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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 61/912,051, 61/871,452, and 61/811,570, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The claims require the HOMO and LUMO relationships between the cathode-side wide energy gap material, the acceptor, and the electron conducting material, such that none of the prior-filed applications specifically or implicitly state those relationships.
61,912,051 is related to a BPhen:C60/BPhen buffer with DBP and C70 as donor and acceptor, respectively, but there is no mentioning of the mixture comprising the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume or 4:1 to 1:4 by volume or 2:1 to 1:2 by volume. There is also no mentioning the at least one cap layer, the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material.
61/871,452 is related to a BPhen:C60/BPhen buffer with DBP and C70 as donor and acceptor, respectively, but there is no mentioning of the mixture comprising the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume or 4:1 to 1:4 by volume or 2:1 to 1:2 by volume. There is also no mentioning the at least one cap layer, the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material.
61/811,570 is related to a C60:BCP exciton blocking layer, but there is no mentioning of the mixture comprising the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material is at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume or 4:1 to 1:4 by volume or 2:1 to 1:2 by volume. There is also no mentioning the at least one acceptor material and the at least one electron conducting material are chosen from different fullerenes and functionalized fullerene derivatives or the at least one cap layer the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 and 18-25 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications and the effective filing date is determined to be 4/14/2014.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, 18-20, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2006/0027834) as evidenced by Kang et al. (US 2005/0255334) as evidenced by Matsushima et al. (“Horizontally oriented molecular thin films for application in organic solar cells”) and in view of Bartynski et al. (“A Fullerene-Based Organic Exciton Blocking Layer with High Electron Conductivity”).
Regarding claims 1, 7-9, 18, and 19, Forrest discloses an organic photosensitive optoelectronic device (100) comprising:
two electrodes in superposed relation comprising an anode (115) and a cathode (140) (see Figure 1);
a photoactive region (125 and 130) comprising at least one donor material (125) and at least one acceptor material (130) disposed between the two electrodes to form a donor-acceptor heterojunction (where the two layers meet in Figure 1), wherein the at least one acceptor material has a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital energy level (LUMOAcc) and a Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital energy level (HOMOAcc) (it is inherent the at least one acceptor material has a LUMO and HOMO), and the at least one donor material has a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital energy level (LUMOdon) and a Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital energy level (HOMOdon) (it is inherent the at least one donor material has a LUMO and HOMO); and
an exciton-blocking electron filter (135) disposed between the cathode and the at least one acceptor material (see Figure 1), wherein the electron filter comprises a mixture comprising at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material (BCP; [0049]) and at least one electron conducting material (PTCBI; [0050]),
and wherein the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material has:
a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital energy level (LUMOcs-wG) smaller than or equal to the LUMOAcc (it is evidenced by Kang in paragraph ([0142]) the LUMO of BCP is about 3.50 eV and evidenced by Matshushima in Figure 7b the LUMO of PTCBI is about 4.32-4.47 eV, where the acceptor can be PTCBI, as set forth below);
a Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital energy level (HOMOcs-wG) larger than, equal to, or within 0.3 eV smaller than the HOMOAcc (it is evidenced by Kang in paragraph ([0142]) the HOMO of BCP is about 7.0 eV and evidenced by Matshushima in Figure 7b the HOMO of PTCBI is about 5.81-5.96 eV); and
a HOMOcs-wG-LUMOcs-wG energy gap wider than a HOMOAcc-LUMOAcc energy gap (it is evidenced by Kang in paragraph ([0142]) the HOMO of BCP is about 7.0 eV and the LUMO is about 3.50 eV and the HOMO of PTCBI is about 5.81-5.96 and the LUMO is about 4.32-4.47 eV, where the energy gap of the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material is 3.50 eV and the energy gap of the acceptor material is 1.34-1.64 eV); and
wherein the at least one electron conducting material has a Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Orbital energy level (LUMOEc) larger than, equal to, or within 0.2 eV smaller than the LUMOAcc (it is disclosed the acceptor material can be PTCBI ([0044]) as well as the electron conducting material, as set forth above. Therefore, the LUMOEc is equals to the LUMOAcc).
