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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 1c: Fig. 3C, species 2c: Fig. 6C, and species 3e, Fig. 7A in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 01/05/2026, in which claims 4, 7, 11-12, 16-18 were amended, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application JP2022-075615 filed on 04/29/2022. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2022-075615 has not been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application JP2022-075615 that is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application JP2022-075615 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The foreign application must adequately support the claimed subject matter, meaning satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(ii)-(iii). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, claim 3 recites the limitation “a width of greater than or equal to 30 nm and a height of greater than or equal to 30 nm” and claim 4 recites the limitation “a density of the structure body is greater than or equal to 0.04 /µm2” which covers ranges up to infinity. However, the specification does not provide any description of a structure body having infinity width, infinity height and/or infinity density. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claims 3-4 were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims 13-14, 17, 19-20 depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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 5, 15, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein both a region where the first electrode, the first layer, the structure body, the second layer, and the second electrode are stacked with each other and a region where the first electrode, the first layer, the second layer, and the second electrode are stacked with each other are included.” The limitation is confusing. It is unclear what Applicant attempt to claim.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation will be interpreted and examined as --wherein a first region comprises the first electrode, the first layer, the structure body, the second layer, and the second electrode stacked with each other; and a second region comprises the first electrode, the first layer, the second layer, and the second electrode stacked with each other –
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13, 15-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gau et al. (US Pub. 20160149148) as evidenced by Khanam et al. (US Pub. 20260033118)
Regarding claim 1, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0033]-[0044] a photoelectric conversion device comprising:
a first electrode [3];
a second electrode [6]; and
an organic compound layer [1 and 5], wherein the organic compound layer [1 and 5] is positioned between the first electrode [3] and the second electrode [6],
wherein the organic compound layer [1 and 5] comprises a first layer [11], wherein a structure body [12] comprising a projection is positioned between the first layer [11] and the second electrode [6], and wherein the structure body [12] comprises a first organic compound [PCBM, ICMA or ICBA].
Regarding claim 2, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0034] wherein the first layer [11] comprises an active layer.
Regarding claim 3, Gau et al. discloses in paragraph [0032]
wherein the structure body [12] has a shape satisfying one or both of a width of greater than or equal to 30 nm and a height of greater than or equal to 30 nm [“The acceptor particle 12 partially embedded in the donor layer 11 has a length ranging from 80 nm to 120 nm, and it has a cross section of a circle, an ellipse, an ellipse-like shape or a combination thereof].
Regarding claim 5, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3
wherein the organic compound layer [1 and 5] further comprises a second layer [5], and
wherein a first region comprises the first electrode [3], the first layer [11], the structure body [12], the second layer [5], and the second electrode [6] stacked with each other; and a second region comprises the first electrode [3], the first layer [11], the second layer [5], and the second electrode [6] stacked with each other.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 15, Gau et al. discloses in paragraph [0032] the first organic compound is PCBM [“the acceptor particle 12 is made of PCBM, ICMA or ICBA”].
Khanam et al. provided evidence in paragraph [0099] a LUMO level of PCBM is -3.9 eV which is fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to -4.5 eV and less than or equal to -3.0 eV.
Thus, Gau et al. discloses wherein a LUMO level of the first organic compound is greater than or equal to -4.5 eV and less than or equal to -3.0 eV.
"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 18, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0032]
wherein the active layer [11] comprises a second organic compound [PCPDTBT],
Gau et al. discloses in paragraph [0032] the first organic compound is PCBM or ICBA [“the acceptor particle 12 is made of PCBM, ICMA or ICBA”].
It is known in the art that receptor material has lower LUMO than donor material. Thus, donor material of active layer 11 would have higher LUMO than receptor material of the structure body 12. In addition, Khanam et al. provided evidence in paragraph [0099] a LUMO level of PCBM or ICBA is higher than a LUMO level of PCPDTBT, and a difference between the LUMO level of PCBM or ICBA and the LUMO level of PCPDTBT is less than or equal to 0.5 eV.
Thus, Gau et al. discloses “wherein a LUMO level of the first organic compound is higher than a LUMO level of the second organic compound, and a difference between the LUMO level of the first organic compound and the LUMO level of the second organic compound is less than or equal to 0.5 eV.”
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 4, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gau et al. (US Pub. 20160149148) as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Gau et al. fails to disclose
wherein a density of the structure body is greater than or equal to 0.04 /µm2 in a region where the first electrode, the active layer, and the second electrode are overlapped with each other.
However, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Gau et al. to provide wherein a density of the structure body is greater than or equal to 0.04 /µm2 in a region where the first electrode, the active layer, and the second electrode are overlapped with each other for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to achieve desired device performance. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 14, Gau et al. discloses in paragraph [0032] the first organic compound is PCBM [“the acceptor particle 12 is made of PCBM, ICMA or ICBA”].
Khanam et al. provided evidence in paragraph [0099] a LUMO level of PCBM is -3.9 eV which is fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to -4.5 eV and less than or equal to -3.0 eV.
Thus, Gau et al. discloses wherein a LUMO level of the first organic compound is greater than or equal to -4.5 eV and less than or equal to -3.0 eV.
"If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claim 17, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3, paragraph [0032]
wherein the active layer [11] comprises a second organic compound [PCPDTBT],
Gau et al. discloses in paragraph [0032] the first organic compound is PCBM or ICBA [“the acceptor particle 12 is made of PCBM, ICMA or ICBA”].
It is known in the art that receptor material has lower LUMO than donor material. Thus, donor material of active layer 11 would have higher LUMO than receptor material of the structure body 12. In addition, Khanam et al. provided evidence in paragraph [0099] a LUMO level of PCBM or ICBA is higher than a LUMO level of PCPDTBT, and a difference between the LUMO level of PCBM or ICBA and the LUMO level of PCPDTBT is less than or equal to 0.5 eV.
