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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made that applicant's Amendment, filed on February 05th, 2026 has been entered.
Upon entrance of the Amendment, claim13 was amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim 13 was objected to because of informalities. Claim 13 has been amended. The objection of claim 13 has been overcome and is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 05th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued “Suzuka is non-analogous…. Suzuka' s liquid electrolytes and the present invention's solid polar additives have different material types (solvent vs. solute), physical states (liquid vs. solid), and technical purposes (ion stabilization in solution vs. energy level modulation in a solid layer). Therefore, Suzuka does not address the same problem and is not reasonably pertinent to the art of the present invention.” The arguments are not persuasive because the purpose of the invention is not recited in the claim. When the teaching in a reference meets the limitations recited in the claim, it satisfies the requirements for a prior-art rejection.
The Applicant has argued “Kobayashi is non-analogous... Because the technical problem and the mechanism differ, Kobayashi is not reasonably pertinent to the present invention's problem and thus is non-analogous.” The arguments are not persuasive because the purpose of the invention is not recited in the claim. When the teaching in a reference meets the limitations recited in the claim, it satisfies the requirements for a prior-art rejection.
The Applicant has argued “No technical suggestion/motivation to combine Suzuka and Kobayashi… a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the teaching of a liquid electrolyte solvent from Suzuka with the electric dipole moments in fullerene clusters from Kobayashi to arrive at the present invention.” The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to combine is in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Applicant has argued “The proposed combination would undermine Suzuka's operation… A modification that pushes Suzuka away from its electrolyte solution-centered approach risks making Suzuka unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, which weighs against the asserted combination under the In re Gordon principle.” The examiner disagrees because Suzuka as modified for having higher dipole moment would not make the composition of Suzuka ineffective.
The Applicant has argued “Frey is non-analogous…. Frey is explicitly directed to compounds for electroluminescent devices, which generate light. The present invention is directed to transport materials for optoelectronic devices, particularly solar cells, which convert light into electricity.” The arguments are not persuasive because the purpose of the invention is not recited in the claim. When the teaching in a reference meets the limitations recited in the claim, it satisfies the requirements for a prior-art rejection.
The Applicant has argued “Frey teaches away from the claimed invention. Frey discloses a broad class of compounds with a dipole moment of "about ≥ 0.6 Debye" (Frey, Claim 2), an order of magnitude lower than the "at least 6.0 Debye" required by the present invention. Frey provides no teaching or motivation that increasing the dipole moment to the high level claimed would be desirable for any purpose, let alone for improving the stability and charge transport in a solar cell's hole transport layer.” The arguments are not persuasive. Because the claimed range of “at least 6.0 Debye” is within the range disclosed by Frey of “≥ 0.6 Debye”, Frey does not teach away from the claimed range.” 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).
The Applicant has argued “"Routine Optimization" Rationale Under In re Aller Is Inapplicable…. the rejection does not provide an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Frey to meet the claimed ≥ 6.0 Debye threshold for the claimed purpose and composition structure. The Office does not explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would (i) start from Frey's disclosure, yet (ii) adopt the present invention's approach of selecting a discrete solid polar organic salt additive based on intrinsic molecular dipole moment, and (iii) do so for energy-level modulation in a solid carrier transport layer. Without a specific, technically grounded rationale tied to what the references actually teach, the proposed modification amounts to hindsight.” The arguments are not persuasive, since it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 1-2, 4, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuka et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,159,500) in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0027447).
Regarding to claim 1, Suzuka teaches a method for manufacturing a composition for use as a transport material of an electronic device (column 1, lines 18-22), said method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a first organic semiconductor (Fig. 9, element 16b, column 8, lines 43-45);
b) providing a radical compound (Fig. 9, element 22, column 5, lines 38-40, column 13, lines 34-37);
c) providing a polar compound (Fig. 9, element 24, column 10, lines 57-59; column 11, lines 10-11);
d) mixing said first organic semiconductor, said radical compound and said polar compound to obtain said composition (Fig. 9, column 4, lines 56-60).
Suzuka is silent as to a range of dipole moment of the polar compound.
Kobayashi discloses a polar compound having a dipole moment of at least 6.0 debye (Figs. 8-9; [0008], last 4 lines). 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 Suzuka in view of Kobayashi to configure dipole moment to at least 6.0 debye in order to increase bonding strength, thus to enhance reliability.
Regarding to claim 2, Suzuka teaches said first organic semiconductor is a conjugated small molecule or a conjugated polymer (column 6, lines 26-28).
