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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “one or more semiconducting materials that comprise a photoactive small molecule, oligomeric, or polymeric electron donor and an electron acceptor”. Boundary of the limitation is unclear. For a purpose of compact prosecution, the claimed limitation is assumed to be “one or more semiconducting materials that comprise a photoactive small-molecule oligomeric or polymeric electron donor, and an electron acceptor”.
Claim 2-9 and 14-18 are rejected since they inherit the confusion from claim 1 which they are dependent from.
Claim 10 recites “a heterojunction of two or more semiconducting materials that comprise a photoactive small molecule, oligomeric, or polymeric electron donor and an electron acceptor in a weight ratio of from about 1:0.1 to about 1:100”. Boundary of the limitation is unclear. For a purpose of compact prosecution, the claimed limitation is assumed to be “one or more semiconducting materials that comprise a photoactive small-molecule oligomeric or polymeric electron donor, and an electron acceptor, wherein a weight ratio of the electron donor and the electron acceptor is from about 1:0.1 to about 1:100”.
Claim 11-13 and 20 are rejected since they inherit the confusion from claim 10 which they are dependent from.
Regarding claim 2, the phrases "optionally" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 19, the phrases "optionally" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one electrode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no evidence that the claim “at least one electrode” recited in claim 12 is related the claimed “cathode” and “anode” recited in claim 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said optoelectronic device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0399513) in view of Azoulay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0362098).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a photodetector configured for converting light to an electronic signal, comprising:
a substrate comprising a hole transport component (Figs. 3A-B, Hole Transport Layer) and electron transport component (Figs. 3A-B, Electron Transport Layer);
one or more photoactive layers each comprising:
one or more semiconducting materials that comprise a photoactive small molecule, oligomeric, or polymeric electron donor (Figs. 3A-B, Donor Layer, [0061], lines 1-6, n-type layer donates electrons and comprises polymeric material) and an electron acceptor (Figs. 3A-B, Acceptor Layer, [0055], lines 1-2, p-type layer accepts electrons); and
one or more insulating materials (Figs. 3A-B, Buffer Layer)
a cathode in electrical contact with the electron or hole transport component (Figs. 3A-B, CATHODE); and
an anode in electrical contact with the hole or electron transport component (Figs. 3A-B, ANODE).
Lee does not disclose the electron donor has a narrow bandgap of less than 1.4 eV, the one or more semiconducting materials and the one or more insulating materials are present in a weight ratio of 1:0.1 to about 1:100.
Azoulay discloses an electron donor has a narrow bandgap of less than 1.4 eV (TABLE 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Azoulay to configure an electron donor having a narrow bandgap of less than 1.4 eV, by replacing the electron donor/acceptor with the materials disclosed in claim 4 of Azoulay, in order to increase sensitivity and responsibility.
Regarding the claimed weight ratio of 1:0.1 to about 1:100, this claimed range is broad enough so that it could be inherent met. However, Lee as modified is silent about the ratio. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a weight ratio between the one or more semiconducting materials and the one or more insulating materials to be 0.1 times to 100 times in order to obtain a desired efficiency, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the hole transport component comprises one or more conducting materials with a work function ranging between 4.5-5.5 eV ([0058], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Azoulay discloses the electron acceptor comprises one or more of fullerenes, non-fullerene acceptors (NFAs) and polymers (claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Azoulay discloses the electron acceptor is selected from the group consisting of [6,6]-phenyl-Cn-butyric acid methyl ester ([70]PCBM), [60]PCBM, PCBM, C6o, C7o, fullerenes, 3,4,9, 10-perylenetetracarboxylic dianhydride (PTCDA), 2,2'-((2Z,2'Z)-((12, 13 bis(2-ethylhexyl )-3, 9-diundecyl-12, 13-dihydro-[ l ,2,5]thiadiazolo[3, 4-e ]thieno[2" ,3 '':4',5']thieno[2',3' :4,5] pyrrolo[3,2-g]thieno[2',3' :4,5]thieno[3,2-b ]indole-2, diyl)bis(methanylylidene ))bis( 5,6-difluoro-3-oxo-2,3-dihydro-lH-indene-2, 1 diylidene)) dimalononitrile (BTP-4F), and combinations thereof ([0082], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the photodetector is configured to detect radiation spanning the visible and infrared regions (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the one or more insulating materials are integrated within the organic photoactive layer (Fig. 3A, [0024], last 4 lines).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the one or more insulating materials comprise an insulating polymer ([0148], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified does not specifically disclose the one or more insulating materials are selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polystyrene, polysulfone, polymethyl(methacrylate), polycarbonate, polyisobutylene, polylactic acid, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select material for the one or more insulating materials from the group consisting of polyethylene, polystyrene, polysulfone, polymethyl(methacrylate), polycarbonate, polyisobutylene, polylactic acid, polyvinylchloride, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene in order to increase efficiency, 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, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a photodetector configured for converting light to an electronic signal, comprising:
a substrate comprising a hole transport component (Figs. 3A-B, Hole Transport Layer) and electron transport component (Figs. 3A-B, Electron Transport Layer);
one or more photoactive layers each comprising:
a heterojunction of two or more semiconducting materials that comprise a photoactive small molecule, oligomeric, or polymeric electron donor (Figs. 3A-B, Donor Layer, [0061], lines 1-6, n-type layer donates electrons and comprises polymeric material) and an electron acceptor (Figs. 3A-B, Acceptor Layer, [0055], lines 1-2, p-type layer accepts electrons); and
one or more insulating materials (Figs. 3A-B, Buffer Layer)
a cathode in electrical contact with the bulk heterojunction (Figs. 3A-B, CATHODE); and
an anode in electrical contact with the bulk heterojunction (Figs. 3A-B, ANODE).
Lee does not disclose the electron acceptor and an electron donor present in a weight ratio of from about 1 :0.1 to about 1: 100, the electron donor has a narrow bandgap of less than 1.4 eV, the one or more semiconducting materials and the one or more insulating materials are present in a weight ratio of 1:0.1 to about 1:100.
Azoulay discloses an electron donor has a narrow bandgap of less than 1.4 eV (TABLE 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Azoulay to configure an electron donor having a narrow bandgap of less than 1.4 eV, by replacing the electron donor/acceptor with the materials disclosed in claim 4 of Azoulay, in order to increase sensitivity and responsibility.
Regarding the claimed weight ratio of 1:0.1 to about 1:100, this claimed range is broad enough so that it could be inherent met. However, Lee as modified is silent about the ratio. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a weight ratio between the electron acceptor and an electron donor to be 0.1 times to 100 times, and a weight ratio between the one or more semiconducting materials and the one or more insulating materials to be 0.1 times to 100 times in order to obtain a desired efficiency, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the one or more insulating materials are located within the heterojunction or the one or more photoactive layers (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses at least one electrode comprises one or more transparent conducting oxides selected from the group consisting of indium tin oxide (ITO), tin oxide (TO), gallium indium tin oxide (GaITO), and zinc indium tin oxide (ZITO); thin metal layers having a thickness of 50 - 300 nm; transparent conducting polymers selected from the group consisting of poly(3,4,-ethylenedioxythiophene), (PEDOT), poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS), polyaniline, and polypyrrole, or an electrically conductive material ([0087], lines 1-4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0399513) and Azoulay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0362098), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0371157).
Regarding claim 2, Azoulay discloses the photoactive polymer electron donor comprises a polymer according to Formula I or Formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
427
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Azoulay, claim 4)
wherein R and R' are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, an optionally substituted hydrocarbyl group containing 1 to 26 carbon atoms, an optionally substituted aryl group containing 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an optionally substituted heteroaryl group containing 3 to 26 carbon atoms, and an optionally substituted aryl group containing 3 to 26 carbon atoms, the optionally substituted aryl group is selected from the group consisting of an arylen group substituted with an alkoxy group containing from 1 to 26 carbon atoms, an alkyl group containing from 1 to 26 carbon atoms, and an alkenyl group containing from 1 to 26 carbon atoms, mis an integer of at least 1, and n is an integer of greater than l; Y is selected from the group consisting of S, BR5, PR5, Se, Te, NH, and Si, R is a C1 - C24 hydrocarbyl group; ns is a conjugated spacer unit comprising a heteroarylene, wherein the heteroarylene has 3 to 6 carbon atoms, and the heteroatom of the heteroarylene is selected from the group consisting of S, 0, Se, and N, or the heteroarylene has a structure: wherein 1tA is an electron-poor or electron-deficient aromatic moiety that provides a structural unit in the copolymer selected from the group consisting of structural units according to formulae (A) - (F):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are each individually selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen, a hydrocarbyl group containing I to 26 carbon atoms, an alkoxyl group containing I to 26 carbon atoms, an optionally substituted aryl group containing 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and a heteroaryl group containing 3 to 26 carbon atoms, M, R3, and R 4 are each independently selected from the group consisting of 0, S, and Se, and X is selected from the group consisting of C and N.
The formula is lightly different from the claimed formula.
In particular, the instant application claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
325
936
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While Azoulay discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
681
817
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Mitchell discloses
PNG
media_image5.png
160
295
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formula disclosed by Azoulay in view of Mitchell in order to increase light current and reduce dark current (Mitchell, Fig. 1), and thus to further increase responsibility and reduce noise.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0399513) and Azoulay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0362098), as applied to claim 10 above, further in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0371157).
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified does not disclose said optoelectronic device is configured to generate an electrical current with reduced noise by at least an order of magnitude under bias up to ± 5V in response to incident radiation relative to an optoelectronic device in the absence of the narrow bandgap electron donor. Mitchell discloses an optoelectronic device is configured to generate an electrical current with reduced noise by at least an order of magnitude under bias up to ± 5V in response to incident radiation relative to an optoelectronic device in the absence of the narrow bandgap electron donor (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Mitchell to configure the optoelectronic device to generate an electrical current with reduced noise by at least an order of magnitude under bias up to ± 5V in response to incident radiation relative to an optoelectronic device in the absence of the narrow bandgap electron donor, in order to increase light current and reduce dark current (Mitchell, Fig. 1), and thus to further increase responsibility and reduce noise.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulay et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0362098) in view of Mitchell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0371157).
Regarding claim 19, Azoulay discloses a composition comprising an electron donor, an electron acceptor, and an insulating polymer, wherein the electron donor comprises a polymer according to Formula I or Formula II:
PNG
media_image1.png
427
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Azoulay, claim 4)
wherein R and R' are each independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, an optionally substituted hydrocarbyl group containing 1 to 26 carbon atoms, an optionally substituted aryl group containing 6 to 20 carbon atoms, an optionally substituted heteroaryl group containing 3 to 26 carbon atoms, and an optionally substituted aryl group containing 3 to 26 carbon atoms, the optionally substituted aryl group is selected from the group consisting of an arylen group substituted with an alkoxy group containing from 1 to 26 carbon atoms, an alkyl group containing from 1 to 26 carbon atoms, and an alkenyl group containing from 1 to 26 carbon atoms, mis an integer of at least 1, and n is an integer of greater than l; Y is selected from the group consisting of S, BR5, PR5, Se, Te, NH, and Si, R is a C1 - C24 hydrocarbyl group; ns is a conjugated spacer unit comprising a heteroarylene, wherein the heteroarylene has 3 to 6 carbon atoms, and the heteroatom of the heteroarylene is selected from the group consisting of S, 0, Se, and N, or the heteroarylene has a structure: wherein 1tA is an electron-poor or electron-deficient aromatic moiety that provides a structural unit in the copolymer selected from the group consisting of structural units according to formulae (A) - (F):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 and R2 are each individually selected from the group consisting of a hydrogen, a hydrocarbyl group containing I to 26 carbon atoms, an alkoxyl group containing I to 26 carbon atoms, an optionally substituted aryl group containing 6 to 20 carbon atoms, and a heteroaryl group containing 3 to 26 carbon atoms, M, R3, and R 4 are each independently selected from the group consisting of 0, S, and Se, and X is selected from the group consisting of C and N.
The formula is lightly different from the claimed formula.
In particular, the instant application claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
325
936
media_image3.png
Greyscale
While Azoulay discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
681
817
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Mitchell discloses
PNG
media_image5.png
160
295
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formula disclosed by Azoulay in view of Mitchell in order to increase light current and reduce dark current (Mitchell, Fig. 1), and thus to further increase responsibility and reduce noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and provide evidence that the claimed method results in a structural difference over the prior of record.
Regarding to the recitations in the claim that the photodetector of claim 1 and claim 10 is produced by “comprising steps of mixing one or more photoactive material electron donors with an electron acceptor and one or more insulating materials in a solvent to form a bulk heterojunction…”, it is the position of the examiner that this is a product-by-process recitation. The primary prior art is construed herein as teaching the structural features as claimed. If the methods of forming the structure are different, the process as claimed must result in a structural difference over the prior of record herein. The patentability of the device does not depend on its method of production unless the method results in a distinct structure. A product by process claim is a product. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product claimed is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim in unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Once a product is found appearing to be substantially identical and a rejection over the art is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.
Regarding to claim 14, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a method for producing the photodetector of claim 1 comprising steps of mixing one or more photoactive material electron donors with an electron acceptor and one or more insulating materials in a solvent to form a bulk heterojunction” in combination with the limitation recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 14.
Regarding to claim 20, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a method for producing the photodetector of claim 10 comprising steps of mixing one or more photoactive material electron donors with an electron acceptor and one or more insulating materials in a solvent to form a bulk heterojunction” in combination with the limitation recited in claim 10 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 20.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US-20200115387-A1, US-8525303-B2, US-20220332870-A1, US-20200362097-A1 WO-2014097079-A1, and JP-5698371-B2, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. In particular, these references fail to disclose a composition comprising an electron donor, an electron acceptor, and an insulating polymer, wherein the electron donor comprises a polymer according to Formula I or Formula II
PNG
media_image6.png
203
850
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights