CTNF 18/315,107 CTNF 92337 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-7, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hildebrandt et al. (US 2013/0167930 A1) . In view of Claim 1, Hildebrandt et al. discloses an opto-electronic device (Fig. 4), comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode (Fig. 4, Top Contact & ITO); a photoactive layer between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 4, organic light-sensitive layer), wherein the organic compound is represented by Formula 1, wherein in Formula 1, Ar 1 is a group represented by Formula 2, X- 1 is selected from O, S, Se (Paragraph 0032, also see Paragraph 0033-0034 – Y and Z can be a carbon atom), X 2 is selected from O, S, Se (Paragraph 0038), L 11 and L 12 are not present, L 2 is a single bond, Ar 21-22 are C 3 -C 60 carbocyclic groups, R 1 is not present, R 2 can be hydrogen or alkyl, aryl or heteroaryl group (Paragraph 0028 – R 6 ), R 22 can be a cyano group, alkyl group at least (Paragraph 0027) (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, below). Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa PNG media_image1.png 624 956 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of Claim 2, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that the photoactive layer comprises the organic compound (Paragraph 0025-0026). In view of Claim 3, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hildebrandt et al. teaches a hole transport region between the first electrode and the photoactive layer (Fig. 4, p-layer HTL) and an electron transport region between the photoactive layer and the second electrode (Fig. 4, n-layer ETL). In view of Claim 4, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that there is at least one photoactive layer between the first and second electrode, thus this implies that there can be at least two organic light sensitive layers that satisfy the requirements of the organic compound by Formula 1 recited in claim 1 (Paragraph 0082). Therefore, when there are two of these photoactive layers present in Hildebrandt (which he implies these layers can be present by the phrasing, “at least one organic light-sensitive layer”) it satisfies the limitation of the photoactive layer comprises a first layer adjacent to the hole transport region and a second layer adjacent to the electron transport region and the first layer comprises the organic compound. In view of Claim 6, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hildebrandt et al. discloses that the photoactive layer comprises electron accepting compounds (Paragraph 0059) . 07-37-10 In view of Claim 7, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. The recitation, “An electronic apparatus” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao , 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie , 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In view of Claim 9, Hildebrandt et al. discloses an opto-electronic device (Fig. 4), comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode (Fig. 4, Top Contact & ITO); a photoactive layer between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 4, organic light-sensitive layer), wherein the organic compound is represented by Formula 1, wherein in Formula 1, Ar 1 is a group represented by Formula 2, X- 1 is selected from O, S, Se (Paragraph 0032, also see Paragraph 0033-0034 – Y and Z can be a carbon atom), X 2 is selected from O, S, Se (Paragraph 0038), L 11 and L 12 are not present, L 2 is a single bond, Ar 21-22 are C 3 -C 60 carbocyclic groups, R 1 is not present, R 2 can be hydrogen or alkyl, aryl or heteroaryl group (Paragraph 0028 – R 6 ), R 22 can be a cyano group, alkyl group at least (Paragraph 0027) (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, below). Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa PNG media_image1.png 624 956 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of Claim 10, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. discloses that a carbon atom in Ar 21 in Formula 2, could be bonded to L 11 in a variation of formula 1 (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, bd p can be present adjacent to Ar 2 can represent carbon atoms – Paragraph 0040). In view of Claim 11, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that Y 1 is C(Z 1 )(Z 2 ) (Paragraph 0027). In view of Claim 12, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that L 11 and L 12 can each independently be a single bond when bd p and bd q are 0 (Paragraph 0040). In view of Claim 13, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that L 2 can be a single bond (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, above). In view of Claim 14, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that Ar 21 does not comprise N (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, above). In view of Claim 15, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that Ar 21 and Ar 22 are each benzene (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, above). In view of Claim 16, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that Ar 1 in formula 1 is one selected from groups represented by Formula 3-1 to 3-4 (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, above). In view of Claim 17, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that the organic compound odes not comprise a carbazole group (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, above). In view of Claim 18, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. In regards to the limitation that, “a maximum absorption wavelength of the organic