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 .
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 limits the donor material to a “low molecular material”. It is unclear what applicant is seeking to claim here as “low molecular” has no understood meaning in the art. For examining purposes claim 6 shall be treated as claim 5 with the unclear limitation having no effect on the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 109935699A, the machine translation relied upon that provided by the applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a photocurrent multiplication device having an external quantum efficiency of 100% or more (¶11 of detailed ways), comprising: at least one first electrode; at least one second electrode that faces the at least one first electrode; and a photoelectric conversion film that is located between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode and that includes a donor material and an acceptor material (¶5 of detailed ways), wherein the photoelectric conversion film at least partially has a sea-island structure in which the donor material is interspersed in the photoelectric conversion film (¶11 of detailed ways).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses that a weight ratio of the donor material to the acceptor material in the photoelectric conversion film is 3/7 or less (¶9 of detailed ways).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses that a weight ratio of the donor material to the acceptor material in the photoelectric conversion film is 1/9 or less (¶9 of detailed ways).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses that the donor material is an organic semiconductor material (¶10 of detailed ways).
Regarding claim 6, as a “low-molecular material” has no accepted meaning in the art the claim does not distinguish over claim 5 and is similarly rejected. Note that the various disclosed donor materials could be considered to have a relatively low molecular weight, although such a limitation would need further context to be clear as low molecular weight would be a relative term that is not particularly limiting.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses a donor material that includes at least one substituent not including a π-conjugated system (¶10 of detailed ways, P3HT contains an alkyl chain).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses that the donor material includes at least one alkyl group including 4 or more carbon atoms (¶10, P3HT).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses that the external quantum efficiency of the photocurrent multiplication device in a wavelength region of 760 nm or more is 100% or more (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses that the photoelectric conversion film has a structure in which the donor material is dispersed throughout the photoelectric conversion film (¶22 of detailed ways).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses that at least one selected from the group consisting of the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode is in contact with the photoelectric conversion film (¶5 of detailed ways).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses a buffer layer located between the at least one first electrode and the photoelectric conversion film or between the at least one second electrode and the photoelectric conversion film (¶5 of detailed ways, the anode modification layer).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses that the external quantum efficiency of the photocurrent multiplication device is 100% or more when an electron injected from the at least one first electrode into the photoelectric conversion film is transported toward the at least one second electrode (¶11 of detailed ways, while not explicitly stated as such, claim 16 is just describing how a photomultiplier works and Zhang discloses a photomultiplier).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses that the external quantum efficiency of the photocurrent multiplication device in a wavelength region of 760 nm or more is 200% or more (Fig 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses a photocurrent multiplication device having an external quantum efficiency of 100% or more (¶11 of detailed ways), comprising: at least one first electrode; at least one second electrode that faces the at least one first electrode; a photoelectric conversion film that is located between the at least one first electrode and the at least one second electrode and that includes a donor material and an acceptor material (¶5 of detailed ways); and a buffer layer (¶5 of detailed ways, the anode modification layer), wherein the photoelectric conversion film has a bulk heterojunction structure.
Zhang does not disclose that a difference between an energy level of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital of the buffer layer and an energy level of a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital of the photoelectric conversion film is 0.5 eV or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the buffer layer and the photoelectric conversion film to have the claimed difference in orbital energies, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case it is known in the art to select materials having specific differences in molecular orbital energies in order to tune the operation of the photodetector.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang does not disclose that the donor material includes a phthalocyanine skeleton or a naphthalocyanine skeleton. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the donor material to include a phthalocyanine skeleton or a naphthalocyanine skeleton, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Note that phthalocyanines, including naphthalocyanines, are well understood and characterized electron-rich materials in organic semiconductors.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang does not disclose the claimed relationship between the work function of the first electrode and the LUMO energy of the photoelectric conversion film. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the first electrode material and the photoelectric conversion film to have the claimed difference in energies, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case it is known in the art to select materials having specific differences in energies in order to tune the operation of the photodetector.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang does not disclose that the photocurrent multiplication device has an absorption peak in a wavelength range of 760 nm or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to engineer the photocurrent multiplication device to have an absorption peak in a wavelength of 760 nm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang does not disclose that the photocurrent multiplication device has an absorption peak in a wavelength range of 880 nm or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to engineer the photocurrent multiplication device to have an absorption peak in a wavelength of 880 nm or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirade et al. (US 2021/0359005 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the photocurrent multiplication device of claim 1, but does not disclose any integration of the device into an imager.
Hirade discloses an imager array (Fig 4) wherein photoelectric conversion devices (10C) contain electrodes that act as pixel electrodes (2 or 4), and the plurality of pixel electrodes are arranged in an array.
The configuration of Hirade allows a photoelectric conversion device to be integrated into an imager, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the photocurrent multiplication device of Zhang in an array as provided by Hirade in order to realize an imager using the improved devices of Zhang.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the photocurrent multiplication device of claim 1, but does not disclose it being implemented in an imaging device.
Hirade discloses an imaging device (Fig 4 & 5) comprising: a substrate (40); and a pixel (24) including an electric charge detection circuit (35) disposed in the substrate, a photoelectric converter (10C) provided on the substrate, and an electric charge storage node (34) electrically connected to the electric charge detection circuit and the photoelectric converter.
The configuration of Hirade allows a photoelectric conversion device to be integrated into an imager, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the photocurrent multiplication device of Zhang in an array as provided by Hirade in order to realize an imager using the improved devices of Zhang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P SHOOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7890. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at (571)272-8660. 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 SHOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896