DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/642,618, filed 4/22/2024, which is a continuation of 18/142,448, filed 5/2/2023, which is a continuation of 16/994,376, filed 8/14/2020, which claims priority to provisional application 62/887,983, filed 8/16/2019.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
Wang, et al., Applied Physics Letters, 74, 3613-3615 (1999): This reference teaches a light emitting diode comprising a para-hexaphenyl (p-sexiphenyl) layer on an ITO electrode (column 2, page 3613).
Qian, et al. ACS Photonics 2017, 4, 2673-2679: This reference teaches an organic photomemory comprising a para-hexaphenyl (p-sexiphenyl) layer on a gate electrode (Fig. 1).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0044864 A1: This reference teaches an organic optoelectronic device with a p-sexiphenyl material used as a host material (paragraph [0066]).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: The numbering of these claims is inaccurate, because Claim 1 has been canceled, and the claim numbering skips Claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan, et al. (U.S. Patent 10,263,206 B2).
In reference to Claim 1, Yan teaches a method of forming an organic photovoltaic device (Example 6, column 13, line 40, through column 14, line 50, Fig. 6).
The method of Yan comprises providing a substrate 1 (column 13, lines 60-65).
The method of Yan comprises forming a first electrode 2 coupled to the substrate 1 (column 13, lines 60-65).
The method of Yan comprises forming a buffer layer 4 coupled to the first electrode (column 14, lines 48-62), which is taught to be para-hexaphenyl (Table 1, first line).
Yan teaches that the buffer layer 4 comprises a p-phenylene layer having a p-phenylene material (i.e. para-hexaphenyl, Table 1, first line).
The method of Yan comprises forming a second electrode above the first electrode (column 14, lines 15-20).
The method of Yan comprises forming one or more photoactive layers between the buffer layer and the second electrode, corresponding to the semiconductor crystalline film 5 and the top surface of the para-hexaphenyl layer (column 14, lines 12-18). This layer is taught to be F16CuPC in the first line of Table 1).
Yan teaches that p-phenylene is p-type (column 7, lines 58-63), and that the semiconductor layer is n-type (column 14, lines 37-48).
Therefore, the photoactive layer comprises at least one electron donor material and at least one electron acceptor material.
Yan teaches that the p-phenylene material has the structure shown in the formula of Claim 1, wherein each X is C-R, in which each R is H, and in which n is 4.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the one or more photoactive layers include a single heterojunction (Fig. 6, column 14, lines 37-48).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the single heterojunction is a planar heterojunction (Fig. 6).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the p-phenylene material comprises a p-sexiphenyl material.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Era, et al. (Appl. Phys. Lett. 67 (17) 2436-2438), as evidenced by Yan, et al. (U.S. Patent 10,263,206 B2).
In reference to Claim 1, Era teaches a method of forming an organic photovoltaic device (column 2, page 2436, through column 1, page 2437).
The method of Era comprises providing a substrate (column 2, page 2436).
The method of Era comprises forming a first electrode coupled to the substrate, corresponding to the provision of the ITO layer (column 2, page 2436).
The method of Era comprises forming a buffer layer coupled to the first electrode, corresponding to the provision of the bottom region of the para-hexaphenyl material (column 2, page 2436).
Era teaches that the buffer layer comprises a p-phenylene layer having a p-phenylene material (i.e. para-hexaphenyl, Fig. 1).
The method of Era comprises forming a second electrode above the first electrode (column 1, page 2437).
The method of Era comprises forming one or more photoactive layers between the buffer layer and the second electrode, corresponding to the formation of the film of OXD7 and the top surface of the para-hexaphenyl layer (column 2, page 2436, through column 1, page 2437).
Evidentiary reference Yan teaches that p-phenylene is p-type (column 7, lines 58-63).
Era teaches that the layer OXD7 is a an electron transport layer (column 2, page 2436, through column 1, page 2437).
Therefore, the photoactive layer of Era comprises at least one electron donor material and at least one electron acceptor material.
Era teaches that the p-phenylene material has the structure shown in the formula of Claim 1, wherein each X is C-R, in which each R is H, and in which n is 4 (Fig. 1).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the one or more photoactive layers include a single heterojunction (Fig. 3).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the single heterojunction is a planar heterojunction (Fig. 3).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the p-phenylene material comprises a p-sexiphenyl material.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0319765 A1), in view of Chen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0261768 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Choi teaches a method of forming an organic photovoltaic device (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0039]-[0046]).
The method of Choi comprises providing a substrate 110 (Fig. 5A, paragraph [0039]).
The method of Choi comprises forming a first electrode 120 coupled to the substrate 110 (Fig. 5A, paragraph [0039]).
The method of Choi comprises forming a buffer layer 130 coupled to the first electrode (Fig. 5B, paragraph [0040]).
