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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuyuki et al (JP 2011-199253) in view of Yosuke et al (JP 2019-77641).
In re claim 1, Katsuyuki et al discloses an imaging element comprising a photoelectric conversion layer (i.e. 12) including an organic photoelectric conversion material, a hole transporting material, and an electron transporting material (i.e. see at least Figures 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3, 5; paragraphs 0023-0033, 0047, 0073-0112, 0127-0143).
Katsuyuki et al, does not explicitly disclose wherein the electron transport material includes a fullerene compound monomer and a fullerene compound dimer.
However, Yosuke et al discloses the use of fullerenes such as fullerene compound monomer and fullerene compound dimer (i.e. in this case, fullerene polymer) as electron transport materials (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0085, 0086, 0094).
The advantage is to obtain a photoelectric conversion element with improved responsiveness (i.e. see at least paragraph 0085).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the imaging element as taught by Katsuyuki et al with the use of fullerenes such as fullerene compound monomer and fullerene compound dimer as electron transport materials as taught by Yosuke et al in order to obtain a photoelectric conversion element with improved responsiveness.
In re claim 7, Katsuyuki et al discloses wherein mass% of the hole transporting material in the photoelectric conversion layer is greater than or equal to 15 mass% and less than or equal to 50 mass% (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0023-0033, 0047, 0073-0112, 0127-0143).
In re claims 8 and 9, Katsuyuki et al discloses wherein the fullerene compound monomer includes the C60 monomer, and the fullerene compound dimer includes the C60 dimer (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0023-0033, 0047, 0073-0112, 0127-0143).
In re claim 10, Katsuyuki et al discloses further comprising a first electrode (i.e. 11), and a second electrode (i.e. 15) where light enters, wherein the photoelectric conversion layer is sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode (i.e. see at least Figures 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3, 5).
In re claim 11, the recitation “a stacked imaging element” in the claim specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In re claim 12, the recitation “an imaging device” in the claim specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
In re claim 13, the recitation “an imaging device” in the claim specifies an intended use or field of use and is treated as nonlimiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claim invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claim invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-Friday.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817