compound is in a range of about 480-570 nm”. Hildebrandt et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “a maximum absorption wavelength of the organic compound is in a range of about 480-570 nm”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. In view of Claim 19, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. In regards to the limitation that, “an oscillator strength (OSC) of the organic compound is in a range of about 0.77 to about 1.0”. Hildebrandt et al. teaches the same structure as recited, and therefore it will, inherently, display the recited properties, namely allowing for “an oscillator strength (OSC) of the organic compound is in a range of about 0.77 to about 1.0”. See MPEP 2112.01 I. 07-15 AIA Claim s 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)91 ) as being anticipated by Periyasamy “Synthesis, photophysical, electrochemical, and DFT examinations of two new organic dye molecules based on phenothiazine and dibenzofuran” . In view of Claims 9-20, Periyasamy discloses compound 1 (Fig. 1, 3 rd organic compound listed from top) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrandt et al. (US 2013/0167930 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2016/0343956 A1) . In view of Claim 5, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hildebrandt et al. does not explicitly disclose that the photoactive layer further comprises a third layer between the first layer and the second layer and the third layer comprises the organic compound. Cho et al. teaches a photoactive layer can include three or more layers all including the same compound and that this is an exemplary configuration for a photoactive layer (Paragraph 0127). Cho et al. teaches that the organic solar cell may exhibit characteristics which are excellent in driving voltage, current and service life (Paragraph 0022). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the photoactive layer of Hildebrandt et al. further comprises a third layer between the first layer and the second layer and the third layer comprises the organic compound for the advantages of having a photoactive layer configured to exhibit characteristics which are excellent in driving voltage, current and service life . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 2011/0019042 A1) in view of Hildebrandt et al. (US 2013/0167930 A1) . In view of Claims 7-8, Yamaguchi discloses an electronic apparatus comprising a thin film transistor electrically connected to a first electrode and a color filter (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0208) but not that the organic solar cell is formed according to the conditions of claim 1. Hildebrandt et al. discloses an opto-electronic device (Fig. 4), comprising a first electrode and a second electrode facing the first electrode (Fig. 4, Top Contact & ITO); a photoactive layer between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 4, organic light-sensitive layer), wherein the organic compound is represented by Formula 1, wherein in Formula 1, Ar 1 is a group represented by Formula 2, X- 1 is selected from O, S, Se (Paragraph 0032, also see Paragraph 0033-0034 – Y and Z can be a carbon atom), X 2 is selected from O, S, Se (Paragraph 0038), L 11 and L 12 are not present, L 2 is a single bond, Ar 21-22 are C 3 -C 60 carbocyclic groups, R 1 is not present, R 2 can be hydrogen or alkyl, aryl or heteroaryl group (Paragraph 0028 – R 6 ), R 22 can be a cyano group, alkyl group at least (Paragraph 0027) (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, below). Hildebrandt et a. teaches that this organic soar cell results in low loss recombination (Paragraph 0089). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Hildebrandt et al. solar cell as Yamaguchi’s solar cell for the advantage of utilizing a solar cell with low-loss recombination. Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa PNG media_image1.png 624 956 media_image1.png Greyscale 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hildebrandt et al. (US 2013/0167930 A1) in view of Periyasamy “Synthesis, photophysical, electrochemical, and DFT examinations of two new organic dye molecules based on phenothiazine and dibenzofuran” . In view of Claim 20, Hildebrandt et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 9. Hildebrandt et al. teaches that compound 1 can be represented when X 1 is O and X is O, and W represents cyano groups and R 6 is hydrogen (See Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa, below). The only difference between Hildebrandt et al. formula is the additional W and R 1 on the “left side” of the molecule. Periyasamy discloses compound 1 (Fig. 1, 3 rd organic compound listed from top). Periyasamy discloses that this organic compound has strong thermodynamically advantageous ground and excited-state oxidation potentials (Abstract) and has an optimized molecular structure (Page 2, 2 nd Column, 1 st Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt compound 1 as the compound in Hildebrandt et al. device for the advantage of using a compound that has strong thermodynamically advantageous ground and excited-state oxidation potentials and has an optimized molecular structure. Annotated Hildebrandt general formula IIIa PNG media_image1.png 624 956 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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. /DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/315,107 Page 2 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/315,107 Page 3 Art Unit: 1726 Application/Control Number: 18/315,107 Page 4 Art Unit: 1726
Prosecution Insights