DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are amended.
Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over LV (US 20210036250 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LV teaches a solar cell (see the organic photoelectric device; see Abstract and Fig. 10) comprising a negative electrode (see the cathode 105), an electron transport layer (see the cathode interface modification layer 104, which transports electrons), an active layer (see the active layer 103), a hole transport layer (see the anode interface layer 102, which transports holes), and a positive electrode (see the anode 101) that are sequentially laminated (see Fig. 10), wherein the active layer comprises an organic donor material and an organic acceptor material ([0106] the active layer 103 comprises donor and acceptor materials; [0150] PM6 was used as the donor material and Y6 was used as the acceptor material; see PM6 and Y6 in Fig. 6).
Regarding the claimed “a phase separation structure having an interface length per μm2 of 70 μm or more and 100 μm or less”, since LV teaches the substantially same materials and process as the materials and process in the Applicant’s specification (LV discloses “PM6 was used as the donor material and Y6 was used as the acceptor material, wherein PM6:Y6 (chloroform solution) was 1:1.2 wt, and 0.5% chloronaphthalene was added; spin coating of the active layer 103 was performed”, see [0138], [0150]; Applicant’s specification discloses “Compound PM6 (organic donor material) and compound Y6 (organic acceptor material) were weighed at a mass ratio of 1:1.2, and dissolved in chloroform (first solvent). Next, chloronaphthalene (second solvent) was added so that the content became 0.5 volume% to obtain an active layer coating liquid” [0047] and “an active layer coating liquid was applied onto the PEDOT/PSS film by a spin coating method” [0048]), LV’s materials and process are considered to inherently provide the same predictable result regarding “a phase separation structure having an interface length per μm2 of 70 μm or more and 100 μm or less”, and the predictable result “a phase separation structure having an interface length per μm2 of 70 μm or more and 100 μm or less” would obviously have been provided by the LV’s materials and process. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.
LV teaches the organic donor material is a compound represented by the following chemical formula: [Chem. 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
343
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the organic acceptor material is a compound represented by the following chemical formula: [Chem. 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
402
402
media_image2.png
Greyscale
([0150] PM6 was used as the donor material and Y6 was used as the acceptor material).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
LV teaches a method of manufacturing the solar cell according to claim 1 (see the fabrication method of the organic photoelectric device; see Abstract, Fig. 10, [0082]-[0114], [0127]-[0154], and the rejection of claim 1), the method comprising applying a coating liquid (see the PM6:Y6 (1:1.2 wt) chloroform solution with 0.5% chloronaphthalene) containing the organic donor material (see PM6), the organic acceptor material (see Y6), chloroform (see the chloroform), and chloronaphthalene (see the chloronaphthalene) to form the active layer (PM6 was used as the donor material and Y6 was used as the acceptor material, wherein PM6:Y6 (chloroform solution) was 1:1.2 wt, and 0.5% chloronaphthalene was added; spin coating of the active layer 103 was performed”, see [0138], [0150]).
LV teaches the coating liquid contains chloronaphthalene in a content of 0.1 volume% or more and 0.6 volume% or less (LV discloses 0.5% chloronaphthalene was added, see [0138], [0150]; It would have been obvious to choose the “vol%” from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for choosing “%”: vol% or wt%. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale E, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LV (US 20210036250 A1) as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 3.
Regarding the claimed “wherein a temperature of an environment where the active layer is formed is 25°C or higher and 30°C or lower”, LV teaches 40°C ([0138] The donor and acceptor - blended active layer solution was dissolved in chloroform, which was stirred in a glove box at 40°C for about 2 h. Thereafter, spin coating of the active layer 103 was per formed in the glove box), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “25°C or higher and 30°C or lower”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the temperature is critical for spin coating: when the temperature is too low, rapid solvent evaporation can kinetically trap the film in a non-equilibrium state, resulting in a disorganized, amorphous morphology with poor phase separation and when the temperature is too high, excessive aggregation of the organic material leads to a large-scale, non-uniform morphology that hinders charge transport and recombination, reducing device performance. As the phase separation and the morphology are variables that can be modified by adjusting said temperature for the spin coating, the precise temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed coating thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the temperature for the spin coating in LV to obtain the desired phase separation and morphology (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that Table 1 in the Applicant Specification shows the temperature of 25°C or higher and 30°C or lower, but the prior art, LV, shows the temperature of 40°C in P6-P7, is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Specification discloses “The temperature of the environment where the active layer 13 is formed is preferably 25°C or higher and 40°C or lower. When the temperature of the environment where the active layer 13 is formed is 25°C or higher and 40°C or lower, the power generation efficiency of the solar cell 10 increases” (see [0025]). The prior art, LV, discloses the temperature of 40°C (see the rejection of claim 1). Therefore, LV’s materials and process are considered to inherently provide the same predictable result regarding “a phase separation structure having an interface length per μm2 of 70 μm or more and 100 μm or less”, and the predictable result “a phase separation structure having an interface length per μm2 of 70 μm or more and 100 μm or less” would obviously have been provided by the LV’s materials and process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the modified and/or 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 571-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726