Thus, Gau et al. discloses “wherein a LUMO level of the first organic compound is higher than a LUMO level of the second organic compound, and a difference between the LUMO level of the first organic compound and the LUMO level of the second organic compound is less than or equal to 0.5 eV.”
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gau et al. (US Pub. 20160149148) as applied to claim 2 ad claim 3 above and further in view of Park et al. (US Pub. 20190065815).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Gau et al. discloses the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 2; the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 3.
Gau et al. fails to disclose a light-emitting and light-receiving apparatus comprising: the photoelectric conversion device; and a light-emitting device.
Park et al. discloses in Fig. 2, paragraph [0008], [0033], [0034]
a light-emitting and light-receiving apparatus comprising:
a photoelectric conversion device [UPD]; and
a light-emitting device [ULD].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Park et al. into the method of Gau et al. to include a light-emitting and light-receiving apparatus comprising: the photoelectric conversion device; and a light-emitting device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Gau et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable application of the photoelectric conversion device to form integrated organic electronic device.
Claims 9-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gau et al. (US Pub. 20160149148) as applied to claim 2 and claim 3 above in view of Kamada et al. (US Pub. 20210005669).
Regarding claim 9 and claim 20, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3
the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 2;
the photoelectric conversion device according to claim 3;
wherein the organic compound layer [1 and 5] in the photoelectric conversion device further comprises a second layer [5],
wherein the second layer [5] is positioned between the first layer [11] and the second electrode [6] and between the structure body [12] and the second electrode [6].
Gau et al. fails to disclose
a light-emitting and light-receiving apparatus comprising:
the photoelectric conversion device; and
a light-emitting device,
wherein the second layer comprises a third organic compound having an electron- transport property,
wherein the light-emitting device comprises a third electrode, a fourth electrode, a light- emitting layer positioned between the third electrode and the fourth electrode, and a third layer,
wherein the third layer is positioned between the light-emitting layer and the fourth electrode,
wherein the third layer comprises a fourth organic compound having an electron- transport property, and
wherein the third organic compound and the fourth organic compound are the same organic compound.
Gau et al. suggests in paragraph [0036]-[0037] that the photoelectric conversion device can either be a reverse photoelectric conversion device in which layer 5 having hole-transport property or a forward photoelectric conversion device in which layer 5 having electron-transport property.
Kamada et al. discloses in Fig. 4B, Fig. 18A
a light-emitting and light-receiving apparatus [10C] comprising:
a photoelectric conversion device [110][paragraph [0115]]; and
a light-emitting device [190][paragraph [0115]],
wherein the second layer [114] comprises a third organic compound having an electron- transport property [paragraph [0155], [0425]]
wherein the light-emitting device [190] comprises a third electrode [191], a fourth electrode [115], a light- emitting layer [193] positioned between the third electrode [191] and the fourth electrode [115], and a third layer [114],
wherein the third layer [114] is positioned between the light-emitting layer [193] and the fourth electrode [115],
wherein the third layer [114] comprises a fourth organic compound having an electron- transport property [paragraph [0155], [0425]], and
wherein the third organic compound and the fourth organic compound are the same organic compound [same layer 114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamada et al. into the method of Gau et al. to include a light-emitting and light-receiving apparatus comprising: the photoelectric conversion device; and a light-emitting device, wherein the second layer comprises a third organic compound having an electron- transport property, wherein the light-emitting device comprises a third electrode, a fourth electrode, a light- emitting layer positioned between the third electrode and the fourth electrode, and a third layer, wherein the third layer is positioned between the light-emitting layer and the fourth electrode, wherein the third layer comprises a fourth organic compound having an electron- transport property, and wherein the third organic compound and the fourth organic compound are the same organic compound. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Gau et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable application of the photoelectric conversion device to form a display unit including a light-receiving device and a light-emitting device [paragraph [0001] of Kamada et al.].
Regarding claim 10, Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3
a region where the first electrode [3], the first layer [11], the structure body [12], the second layer [5], and the second electrode [6] are stacked with each other; and
a region where the first electrode [3], the first layer [11], the second layer [5], and the second electrode [6] are stacked with each other.
Regarding claim 11, Kamada et al. discloses in Fig. 4B, paragraph [0113]-[0114]
wherein a first part of a continuous conductive material [115] is configured to function as the second electrode and a second part of the continuous conductive material [115] is configured to function as the fourth electrode are formed of a continuous conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kamada et al. into the method of Gau et al. to include wherein a first part of a continuous conductive material is configured to function as the second electrode and a second part of the continuous conductive material is configured to function as the fourth electrode are formed of a continuous conductive material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Gau et al. in the above manner for the purpose of reducing manufacturing cost of the display unit, and simplifying the manufacturing process of the display unit [paragraph [0114]].
Regarding claim 12, Kamada et al. discloses in Fig. 5A, Fig. 18A, paragraph [0159] wherein the photoelectric conversion device and the light-emitting device have a substantially same structure except: the active layer of the photoelectric conversion device and the light-emitting layer of the light-emitting device; and
the light-emitting device not comprising the structure body.
Gau et al. discloses in Fig. 3 the active layer [11] of the photoelectric conversion device has different structure than the light-emitting layer [193 or 123] of the light-emitting device shown in Fig. 18A of Kamada et al.
Consequently, the combination of Kamada et al. and Gau et al. discloses
wherein the photoelectric conversion device and the light-emitting device have a substantially same structure except: the active layer of the photoelectric conversion device and the light-emitting layer of the light-emitting device having different structures; and the light-emitting device not comprising the structure body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, 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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893