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 .
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 1-8, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (US PG Pub 2015/0060839, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Liang et a. (US PG Pub 2016/0056212, hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 1, figure 1 of Suzuki discloses a photoelectric conversion device comprising:
a first electrode (40);
a second electrode (20) disposed to face the first electrode;
a photoelectric conversion layer (32) provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, the photoelectric conversion layer including fullerenes or fullerene derivatives (¶ 70);
a first electric charge block layer (33) provided between the first electrode and the photoelectric conversion layer, and
a second electric charge block layer (33) provided between the first electric charge block layer and the photoelectric conversion layer (¶ 48, hole blocking layer can be a plurality of layers), the second electric charge block layer including the fullerenes or the fullerene derivatives (¶ 48).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the first electric charge block layer including an organic material having a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level that is deeper by 1 eV or higher and a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level ranging from 3.7 eV to 4.8 eV inclusive, with respect to a work function of the first electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Liang discloses a charge block layer can comprise an organic layer with a fullerene derivative (¶ 22).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an organic layer for the charge block layer as taught by Liang for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the composition of fullerene in charge block layer and ratio of fullerene between the multiple layers to be a result effective variable affecting the hole transport speed and device response speed as well as HOMO and LUMO levels (¶ 19, 46). Thus, it would have been obvious to form the first charge block layer with a composition such that the HOMO and LUMO levels fall within the claimed ranges, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the organic material has a band gap that is equal to or higher than 2.6 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to form the organic material such that the band gap is within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the organic material has the HOMO level that is deeper than 6.3 eV.
However, it would have been obvious to form the organic material such that the HOMO level are within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the first (second) electric charge block layer (33) has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 30 nm inclusive.
However, it would have been obvious to form first (second) electric charge block layer with a thickness within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the first electrode has the work function ranging from 4.0 eV to 5.5 eV inclusive, the work function being deeper than the LUMO level of the organic material.
However, it would have been obvious to form first electrode such that the work function is within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a total state density at or below a level within a gap at an interface between the second electric charge block layer (33) and the photoelectric conversion layer (32) is lower than a total state density at or below a level within a gap in the photoelectric conversion layer.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the composition of fullerene in charge block layer and ratio of fullerene between the multiple layers to be a result effective variable affecting the hole transport speed and device response speed as well as HOMO and LUMO levels (¶ 19, 46). Thus, it would have been obvious to form the first charge block layer with a composition such that the claimed state density relationship is met, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Regarding claim 8, figure 1 of Suzuki discloses the second electric charge block layer (33) includes the fullerenes or the fullerene derivatives and the material forming the first electric charge block layer (¶ 48).
Regarding claim 10, figure 1 of Suzuki discloses the first electric charge block layer (33) and the second electric charge block layer (33) are hole block layers (¶ 48).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the first electrode (40) includes a plurality of electrodes that is independent of each other.
In the same field of endeavor, figure 2 of Liang discloses a first electrode including a plurality of electrodes (204a, 204b, 204c) that are independent of each other.
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the first electrode as a plurality of independent electrodes as taught by Liang for the purpose of forming a device with different pixels.
Regarding claim 12, the recited “a voltage is separately applied to each of the plurality of electrodes” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is independent electrodes, which Liang clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. see also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on."). It is in this regard that the claim is considered met.
Regarding claim 15, figure 1 of Suzuki discloses a photoelectric conversion device comprising:
a first electrode (40);
a second electrode (20) disposed to face the first electrode;
a photoelectric conversion layer (32) provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, the photoelectric conversion layer including fullerenes or fullerene derivatives (¶ 70);
a first electric charge block layer (33) provided between the first electrode and the photoelectric conversion layer, and
a second electric charge block layer (33) provided between the first electric charge block layer and the photoelectric conversion layer (¶ 48, hole blocking layer can be a plurality of layers), the second electric charge block layer including the fullerenes or the fullerene derivatives (¶ 48).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose an imaging machine comprising a plurality of pixels each provided with an imaging device including one or a plurality of photoelectric converters.
In the same field of endeavor, figure 2 of Liang discloses an imaging machine comprising a plurality of pixels (¶ 25) each provided with an imaging device including one or a plurality of photoelectric converters (220).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the photoelectric conversion device of Suzuki into an imaging machine with a plurality of pixels as taught by Liang for the purpose of forming a complete imaging device with an array of pixels (¶ 2).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose the first electric charge block layer including an organic material having a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) level that is deeper by 1 eV or higher and a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level ranging from 3.7 eV to 4.8 eV inclusive, with respect to a work function of the first electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Liang discloses a charge block layer can comprise an organic layer with a fullerene derivative (¶ 22).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an organic layer for the charge block layer as taught by Liang for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the composition of fullerene in charge block layer and ratio of fullerene between the multiple layers to be a result effective variable affecting the hole transport speed and device response speed as well as HOMO and LUMO levels (¶ 19, 46). Thus, it would have been obvious to form the first charge block layer with a composition such that the HOMO and LUMO levels fall within the claimed ranges, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Liang, as applied to claim 15, further in view of LEE et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0251521, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki in view of Liang does not explicitly disclose the imaging device further includes one or a plurality of photoelectric conversion regions where photoelectric conversion takes place within a wavelength band that differs from a wavelength band of the one or the plurality of photoelectric converters.
In the same field of endeavor, figure 4A of Lee discloses one or a plurality of photoelectric conversion regions (PD1) where photoelectric conversion takes place within a wavelength band that differs from a wavelength band of the one or the plurality of photoelectric converters (PD3).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further include one or a plurality of photoelectric conversion regions where photoelectric conversion takes place within a wavelength band that differs from a wavelength band of the one or the plurality of photoelectric converters as taught by Lee for the purpose of forming a image sensor with higher integration density (¶ 97).
Regarding claim 17, figure 4A of Lee discloses the one or the plurality of photoelectric conversion regions (PD1) is formed in a buried manner in a semiconductor substrate (110), and
the one or the plurality of photoelectric converters (PD3) is disposed on a side of a light incident surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Regarding claim 18, figure 2 of Liang discloses a multi-layered wiring layer (224) is formed on a surface opposite to the light-incident surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU-HSI DAVID SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm ET.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/YU-HSI D SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817