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 .
Status of claims
The amendment to claims filed on 4/8/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 6, 13, and 18 are amended. Claim 2 is canceled. Currently, claims 1 and 3-20 are pending in the application.
Previous prior art rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on a new ground of rejection. See the rejection below.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhosale et al. (“Flower-like supramolecular self-assembly of phosphonic acid appended naphthalene diimide and melamine”).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 8, Bhosale et al. teaches a compound having formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Fig. 1) with X is -L1-A1; each R1-R4 is Hs; L, L1 is independently C6 heteroarylene, wherein the heteroatoms are
PNG
media_image2.png
114
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; and A and A1/A2 is phosphonic acid.
Regarding claim 3, Bhosale discloses a compound as in claim 1 about, wherein A, A1/A2 is phosphonic acid.
Regarding claim 4, Bhosale discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, where L and L1 are the same.
Regarding claims 6-7, Bhosale discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, and teaches a choice of a compound having claimed formula (I) having X being -L1-A1. The reference is deemed to be anticipatory to the instant claim, since the instant claim is directed to other choices of X.
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.
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) 1 and 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Bayindir et al. (“The electrical and photophysical performances of axially-substituted naphthalene diimide-based small molecules as interface layer”) or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayindir et al. in view of Kumari et al. (“Facile synthesis of naphthalene diimide (NDI) derivatives: aggregation-induced emission, photophysical and transport properties”).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Bayindir et al. discloses a compound (1C) and a composition comprising the compound
PNG
media_image3.png
426
114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(see scheme 1), which as a formula (I) with X being C6-alkylaryl, A being phosphonic acid (PO3H2) and L being C6-arylene.
As alkylaryl is construed as aryl with all carbons (or alkyl), the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Bayindir et al. does not teach X being a C4-20 alkylaryl as alkylaryl is construed as an aryl substituted with alkyl as claimed in claim 6, nor do they teach X being a C4-20 alkylaryl (or aryl substituted with an alkyl) optionally substituted with C1-C10 alkyl as claimed in claim 7.
Kumari et al. discloses using a C6-alkylaryl substituted with C3-alkyl (see iPrP, Fig. 1 and Scheme 1) among other substituted aryl/alkylaryl for facilitating the tuning of the energy levels, surface morphology and nature of charge transport (see conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Bayindir et al. by using the substituted C6-alkylaryl (or iPrP) taught by Kumari et al. in place of the C6-aryl (or phenyl) of Bayindir et al., because Kumari et al. teaches using such aryl/alkylaryl would tune the energy levels, surface morphology and nature of charge transport.
Regarding claims 10-12, modified Bayindir et al. discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Bayindir et al. teaches NDI having energy levels of an electron transporting material (or n-type, see figs. 1 and3) in a photodiode (or a photovoltaic device). As such, Bayindir et al. teaches an optoelectronic device comprising an electron transporting layer comprising the compound of claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Marcon et al. (“Stabilization of free radicals in layer-by-layer nanoarchitectures containing multiple arylenediimides”) in view of Bin et al. (“Finetuning hole-extracting monolayers for Efficient Organic Solar Cells”)
Regarding claim 1, Marcon et al. discloses a compound of PNDI having formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
360
91
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(see scheme 1 of Marcon et al.).
PNDI has a formula (I) with X being -L1-A1, R1-R4 being H, A and A1 being phosphonic acid (PO3H2), L and L1 being ethylene or C2-alkylene.
Marcon et al. teaches using the phosphonic acid having L/L1 to be C2-alkylene for the compound, and discloses using the compound (NDI) for electron transporting material (see introduction). The references do not disclose using the phosphonic acid having L/L1 to be C3-C9 alkylene.
Bin et al. teaches varying the length of the alkyl linker (or the claimed L and L1) of the surface linker phosphonic acid to fine tuning the energy levels (e.g. work function) to improve the performance of the solar cell (see abstract; conclusion; page 16499, right column).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Marcon et al. by using the phosphonic acid having L/L1, or the length of the alkyl linker of phosphonic acid, of 3 carbons (or C3-alkylene) or 4 carbons (or C4-alkylene) to finetune the energy levels for improving the performance of the solar cell as taught by Bin et al.. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used C3-C9 alkylene for L and L1 in place of C2-alkylene in the PNDI compound of Marcon et al., because such modification would involve nothing more than using the homologs, which are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties, e.g. anchoring. See In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, modified Marcon et al. discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Marcon et al. disclose A and A1 is phosphonic acid.
Regarding claim 4, modified Marcon et al. and disclose a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Marcon et al. L and L1 are the same.
Regarding claim 5, modified Marcon et al. disclose a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Marcon et al. teaches X is -L1-A1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Marcon et al. discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Marcon et al. teaches a composition comprising the compound (PNDI, see fig. 1)
Regarding claim 9, modified Marcon et al. discloses a compound as in claim 8 above, wherein Marcon et al. teaches the composition comprising a filler molecule (see PPDI or PPMI in fig. 1) which is an anchoring group (see fig. 1).
Regarding claims 10-12, modified Marcon et al. discloses a compound (PNDI) as in claim 1 above, wherein Marcon et al. teaches NDI are recognized as the best electron transporting material for organic electronic devices such as solar cells (see “Introduction”). As such, Marcon et al. discloses an optoelectronic device of photovoltaic device (or solar cell) comprising an electron transport layer comprising compound PNDI, which is a NDI.
