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 .
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Remarks
Claims 12-15 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHAN (New advances in non-fullerene acceptor based organic solar cells).
Regarding claim 11, ZHAN teaches a solar cell (see the non-fullerene acceptor based organic solar cell in Fig. 1).
Regarding the claimed “produced according to the method according to claim 1”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Only “the structure(s)” is(are) given patentable weight. ZHAN teaches a metal oxide layer on a substrate (see the ZnO layer on the transparent electrode with ITO), a layer of light harvesting material on the metal oxide layer (see the photo-active layer on the ZnO layer), a contact layer on the layer of light harvesting material (see MoOx layer on the photo-active layer), and a metal contact on the contact layer (see the Ag layer on MoOx layer) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 11.
ZHAN teaches the solar cell is a non-fullerene acceptor based organic solar cell (see the non-fullerene acceptor based organic solar cell in Fig. 1), comprising:
a transparent conductive substrate (see the transparent electrode with ITO) (see Fig. 1);
an electron transport layer (ETL) (see the ZnO layer, which is electron transport layer) located onto said transparent conductive substrate (see Fig. 1);
a layer of light harvesting material (see the photo-active layer) (see Fig. 1);
a hole transport layer (HTL) (see the MoOx layer) located onto said layer of light harvesting material (see Fig. 1); and
a metal contact (see the Ag) located onto said HTL (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
ZHAN teaches said layer of light harvesting material is a combination of light harvesting organic materials (see the organic donor-acceptor combinations in ZHAN).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
ZHAN teaches said electron transport layer (ETL) located onto said transparent conductive substrate is a metal oxide layer produced on said transparent conductive substrate (see the ZnO layer on the transparent electrode with ITO) (see the rejection of claim 12 and Fig. 1). Regarding the recitation “by providing said transparent conductive substrate into a deposition chamber; heating said transparent conductive substrate at a predefined temperature for a predefined period of time and maintaining said heating; introducing at least one carrier gas and at least one reacting gas comprising oxygen gas; sputtering said metal oxide layer under a ratio of said carrier gas and said reacting gas, thereby forming said metal oxide layer of a desired thickness; cooling said sputtered substrate to a preferred temperature and under a flow of at least one processing gas for a preferred period of time, wherein said predefined period of time is between 1 and 120 minutes, thereby preventing formation of, or passivating possible surface defects of said sputtered metal oxide layer”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 14.
Regarding the recitation “wherein said it least one processing gas is said at least one carrier gas or said at least one reacting gas”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Contact Information
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, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. 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 1728