While Forrest discloses the exciton blocking electron filter can be made of a mixture comprising a cathode-side wide energy gap material BCP and an electron conducting material PTCBI, as set forth above, the reference does not expressly disclose the mixture comprises the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material and the at least one electron conducting material at a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume, or more specifically, a range from 4:1 to 1:4 by volume, and even more specifically, a range from 2:1 to 1:2 by volume.
Bartynski discloses it is well known in the art to use a BCP:C60 blend as an exciton blocking layer (page 3317), where it is known to have high electron conductivity and transparency in comparison to conventional blockers of pure BCP or PTCBI (pages 3317 and 3318; see Figure 5b), and wherein a ratio of 1:1 and 1:2 by volume is desirable (page 3317).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exciton blocking electron filter to be composed of BCP:C60 instead of BCP:PTCBI in the device of Forrest, as taught by Bartynski above, as BCP:C60 is known to be more transparent than PTCBI, such that the short circuit current density is slightly increased (page 3318) with improvement in conversion efficiency.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a ratio of 1:1 to 1:2 by volume of BCP and C60 for the exciton blocking electron filter of modified Forrest, as set forth above, as the ratio provides desirable performance, as taught by Bartynski.
Regarding claim 2, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Forrest does not expressively disclose the HOMOCS-WG is larger than the HOMOAcc, and the LUMOCS-WG is smaller than the LUMOAcc, the reference discloses above that the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material can be BCP and the acceptor can be PTCBI, where it is evidenced above by Kang and Matshushima the HOMOCS-WG is larger than the HOMOAcc, and the LUMOCS-WG is smaller than the LUMOAcc.
Regarding claim 3, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one electron conducting material and the at least one acceptor material can be the same, as set forth above, and therefore the LUMOEC is equal to the LUMOACC.
Regarding claim 5, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the LUMOcs-wG is smaller than the LUMOEC (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the LUMOcs-wG is more than 0.2 eV smaller than the LUMOACC (as set forth above, LUMOcs-wG is about 3.5 eV and LUMOACC is about 4.32-4.47 eV, such that LUMOcs-wG is more than 0.2 eV smaller than LUMOACC).
Regarding claim 11, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the exciton blocking electron filter can be made of a mixture comprising a cathode-side wide energy gap material BCP and an electron conducting material PTCBI, as set forth above, but the reference does not expressively disclose the at least one electron conducting material comprises a material chosen from fullerenes and functionalized fullerene derivatives.
Bartynski discloses it is well known in the art to use a BCP:C60 blend as an exciton blocking layer (page 3317), where it is known to have high electron conductivity and transparency in comparison to conventional blockers of pure BCP or PTCBI (pages 3317 and 3318; see Figure 5b).
Forrest and Bartynski are analogous because both are directed to organic photosensitive optoelectronic devices comprising an exciton blocking layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exciton blocking electron filter to be composed of BCP:C60 instead of BCP:PTCBI in the device of Forrest, as taught by Bartynski above, as BCP:C60 is known to be more transparent than PTCBI, such that the short circuit current density is slightly increased (page 3318) with improvement in conversion efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one electron conducting material comprises a material chosen from C60 and C70 (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 13, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one acceptor material and the at least one electron conducting material comprise the same material (it is disclosed the acceptor can be PTCBI ([0044]), where the electron conducting material can also be PTCBI ([0050])).
Regarding claim 20, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not further disclose at least one cap layer disposed between the exciton-blocking electron filter and the cathode.
Bartynski discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a capping layer of PTCBI (page 3317).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a cap layer made of PTCBI disposed between the exciton blocking electron filter and the cathode in the device of Forrest, as taught by Bartynski, so that charge recombination can be suppressed and stability of the overall cell can be maintained.
Regarding claim 22, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one cap layer and the at least one electron conducting material comprise the same material (as set forth above, they are both PTCBI).
Regarding claim 23, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one cap layer, the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material (as set forth above, they are all PTCBI).
Regarding claim 24, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the donor-acceptor heterojunction is chosen from a bulk heterojunction, planar heterojunction, mixed heterojunction, and planar-mixed heterojunction ([0069]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the donor-acceptor heterojunction is a planar- mixed heterojunction ([0069]).
Alternatively, claims 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 2006/0027834) as evidenced by Kang et al. (US 2005/0255334) as evidenced by Matsushima et al. (“Horizontally oriented molecular thin films for application in organic solar cells”) and in view of Bartynski et al. (“A Fullerene-Based Organic Exciton Blocking Layer with High Electron Conductivity”) and further in view of Xia (US 7,825,587).
Regarding claim 20, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not further disclose at least one cap layer disposed between the exciton-blocking electron filter and the cathode.
Xia discloses an organic optoelectronic device (100) comprising at least one cap layer (155) adjacent a cathode (160) (see Figure 1).
Forrest and Xia are analogous because both are directed to organic optoelectronic devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated at least one cap layer between the exciton-blocking electron filter and the cathode, as taught by Xia, so that damage to the underlying organic layers during the fabrication of the cathode can be reduced (C8/L45-57), as disclosed by Xia.
Regarding claim 21, modified Forrest discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Xia further discloses the at least one cap layer and the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material comprise the same material (it is disclosed the at least one cap layer can be made of BCP (C8/L45-57), which is the same material as the at least one cathode-side wide energy gap material, as set forth above).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-16 and 18-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-16 and 18-25 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,069,095. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are entitled to the benefit of prior applications because provisional application no. 61/811,570 is directed to various architectures, wide gap materials, and HOMO and LUMO dopants used in organic photovoltaics. Applicant further states that the broad spectrum of ratios by volume ranging from 9:1 to 1:8 in the Figures would reasonably convey “a ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume” recited in claim 1.
However, it is unclear how a ratio ranging from 9:1 to 1:8 fully supports the claimed ratio ranging from 10:1 to 1:10 by volume when the claimed range is much wider than the disclosed range in provisional application no. 61/811,570. Additionally, it is unclear which Figure is being referenced by Applicant in provisional application no. 61/811,570. The only Figure that alludes to anything related to volume ratio is in Figure 1, where it states C60:BCP films with volume doping ratios of 1:0, 3:1, 1:1, 1:2, and 0:1, such that it is unclear where the volume ranging from 9:1 to 1:8 in the Figures is located without any specific details provided. It is noted that most of the Figures refer to the ratio of C60:BCP as 1:1 only.
Further, provisional application no. 61/811,570 does not disclose the at least one acceptor material and the at least one electron conducting material are chosen from different fullerenes and functionalized fullerene derivatives or the at least one cap layer the at least one electron conducting material, and the at least one acceptor material comprise the same material, which are features required by instant dependent claims, such that it is unclear how provisional application no. 61/811,570 provides support for all of the claims in the instant application.
Therefore, the claims have not been given the priority date, as set forth in the Priority section above.
Applicant argues that Bartynski is not prior art because the publication date of June 10th, 2013 is after the effective filing date of April 12th, 2013. However, as set forth above, the effective filing date is determined to be 4/14/2014 because Applicant has not demonstrated the claims are supported by the provisional applications.
Applicant argues that one would not be able to modify the teachings of Forrest with the teaching of Bartynski because Forrest is directed solely to BCP:PTCBI mixture and Bartynski teaches a BCP:C60 mixture, such that it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the mixture of Forrest with another that is not disclosed by Forrest. However, nowhere does Forrest disclose teaching away from using C60 in place of PTCBI and Bartynski has stated that the blend of BCP:C60 is known to have high electron conductivity and transparency in comparison to conventional blockers, such that the short circuit current density is slightly increased with improvement in conversion efficiency. It is noted that Forrest does not have to disclose the motivation for the combination and the motivation can be from the secondary reference or elsewhere.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 has been amended to overcome the statutory double patenting rejection. However, the amendment has now rendered all claims 1-16 and 18-25 to be completely identical, such that the claims are still determined to be statutory double patenting of prior US Patent No. 10, 069,095. It is unclear how the amendment overcame the rejection.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722