Regarding claim 20, modified Marcon et al. discloses a composition as in claim 9 above, wherein Marcon et al. NDI are recognized as the best electron transporting material for organic electronic devices such as solar cells (see “Introduction”). As such, Marcon et al. discloses an optoelectronic device of photovoltaic device (or solar cell) comprising an electron transport layer comprising the composition including NDI compounds.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (CN 114335346, see machine translation) in view of Bin et al. (“Finetuning hole-extracting monolayers for Efficient Organic Solar Cells”).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 8, Dong et al. teaches a composition comprising a compound of PNDI (see claim 8, [0021], [0068] of the original document). PNDI has a formula (I) with X being -L1-A1, R1-R4 being H, A and A1 being phosphonic acid (PO3H2), L and L1 being ethylene or C2-alkylene.
Dong et al. teaches using the phosphonic acid having L/L1 to be C2-alkylene for the compound, and discloses using the compound (NDI) for electron transporting layer (12/13, see example 5). Dong et al. does not disclose using the phosphonic acid having L/L1 to be C3-C9 alkylene.
Bin et al. teaches varying the length of the alkyl linker (or the claimed L and L1) of the surface linker phosphonic acid to fine tuning the energy levels (e.g. work function) to improve the performance of the solar cell (see abstract; conclusion; page 16499, right column).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compound of Dong et al. by using the phosphonic acid having L/L1, or the length of the alkyl linker of phosphonic acid, of 3 carbons (or C3-alkylene) or 4 carbons (or C4-alkylene) to finetune the energy levels for improving the performance of the solar cell as taught by Bin et al.. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used C3-C9 alkylene for L and L1 in place of C2-alkylene in the PNDI compound of Dong et al., because such modification would involve nothing more than using the homologs, which are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties, e.g. anchoring. See In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dong et al. discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Dong et al. disclose A and A1 is phosphonic acid
Regarding claim 4, modified Dong et al. disclose a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Dong et al. L and L1 are the same.
Regarding claim 9, modified Dong et al. discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Dong et al. teaches including a filler (12) of an anchoring group (see fig. 1 as Dong et al. shows the layer 12 is formed/anchored on the conducting layer 11).
Regarding claims 10-13 and 16, modified Dong et al. discloses a compound as in claim 1 above, wherein Dong et al. teaches an optoelectronic device of photovoltaic device comprising a conducting support layer (11, fig. 1 of the original document, examples 3 and 5 of the translation) being covered with an electron transporting layer comprising a first transport layer (12, fig. 1 of the original document) and/or a modification layer (13, fig. 1 of the original document; examples 3 and 5 of the translation), a sensitizer layer of perovskite (14, fig. 1 of the original document; examples 3 and 5 of the translation), a hole transport layer of a second transport layer (15, fig. 1 of the original document; examples 3 and 5 of the translation); wherein the electron transport layer (12/13) comprising the compound in claim 1, or PNDI (see example 5).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dong et al. discloses a photovoltaic device as in claim 13 above, wherein Dong et al. teaches the electron transporting layer (13) consists of the compound of claim 1, or the electron transporting layer (12/13) consists of the composition (12 and 13).
Regarding claim 15, modified Dong et al. discloses a photovoltaic device as in claim 11 above, wherein Dong et al. teaches the device is a tandem solar cell (see fig. 2 of the original document) comprising at least one perovskite solar cell (21 of the solar cell shown in fig. 1, see [n107] of the translation).
Regarding claim 17, modified Dong et al. discloses a photovoltaic device as in claim 13 above, wherein Dong et al. teaches the organic-inorganic perovskite is a perovskite-type structure having formula (II) as claimed (see [0085] and [0099] of the original document and the translation).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dong et al. discloses a photovoltaic device as in claim 13 above, wherein Dong et al. teaches the conducting support layer (11) comprising a conducting material selected from ITO, FTO, AZO (see [0054-057]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Dong et al. discloses a photovoltaic device as in claim 9 above, and teaches an electron transporting layer (12/13) comprising the composition of claim 9, e.g. layer 12 and layer 13.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Dong et al. as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Ono et al. (“Progress on Perovskite Materials and Solar Cells with Mixed Cations and Halide Anions”).
Regarding claim 18, Dong et al. discloses an optoelectronic device as in claim 17 above, and teaches the cation A is selected from at least one of ammonium (CH3NH3 or C4H9NH3) or amidinium (CH2=CHNH2), Cs, Rb, K and the X is selected from at least one of halogen or pseudohalogens such as SCN- (see [0084-0085] and [0098-0099] of the original document and the translation).
Dong et al. does not explicitly disclose the perovskite being a mixed perovskite-type structure having formula (III) as claimed.
Ono et al. teaches mixed perovskite FA0.85MA0.15PbI2.55Br0.45 would provide a perovskite with high efficiency (see fig. 1(b)), which has y=0.15 and z=0.45. 0.15 is right within the claimed range of 0.1 and 0.9, and 0.45 is right within the claimed range of 0.2 and 2.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the mixed perovskite such as FA0.85MA0.15PbI2.55Br0.45 to obtain a photovoltaic device (or the solar cell) with high power conversion efficiency as taught by Ono et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues previous cited references do not teach the claimed compound. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. See the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights