DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1, 2, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrara et al. (US Pub. 2021/0312156 A1 (on IDS)) in view of Leem et al. (US Pub. 2014/0070189 A1 (on IDS)).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ferrara teaches (Fig. 1; para. 0064+) a detection device comprising an optical sensor arranged on a substrate (11), wherein
in each of the optical sensors:
a lower electrode (12), an electron transport layer (13), an active layer (14), a hole transport layer (15), and an upper electrode (16), and a sealing layer (17) are stacked in a direction orthogonal to a surface of the substrate in the order as listed;
the active layer includes an organic semiconductor (para. 0088);
the hole transport layer includes a metal oxide layer (para. 0152-0155) and is provided on the active layer so as to be in contact with the active layer (Fig. 1);
the sealing layer covering the optical sensor (Fig. 1) and the sealing layer including aluminum oxide (para. 0166).
Ferrara is silent with respect to an intermediate layer including indium tin oxide (ITO) is disposed between the upper electrode and the sealing layer.
Leem teaches a detection device (Fig. 3) including forming a light transmission auxiliary layer (20b) including indium tin oxide (ITO) (para. 0105) formed above the upper electrode (20a) (para. 0102) for the purpose of improved light absorbance of the active layer (para. 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the light transmission auxiliary layer of Leem within the device of Ferrara such that it was between the upper electrode and the sealing layer for the purpose of improving the light absorbance of the detection device.
Ferrara is silent with respect to the detection device comprising a plurality of the optical sensors; however, this limitation amounts to a mere duplication of parts that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing; for example, a multi-pixel detecting device. A mere duplication of parts is not considered to have a patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04, VI, B).
Re claim 2, Ferrara teaches wherein the upper electrode contains silver (para. 0076), and
the active layer contains a p-type organic semiconductor (para. 0088)and an n-type fullerene derivative that is an n-type organic semiconductor (para. 0088, 0133).
Re claim 5, Ferrara teaches the electron transport layer contains polyethylenimine ethoxylated (PEIE) (para. 0082).
Re claim 7, Ferrara teaches wherein the metal oxide layer is made of molybdenum oxide or tungsten oxide (para. 0154).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrara et al. (US Pub. 2021/0312156) in view of Leem et al. (US Pub. 2014/0070189) and further in view of Liang et al. (US Pub. 2015/0060773).
Re claims 3 and 4, Ferrara teaches wherein a thickness of the active layer is usually 600nm or more (outside of the claimed range); however, Ferrara recognizes that the thickness of the active layer has an effect on the device performance (para. 0092).
Liang teaches a similar device (Fig. 11) wherein the thickness of the active layer (38) is about 120nm to about 150nm (para. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the thickness of the active layer such that it was 500 nm or smaller and/ or from 140 nm to 500 nm as claimed for the purpose of finding an appropriate thickness for the specific materials used and/or the desired light spectrum being detected for optimum absorption. 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 (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/08/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899