Regarding to claim 4, Suzuka teaches said first organic semiconductor is selected from the group consisting of 2,2',7,7'-Tetrakis[N ,N-di( 4-methoxyphenyl)amino ]-9 ,9'-spirobifluorene (Spiro-OMeTAD), Poly[bis( 4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA), poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT), 3 ,3 '-(2, 7-bis(bis( 4-methoxyphenyl)amino )-9H-fluorene-9 ,9-diyl)bis(N-ethyl-N ,N-dimethylpropan-1-aminium) bis( trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (X44 ), octakis( 4-methoxyphenyl)spiro[ fluorene-9 ,9'-xanthene ]-2,2', 7, 7'-tetraamine) (X60), indacenodithienothiophene-methoxytriphenylamine (IDTT-TPA), poly[N-90-heptadecanyl-2,7carbazole-alt-3,6-bis(thiophen-5-yl)-2,5-dioctyl-2,5-dihydropyrrolo[3,4 ]pyrrole-1,4-dione] (PCBTDPP), phenyl-dipyenylphosphine oxide (POPy2) and mixtures thereof (column 8, lines 43-45, lines 57-64; column 14, lines 10-20).
Regarding to claim 9, Suzuka teaches said polar compound is an organic salt, an inner salt or a neutral polar molecule (column 10, lines 60-63).
Regarding to claim 10, Suzuka teaches said organic salt is a small organic molecule, a multivalent organic salt or a polymer electrolyte (column 12, lines 33-35).
Regarding to claim 13, Suzuka teaches said composition being manufactured according to the method according to any one of the preceding claims (column 37, lines 59-63).
Regarding to claim 14, Suzuka teaches said transport layer comprising a composition according to claim 13 (column 37, lines 59-63).
Regarding to claim 15, Suzuka teaches an electronic device comprising at least one transport layer according to claim 14 (column 5, lines 1-4).
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0036230).
Regarding to claim 1, Frey teaches a method for manufacturing a composition for use as a transport material of an electronic device ([0076], lines 1-2), said method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a first organic semiconductor ([0138], lines 1-3);
b) providing a radical compound ([0077], last 2 lines);
c) providing a polar compound having a dipole moment of 5.6 Debye (TABLE 4);
d) mixing said first organic semiconductor, said radical compound and said polar compound to obtain said composition ([0198], lines 1-10).
The dipole moment of 5.6 Debye disclosed by Frey is close to the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a dipole moment of at least 6.0 debye in order to increase bonding strength, 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 to claim 2, Frey teaches said first organic semiconductor is a conjugated small molecule or a conjugated polymer ([0151], lines 4-7).
Regarding to claim 3, Frey teaches said first organic semiconductor comprises triphenylamine, thiophene or triphenylphosphine ([0196], line 4).
Regarding to claim 4, Frey teaches said first organic semiconductor is selected from the group consisting of 2,2',7,7'- Tetrakis[N ,N-di( 4-methoxyphenyl)amino ]-9 ,9'-spirobifluorene (Spiro-OMeTAD), Poly[bis( 4-phenyl)(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)amine] (PTAA), poly(3-hexylthiophene) (P3HT), 3 ,3 '-(2, 7-bis(bis( 4-methoxyphenyl)amino )-9H-fluorene-9 ,9-diyl)bis(N-ethyl-N ,N-dimethylpropan-1-aminium) bis( trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide (X44 ), octakis( 4-methoxyphenyl)spiro[ fluorene-9 ,9'-xanthene ]-2,2', 7, 7'-tetraamine) (X60),
indacenodithienothiophene-methoxytriphenylamine (IDTT-TPA), poly[N-90-heptadecanyl-2,7carbazole-alt-3,6-bis(thiophen-5-yl)-2,5-dioctyl-2,5-dihydropyrrolo[3,4 ]pyrrole-1,4-dione] (PCBTDPP), phenyl-dipyenylphosphine oxide (POPy2) and mixtures thereof ([0209], lines 1-6).
Regarding to claim 6, Frey teaches first counter anion is selected from the group consisting of halogen anions (X-), bis(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide anion (TFSI-), hexafluorophosphate (PF&), tetrafluoroborate (BF4-), triflate (CF3SO3-) and mixtures thereof ([0186], lines 3-6).
Regarding to claim 7, Frey teaches said radical compound is a triarylamine (TAA)-based radical compound ([0121], lines 1-3).
Regarding to claim 9, Frey teaches said polar compound is an organic salt, an inner salt or a neutral polar molecule ([0127]-[0130]).
Regarding to claim 10, Frey teaches organic salt is a small organic molecule, a multivalent organic salt or a polymer electrolyte ([0239], lines 1-4).
Regarding to claim 13, Frey teaches said composition being manufactured according to the method according to any one of the preceding claims ([0184], last 4 lines).
Regarding to claim 14, Frey teaches layer comprising a composition according to claim 13 ([0063], lines 1-3).
Regarding to claim 15, Frey teaches an electronic device comprising at least one transport layer according to claim 14 ([0222], lines 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter were provided in the previous Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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