-type semiconductor comprises boron subphthalocyanine chloride(SubPc), copper(II) phthalocyanine (CuPc), tetraphenyldibenzoperiflanthene (DBP), or a combination thereof.
However, Nomura discloses the p-type semiconductor comprises a phthalocyanine compound (Nomura [0235]).
Nomura is analogous in describing a photoelectric conversion device, and teaches the incorporation of a phthalocyanine compound as a p-type semiconductor for the benefit of smaller ionization potential in contact with another organic compound in a photoelectric conversion layer (Nomura [0234-0235]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider using a phthalocyanine compound as a p-type semiconductor in a photoelectric conversion layer in order to gain the benefit of a smaller ionization potential, enabling the PN junction to function.
Regarding Claim 5 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Lee and Park further discloses the n-type semiconductor comprises C60 fullerene, C70 fullerene, or a combination thereof (fullerene, Nomura [0006], with C60 and C70 as examples, Nomura [0340]).
Nomura is analogous in describing a photoelectric conversion device, and teaches the incorporation of fullerenes into the activation layer (photoelectric conversion film) to achieve high photoelectric conversion efficiency (Nomura [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider using fullerenes in an n-type semiconductor within a photo conversion activation layer to achieve the well-known result of high photoelectric conversion efficiency.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20140346466 A1, hereinafter “Lee”), in view of Park et al (US 20210066628 A1 hereinafter “Park”), and further in view of Barr et al (US 20180366667 A1 hereinafter “Barr”).
Regarding Claim 14 – Lee modified by Park discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
The combination of Lee and Park fails to disclose a thickness of the hole transport layer is in a range of about 80 nm and about 150 nm.
However, Barr discloses buffer layers, including hole transport layers, are 1-500 nm thick (Barr [0022]).
Barr presents a photovoltaic device, and is therefore analogous to Lee. Barr teaches buffer layers between each electrode and the activation layer to implement the electrical and optical properties of the photovoltaic device (Barr [0092]). The range taught by Barr overlaps with the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation using the overlapping range of Lee modified by Park, and further modified by Barr.
Response to Arguments
The references to charge auxiliary layer refractive index have been corrected above in the responses to claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571) 272-5944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-6p Eastern, alternating Fridays out of office.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/JASON MCDONALD/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights