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. DETAILED ACTION Specification Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately . For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’. In particular, ‘FIGS. 2A to 2E’ in the paragraph [0021] and ‘FIGS. 5A to 5E’ in the paragraph [0024] are objected. See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction. Further, in the paragraph [0011], [0020], [0196]: the “ Jonse ” in line should be “ [[ Jonse ]] Jones ” as correctly shown in Fig 14 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: t he “S5P1”, “S6P1”, and “S7P3” in Fig 7. the “ V d ” and “ Vd ” in Fig 9 . the “ V d ” and “ Vd ” in Fig 1 0 . Further, the figure includes a vertical rectangular box with dashed line. But no description is provided for the box. t he “ SG ” in Fig 11. the “ I d_light ” and ‘ Id _dark ” in Fig 12. the “V D ” in Fig 13. the “V D ” in Fig 14. the “µ”, “L”, “f c ”, “S5P1”, “S6P1”, and “S7P3” in Fig 15. the “ v d ”, “µ”, “L”, “ C gg ”, “ W ” , “ V DS ” and “g m ” in Fig 16. The drawings are further objected to because: In the Fig 9: There are two legends: " Vd 2 V Dark" and " Vd 2 V Light" However, the graph includes additional lines with different legends . Thus, proper legend should be included in the figure. In the Fig 10: There are two legends: " Vd 2 V Dark" and " Vd 2 V Light" However, the graph includes additional lines with different legends . Thus, proper legend should be included in the figure. In the Fig 14: there are 7 legends but the numbers of graphs are less than the legends. In the Fig 15: there is no graph for S7P3. In the Fig 16: there is no graph for Vd 2 V. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “ Jonse ” in line should be “ [[ Jonse ]] Jones ” . Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “ Jonse ” in line should be “ [[ Jonse ]] Jones . Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “ Jonse ” in line should be “ [[ Jonse ]] Jones . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Examiner conducted a comprehensive analysis of obviousness analysis including the Graham v. Deere analysis for each claim by (A) determining the scope and content of a reference claim relative to the claim in the application at issue; (B) determining the differences between the scope and content of the reference claim as determined in (A) and the claim in the application at issue; (C) determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (D) evaluation any objective indicia of nonobviousness . The e xaminer has concluded that there is issue of double patenting rejection in the current application. This is because the claims in this application are deemed to be patentably does not distinct from any claims in a potential double patenting reference. Moreover, the examined application's claim is either anticipated or obvious over the reference claim(s). Claims 1-3 , 6-8 , 11 and 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10879476 (hereinafter Pat- 76 ) in view of Chung (US 20160155970). Regarding claim 1. The claim 1 of Pat- 76 discloses the claim 1 . But , the claim 1 of the Pat-76 does not explicitly recite a lower charge transport layer, a photosensitive layer, and an upper charge transport layer. However, Fig 1 of Chung discloses a vertical organic transistor device . S pecifically, Chung teaches a sequence of functional layers comprising a lower charge transport layer (150) formed on a first electrode layer (140), a photosensitive layer (160 , [0075]: this layer absorbs photons (light) to generate excitons (electron-hole pairs). Thus, being a photosensitive layer) formed on the lower charge transport layer, and an upper charge transport layer (170) formed on the photosensitive layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the specific trilayer stack taught by Chung into the vertical transistor structure claimed in the Pat-76. One of ordinary skill would seek to include the Chung’s the lower and upper charge transport layers (150, 170) to reduce the energy barrier between the electrodes and the active photosensitive layer, thereby improving the overall current density and efficiency of the device. And, the use of a photosensitive layer (160) sandwiched between charge transport layers is a well-known and predictable configuration in the field of organic optoelectronics. Integrating these layers into the structure of the Pat-76 provides a known way to achieve light-sensing capabilities within a vertical transistor geometry. Therefore, because the addition of these layers represents the application of a known configuration to a known device to yield predictable results, the subject matter of the present claim 1 is a patentably indistinct variation of the invention claimed in Pat- 76. Accordingly, the claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. Regarding claim 2. The claim 1 of Pat-76 in view of Chung discloses the claim 1. Chung further discloses the claim 2, wherein the photosensitive layer includes organic low-molecular and high-molecular donor materials, organic low-molecular and high-molecular acceptor materials, organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite materials, quantum dot materials [0055] , or 2-dimensional (2D) semiconductor materials. Regarding claim 3. The claims 1-2 of Pat-76 in view of Chung discloses the claim 3. Regarding claim 6. The claim 1 of Pat-76 discloses the claim 6. Although the claim 6 recites the method, the claim 6 merely recites a know n structural arrangement using simple forming steps that provide no patentably distinct difference over the Pat-76. But, the claim 1 of the Pat-76 does not explicitly recite a lower charge transport layer, a photosensitive layer, and an upper charge transport layer formed in a specific vertical stack. However, Chung discloses a method of forming vertical organic transistor device . Specifically, Fig 1 of Chung teaches a sequence of functional layers comprising a lower charge transport layer (150), a photosensitive layer (160, [0075]: this layer absorbs photons (light) to generate excitons (electron-hole pairs). Thus, being a photosensitive layer) formed on the lower charge transport layer, and an upper charge transport layer (170) formed on the photosensitive layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the specific trilayer stack taught by Chung into the vertical transistor structure claimed in the Pat-76. One of ordinary skill would seek to include the Chung’s the lower and upper charge transport layers (150, 170) to reduce the energy barrier between the electrodes and the active photosensitive layer, thereby improving the overall current density and efficiency of the device. And, the use of a photosensitive layer (160) sandwiched between charge transport layers is a well-known and predictable configuration in the field of organic optoelectronics. Integrating these layers into the structure of the Pat-76 provides a known way to achieve light-sensing capabilities within a vertical transistor geometry. Therefore, because the addition of these layers represents the application of a known configuration to a known method of forming the device to yield predictable results, the subject matter of the present claim 6 is a patentably indistinct variation of the invention claimed in Pat-76. Accordingly, the claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. Regarding claim 7. The claim 1 of Pat-76 in view of Chung discloses the claim 6. Chung further discloses the claim 7, wherein the photosensitive layer includes organic low-molecular and high-molecular donor materials, organic low-molecular and high-molecular acceptor materials, organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite materials, quantum dot materials [0055] , or 2-dimensional (2D) semiconductor materials. Regarding claim 8. The claims 1-2 of Pat-76 in view of Chung discloses the claim 8. Regarding claim 11. The claim 1 of Pat-76 discloses the claim 1. But, the claim 1 of the Pat-76 does not explicitly recite a lower charge transport layer, a photosensitive layer, and an upper charge transport layer. However, Fig 1 of Chung discloses a vertical organic transistor device. Specifically, Chung teaches a sequence of functional layers comprising a lower charge transport layer (150), a photosensitive layer (160, [0075]: this layer absorbs photons (light) to generate excitons (electron-hole pairs). Thus, being a photosensitive layer) formed on the lower charge transport layer, and an upper charge transport layer (170) formed on the photosensitive layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the specific trilayer stack taught by Chung into the vertical transistor structure claimed in the Pat-76. One of ordinary skill would seek to include the Chung’s the lower and upper charge transport layers (150, 170) to reduce the energy barrier between the electrodes and the active photosensitive layer, thereby improving the overall current density and efficiency of the device. And, the use of a photosensitive layer (160) sandwiched between charge transport layers is a well-known and predictable configuration in the field of organic optoelectronics. Integrating these layers into the structure of the Pat-76 provides a known way to achieve light-sensing capabilities within a vertical transistor geometry. Therefore, because the addition of these layers represents the application of a known configuration to a known device to yield predictable results, the subject matter of the present claim 11 is a patentably indistinct variation of the invention claimed in Pat-76. Accordingly, the claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. Regarding claim 13. The claims 1-2 of Pat-76 in view of Chung discloses the claim 13. Regarding claim 14. The claims 1-2 of Pat-76 in view of Chung discloses the claim 11. Chung further discloses the claim 14, wherein the photosensitive layer includes organic low-molecular and high-molecular donor materials, organic low-molecular and high-molecular acceptor materials, organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite materials, quantum dot materials [0055] , or 2-dimensional (2D) semiconductor materials. 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 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 20160155970) in view of Dollinger (“ Vertical Organic Thin-Film Transistors with an Anodized Permeable Base for Very Low Leakage Current ”, Applied Material, Vol 31, Pages 1-5, 03/18/2019) . Regarding claim 1. Fig 1 of Chung discloses A vertical organic transistor [0031] comprising: a substrate 110 ; a first electrode layer 140 formed on the substrate; a lower charge transport layer 150 formed on the first electrode layer; a photosensitive layer 160 ([0075]: this layer absorbs photons (light) to generate excitons (electron-hole pairs). Thus, being a photosensitive layer) formed on the lower charge transport layer; an upper charge transport layer 170 formed on the photosensitive layer; a second electrode layer 180 including a base electrode ([0071]: formed of conductive material (e.g., ITO)) formed on the upper charge transport layer . But Chung does not disclose a plurality of pinholes formed in the base electrode and configured to provide a movement path of charges, and a metal oxide layer surrounding a surface of the base electrode and the pinholes; an organic active layer formed on the second electrode layer; and a third electrode layer formed on the organic active layer. 2990850 167640 0 0 However, Figure 1 (refer to the attached Figure 1) of Dollinger discloses a plurality of pinholes (Pinholes) formed in the base electrode ( Al( Base)) and configured to provide a movement path of charges (col 2, line 2 2-24 in page 1) , and a metal oxide layer (Anodized AlOx ) surrounding a surface of the base electrode and the pinholes; an organic active layer (Top C 60 ) formed on the second electrode layer; and a third electrode layer (Al (Emitter)) formed on the organic active layer. Thus, 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 Chung’s device to have the Dollinger ’s structure to minimize leakage current and improve the on/off ratio of the transistor while maintaining high charge permeability through the base, as taught by Dollinger (Abstract; Page 1) . Regarding claim 2. Chung in view of Dollinger disclose s The vertical organic transistor of claim 1, Chung discloses wherein the photosensitive layer includes organic low-molecular and high-molecular donor materials, organic low-molecular and high-molecular acceptor materials, organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite materials, quantum dot materials [0055] , or 2-dimensional (2D) semiconductor materials. Regarding claim 3. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 1, Dollinger discloses wherein the metal oxide layer includes at least one selected from the group consisting of yttrium oxide (Y 2 O 3 ), aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 , AlO x , or Al x O y ) (Figure 1, “ AlOx ”) , magnesium oxide ( MgO x ), zinc oxide ( ZnO ), tin oxide ( SnO ), iron oxide (Fe 2 O 3 or FeO x ), titanium oxide ( TiO x ), zirconium oxide (ZrO 2 ), chromium oxide (Cr 2 O 3 ), hafnium oxide ( HfO ), beryllium oxide ( BeO ), tungsten oxide ( WO x ), copper oxide ( CuO x ), silicone oxide ( SiO x ), and nickel oxide ( NiO x ) (x and y are rational numbers between 1 and 3). Regarding claim 4. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 1, Dollinger discloses wherein the organic active layer is formed by using n-type and p-type high-molecular materials or n-type and p-type low-molecular materials (Figure 1, “ C 60 ” is thin, functional coatings of 60-carbon soccer-ball-shaped molecules, widely used as n-type semiconductors due to their high electron affinity ) . Regarding claim 5. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 1 . But Chung in view of Dollinger does not explicitly disclose wherein sensitivity of the vertical organic transistor including the photosensitive layer is in a range of 1×10 1 to 1×10 7 , responsivity thereof is in a range of 1×10 1 to 6×10 3 A/W, detectivity thereof is in a range of 1×10 1 to 1×10 16 Jonse , mobility thereof is in a range of 1×10 −4 to 3.51×10 −1 cm 2 /Vs, and a cutoff frequency is in a range of 100 Hz to 3 GHz. However, t he claimed ranges for sensitivity and responsivity are recognized in the art as being primarily dependent on the selection of the organic semiconductor materials and the thickness of the photosensitive layer (160). Chung explicitly teaches that layer 160 generates excitons from photons [0075]. And for the mobility range, Dollinger teaches the use of an organic active layer (e.g., C 60 ). It is well-known in the art of organic electronics that carrier mobility is an essential property of the chosen semiconductor and its deposition quality. Selecting a material to achieve a mobility within the claimed range is a matter of routine selection of known high-performance organic semiconductors. Furthermore, the cut-off frequency of a vertical transistor is inversely proportional to the transit time of carriers across the channel. In a vertical architecture, this is defined by the nanoscale thickness of the organic layers. Dollinger and Chung both teach nanoscale vertical stacks; therefore, a cut-off frequency within the claimed range is an essential physical result of the vertical geometry already disclosed. Therefore, the claimed ranges for these parameters represent the optimization of result-effective variables. It is well-settled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select the particular range of a variable that yields the best results. ( See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454; In re Applied Materials, Inc ., 692 F.3d 1289). One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to achieve "Very Low Leakage Current" while maintaining high switching speeds as taught by Dollinger , would have found it obvious to experiment with the thickness of the metal oxide layer and the choice of organic active layer to reach the optimized performance ranges recited in the claims. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are limited to numerical ranges for parameters that the prior art identifies as critical to device performance. In the absence of evidence showing unexpected results (i.e., that the claimed ranges produce a performance improvement that is different in kind, rather than merely in degree, from the prior art), these ranges are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, i t is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed ranges . Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) . Regarding claim 6. Fig 1 of Chung discloses A method of manufacturing a vertical organic transistor ([0031]: Chung discloses a plurality of part/layers of the vertical-type organic light-emitting transistor 100 are sequentially formed on a substrate . Thus, Chung discloses method of manufacturing a vertical organic transistor ) , comprising: providing a substrate 110 ; forming a first electrode layer 140 on the substrate; forming a lower charge transport layer 150 on the first electrode layer; forming a photosensitive layer 160 ([0075]: this layer absorbs photons (light) to generate excitons (electron-hole pairs). Thus, being a photosensitive layer) on the lower charge transport layer; forming an upper charge transport layer 170 on the photosensitive layer; forming a second electrode layer 180 including a base electrode ([0071]: formed of conductive material (e.g., ITO)) . But Chung does not disclose a plurality of pinholes formed in the base electrode and configured to provide a movement path of charges, and a metal oxide layer surrounding a surface of the base electrode and the pinholes on the upper charge transport layer; forming an organic active layer on the second electrode layer; and forming a third electrode layer on the organic active layer. right 23495 However, Figure 1 (refer to the attached Figure 1) of Dollinger discloses a plurality of pinholes (Pinholes) formed in the base electrode ( Al( Base)) and configured to provide a movement path of charges (col 2, line 22-24 in page 1), and a metal oxide layer (Anodized AlOx ) surrounding a surface of the base electrode and the pinholes; an organic active layer (Top C60) formed on the second electrode layer; and a third electrode layer (Al (Emitter)) formed on the organic active layer. Thus, 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 Chung’s device to have the Dollinger’s structure to minimize leakage current and improve the on/off ratio of the transistor while maintaining high charge permeability through the base, as taught by Dollinger (Abstract; Page 1). Regarding claim 7. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The method of claim 6, Chung discloses wherein the photosensitive layer includes organic low-molecular and high-molecular donor materials, organic low-molecular and high-molecular acceptor materials, organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite materials, quantum dot materials [0055] , or 2-dimensional (2D) semiconductor materials. Regarding claim 8. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The method of claim 6, Dollinger discloses wherein the metal oxide layer includes at least one selected from the group consisting of yttrium oxide (Y 2 O 3 ), aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 , AlO x , or Al x O y ) (Figure 1, “ AlOx ”) , magnesium oxide ( MgO x ), zinc oxide ( ZnO ), tin oxide ( SnO ), iron oxide (Fe 2 O 3 or FeO x ), titanium oxide ( TiO x ), zirconium oxide (ZrO 2 ), chromium oxide (Cr 2 O 3 ), hafnium oxide ( HfO ), beryllium oxide ( BeO ), tungsten oxide ( WO x ), copper oxide ( CuO x ), silicone oxide ( SiO x ), and nickel oxide ( NiO x ) (x and y are rational numbers between 1 and 3). Regarding claim 9. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The method of claim 6, Dollinger discloses wherein the organic active layer is formed by using n-type and p-type high-molecular materials or n-type and p-type low-molecular materials (Figure 1, “C 60 ” is thin, functional coatings of 60-carbon soccer-ball-shaped molecules, widely used as n-type semiconductors due to their high electron affinity ) . Regarding claim 10. Chung in view of Dollinger discloses The method of claim 6 . But Chung in view of Dollinger does not explicitly disclose wherein sensitivity of the vertical organic transistor including the photosensitive layer is in a range of 1×10 1 to 1×10 7 , responsivity thereof is in a range of 1×10 1 to 6×10 3 A/W, detectivity thereof is in a range of 1×10 1 to 1×10 16 Jonse , mobility thereof is in a range of 1×10 −4 to 3.51×10 −1 cm 2 /Vs, and a cutoff frequency is in a range of 100 Hz to 3 GHz. However, t he claimed ranges for sensitivity and responsivity are recognized in the art as being primarily dependent on the selection of the organic semiconductor materials and the thickness of the photosensitive layer (160). Chung explicitly teaches that layer 160 generates excitons from photons [0075]. And for the mobility range, Dollinger teaches the use of an organic active layer (e.g., C 60 ). It is well-known in the art of organic electronics that carrier mobility is an essential property of the chosen semiconductor and its deposition quality. Selecting a material to achieve a mobility within the claimed range is a matter of routine selection of known high-performance organic semiconductors. Furthermore, the cut-off frequency of a vertical transistor is inversely proportional to the transit time of carriers across the channel. In a vertical architecture, this is defined by the nanoscale thickness of the organic layers. Dollinger and Chung both teach nanoscale vertical stacks; therefore, a cut-off frequency within the claimed range is an essential physical result of the vertical geometry already disclosed. Therefore, the claimed ranges for these parameters represent the optimization of result-effective variables. It is well-settled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select the particular range of a variable that yields the best results. ( See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454; In re Applied Materials, Inc ., 692 F.3d 1289). One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to achieve "Very Low Leakage Current" while maintaining high switching speeds as taught by Dollinger , would have found it obvious to experiment with the thickness of the metal oxide layer and the choice of organic active layer to reach the optimized performance ranges recited in the claims. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are limited to numerical ranges for parameters that the prior art identifies as critical to device performance. In the absence of evidence showing unexpected results (i.e., that the claimed ranges produce a performance improvement that is different in kind, rather than merely in degree, from the prior art), these ranges are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, i t is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed ranges . Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) . Claims 11- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Dollinger (“ Vertical Organic Thin-Film Transistors with an Anodized Permeable Base for Very Low Leakage Current ”, Applied Material, Vol 31, Pages 1-5, 03/18/2019) in view of Chung (US 20160155970). Regarding claim 11. Figure 1 (refer to the attached annotated Figure 1) of Dollinger discloses A vertical organic transistor comprising: a substrate (Glass) ; a first electrode layer (Collector: Cr/Au) formed on the substrate; an organic active layer (Bottom C 6 0 ) formed on the first electrode layer; a second electrode layer (Al Base) including a base electrode including a base electrode formed on the organic active layer, a plurality of pinholes formed in the base electrode and configured to provide a movement path of charges (col 2, line 22-24 in page 1) , and a metal oxide layer (Anodized AlOx ) surrounding a surface of the base electrode and the pinholes; a lower charge transport layer (n-C 60 ) formed on the second electrode layer (Dollinger discloses Top C 60 and n-C 60 stacked with electrodes and pinholes in the base electrode to enable vertical charge transport ; The n-C60 layer is typically placed near one of the electrodes to improve injection/transport, acting analogously to a transport layer); a third electrode layer (Emitter). But Dollinger does not disclose a photosensitive layer formed on the lower charge transport layer; an upper charge transport layer formed on the photosensitive layer; and a third electrode layer formed on the upper charge transport layer. However, Fig 1 of Chung discloses a photosensitive layer 160 ([0075]: this layer absorbs photons (light) to generate excitons (electron-hole pairs). Thus, being a photosensitive layer) formed on the lower charge transport layer 150 ; an upper charge transport layer 170 formed on the photosensitive layer; and a third electrode layer formed on the upper charge transport layer (a second/top electrode layer) . Thus, 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 Dollinger ’s structure to incorporate the photosensitive layer, upper charge transport layer, and third electrode taught by Chung, as such a combination would provide predictable vertical charge transport and improved device characteristics, including reduced power consumption characteristics [0006]. Regarding claim 12. Dollinger in view Chung discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 11, Dollinger discloses wherein the organic active layer is formed by using n-type and p-type high-molecular materials or n-type and p-type low-molecular materials (Figure 1, “C 60 ” is thin, functional coatings of 60-carbon soccer-ball-shaped molecules, widely used as n-type semiconductors due to their high electron affinity ) . Regarding claim 13. Dollinger in view Chung discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 11, Dollinger discloses wherein the metal oxide layer includes at least one selected from the group consisting of yttrium oxide (Y 2 O 3 ), aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 , AlO x , or Al x O y ) (Figure 1, “ AlOx ”) , magnesium oxide ( MgO x ), zinc oxide ( ZnO ), tin oxide ( SnO ), iron oxide (Fe 2 O 3 or FeO x ), titanium oxide ( TiO x ), zirconium oxide (ZrO 2 ), chromium oxide (Cr 2 O 3 ), hafnium oxide ( HfO ), beryllium oxide ( BeO ), tungsten oxide ( WO x ), copper oxide ( CuO x ), silicone oxide ( SiO x ), and nickel oxide ( NiO x ) (x and y are rational numbers between 1 and 3). Regarding claim 14. Dollinger in view Chung discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 11, Chung discloses wherein the photosensitive layer includes organic low-molecular and high-molecular donor materials, organic low-molecular and high-molecular acceptor materials, organic-inorganic hybrid perovskite materials, quantum dot materials [0055] , or 2-dimensional (2D) semiconductor materials. Regarding claim 15. Dollinger in view Chung discloses The vertical organic transistor of claim 11 . But Dollinger in view of Chung does not explicitly disclose wherein sensitivity of the vertical organic transistor including the photosensitive layer is in a range of 1×10 1 to 1×10 7 , responsivity thereof is in a range of 1×10 1 to 6×10 3 A/W, detectivity thereof is in a range of 1×10 1 to 1×10 16 Jonse , mobility thereof is in a range of 1×10 −4 to 3.51×10 −1 cm 2 /Vs, and a cutoff frequency is in a range of 100 Hz to 3 GHz. However, t he claimed ranges for sensitivity and responsivity are recognized in the art as being primarily dependent on the selection of the organic semiconductor materials and the thickness of the photosensitive layer (160). Chung explicitly teaches that layer 160 generates excitons from photons [0075]. And for the mobility range, Dollinger teaches the use of an organic active layer (e.g., C 60 ). It is well-known in the art of organic electronics that carrier mobility is an essential property of the chosen semiconductor and its deposition quality. Selecting a material to achieve a mobility within the claimed range is a matter of routine selection of known high-performance organic semiconductors. Furthermore, the cut-off frequency of a vertical transistor is inversely proportional to the transit time of carriers across the channel. In a vertical architecture, this is defined by the nanoscale thickness of the organic layers. Dollinger and Chung both teach nanoscale vertical stacks; therefore, a cut-off frequency within the claimed range is an essential physical result of the vertical geometry already disclosed. Therefore, the claimed ranges for these parameters represent the optimization of result-effective variables. It is well-settled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select the particular range of a variable that yields the best results. ( See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454; In re Applied Materials, Inc ., 692 F.3d 1289). One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to achieve "Very Low Leakage Current" while maintaining high switching speeds as taught by Dollinger , would have found it obvious to experiment with the thickness of the metal oxide layer and the choice of organic active layer to reach the optimized performance ranges recited in the claims. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are limited to numerical ranges for parameters that the prior art identifies as critical to device performance. In the absence of evidence showing unexpected results (i.e., that the claimed ranges produce a performance improvement that is different in kind, rather than merely in degree, from the prior art), these ranges are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill. Further, i t is further noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of instant claimed ranges . Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen values or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen values are critical. In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,16 USPQ2d 1934,1936 (Fed Cir.1990). See also In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7799 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday: 8A-4P . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Davienne Monbleau can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1945 . 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. /Changhyun Yi/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812