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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 08/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the examiner. An initialed copy accompanies this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/18/2023 have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “high energy gap” in claim 1, at line 4, and “low energy gap” at line 7, are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “high energy gap” and “low energy gap” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner is unclear as to what degree the energy gap must be to be a high or low energy gap polymer. Applicant is suggested to include numerical values to the energy gap of the polymers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and are indefinite based on their dependencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the wavelength of the maximum absorption of the film…" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2 and are indefinite based on their dependencies.
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 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, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0274069 A1 (hereinafter Son).
With respect to claims 1 and 3, Son disclose a conjugated polymer comprises a structure of Chemical Formula I (See [0014]):
PNG
media_image1.png
244
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
In Chemical Formula I, each R1 through R12 may be identical or different and is any one selected from hydrogen and a C1-C20 straight or branched alkyl group (See [0015]). The conjugated polymer of Son comprises unit x and unit 1-x where x = 0.01 to 0.5. These two units contain electron donor and electron acceptor (See [0022]) and are fulfills the claimed polymer 1 and polymer 2. The unit x of Son (polymer 1) having a structure of:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is structurally similar as the claimed polymer 1 of:
PNG
media_image3.png
317
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as recited in claim 3.
Son failed to anticipate the claimed invention because Son does not specifically disclose a polymer with high energy gap and a polymer with low energy gap as required in claim 1.
Given that the conjugated polymer of Son comprises of two chemically different polymer units (i.e., unit x and unit 1-x), the units must have different energy gap from each other. As such, one polymer unit would having a higher or lower energy gap than the other polymer unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to formulate a conjugated polymer comprises a polymer with high energy gap and a polymer with low energy gap as required in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Son discloses that the conjugated polymer having a UV-vis absorption spectra in a wavelength of 300-800 nm (See Figures 1). The wavelength of the conjugated polymer of Son overlaps with the wavelength of the claimed film.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Son discloses a photoactive layer composition containing the conjugated polymer and a fullerene derivative as an electron acceptor as required in claim 5 (See [0022]). Son also discloses that the fullerene derivative material includes PC61BM, PC71BM, and ICBA (See [0023]). The fullerene derivative material of Son is structurally same as the claimed fullerene material structure as recited in claim 9, respectively
PNG
media_image4.png
519
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Since the fullerene derivative material of Son is structurally same as the claimed n-type fullerene material, the fullerene derivative material of Son would have an energy gap of less than 2.5 as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Son discloses an organic solar cell (organic optoelectronic device) comprises first ITO electrode (transparent electrode) with a photoactive layer there on and a second electrode on the photoactive layer (See [0070] to [0072]; Examples). Therefore, the photoactive layer is disposed between two electrodes.
Regarding claim 11, Son discloses that the organic solar cell (organic optoelectronic device) also comprises a buffer layer (See [0070)]. The buffer layer is formed on the first electrode to improve electron mobility and the photoactive layer is formed on the buffer layer (See [0073] and [0074]). The buffer layer of Son fulfills the claimed carrier transporting layer.
In view of the foregoing, the above claims have failed to patentably distinguish over the applied art.
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6-8 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, there is no prior art alone or in combination that teaches or fairly suggest a conjugated polymer material comprises a polymer having a structure of polymer 2 as required in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, there is no prior art alone or in combination that teaches or fairly suggest an active layer material comprises a non-fullerene material having a structure of formula II of Ar2-Ar1-Ar2 as required in the instant claim.
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 6 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/KHANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761