The method of Choi comprises forming a second electrode 160 above the first electrode 120 (Fig. 5E, paragraph [0045]).
The method of Choi comprises forming one or more photoactive layers 140 between the buffer layer 130 and the second electrode 160 (Fig. 5D, paragraphs [0042]-[0044]).
Choi teaches that the one or more photoactive layers 140 has at least one electron donor material and at least one electron acceptor material (paragraphs [0042]-[0044]).
Choi does not teach that the buffer layer comprises p-phenylene layer having a p-phenylene material with the structure required by Claim 1.
However, he teaches that the buffer layer 130 is a hole transporting layer that may include polyanilines or phthalocyanine (paragraph [0018]).
To solve the same problem of providing an organic hole transporting material for an organic electronic device, Chen teaches that p-quaterphenyl, p-quinquiphenyl, p-sexiphenyl, phthalocyanine, and polyanilines are all suitable hole transporting/p-type organic semiconductors for use in organic electronic devices (paragraph [0040]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the buffer layer 130 of Choi from any of p-quaterphenyl, p-quinquiphenyl, or p-sexiphenyl, instead of phthalocyanine or polyaniline, based on the disclosure of Chen.
Forming the buffer layer 130 of Choi from any of p-quaterphenyl, p-quinquiphenyl, or p-sexiphenyl teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the buffer layer is formed from a p-phenylene material, and wherein the p-phenylene material has the structure shown in the formula of Claim 1, wherein each X is C-R, in which each R is H, and in which n is 2-4.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Forming the buffer layer 130 of Choi from any of p-quaterphenyl, p-quinquiphenyl, or p-sexiphenyl teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the buffer layer is
In reference to Claim 2, Choi teaches that the one or more photoactive layers includes a single heterojunction (i.e. one electron donating material and one electron accepting material, paragraphs [0042]-[0044]).
In reference to Claim 3, Choi does not teach that the single heterojunction is necessarily a planar heterojunction.
However, he teaches that a suitable method for forming the photoactive layer includes sequentially depositing the electron donating and electron accepting regions of the photoactive layer (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the photoactive layer by sequentially depositing the electron donating and electron accepting regions of the photoactive layer, because Choi teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the photoactive layer of his invention.
Forming the photoactive layer by sequentially depositing the electron donating and electron accepting regions of the photoactive layer teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the single heterojunction is a planar heterojunction.
In reference to Claim 4, Choi does not teach that the single heterojunction is necessarily a bulk heterojunction.
However, he teaches that a suitable configuration for the heterojunction is a heterojunction comprising multiple electron donating and electron accepting regions (i.e. a bulk heterojunction) (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the photoactive layer of Choi to have a bulk heterojunction, because he teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the photoactive layer of his invention.
Forming the photoactive layer of Choi to have a bulk heterojunction structure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the single heterojunction is a bulk heterojunction (BHJ).
In reference to Claim 5, Choi does not teach that the single heterojunction necessarily has the structure of Claim 5.
However, he teaches that a suitable configuration for the heterojunction is a heterojunction comprising multiple electron donating and electron accepting regions (i.e. a bulk heterojunction) (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the photoactive layer of Choi to have a bulk heterojunction, because he teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the photoactive layer of his invention.
Forming the photoactive layer of Choi to have a bulk heterojunction structure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the one or more photoactive layers include a first bulk heterojunction (BHJ) active layer comprising a first blend of a first electron donor material and a first electron acceptor material (corresponding to a lower portion of the photoactive layer 140) and a second BHJ active layer comprising a second blend of a second electron donor material and a second electron acceptor material (corresponding to a upper portion of the photoactive layer 140).
It is noted that Claim 5 does not require that the first and second electron donor materials are different from each other or that the first and second electron acceptor materials are different materials from each other.
In reference to Claim 7, Choi does not teach that forming the one or more photoactive layers necessarily includes depositing the one or more photoactive layers via solution processing.
However, he teaches that a suitable method for forming the photoactive layer includes solution processing (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the photoactive layer of Choi using solution processing, because he teaches that this is a suitable method for forming the photoactive layer of his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0319765 A1), in view of Chen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0261768 A1), and further in view of Forrest, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0210189 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, modified Choi does not teach that the method of forming the photoactive layer of his invention includes depositing the one or more photoactive layers via thermal evaporation.
Instead, he teaches that the photoactive layer is deposited by solution processing (paragraph [0044]). He further teaches that the photoactive layer is a bulk heterojunction layer (paragraph [0044]).
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic device comprising a bulk heterojunction layer, Forrest teaches that such active layers may be suitably deposited by vacuum thermal evaporation or spin coating, which is a solution phase method (paragraph [0091]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the active layer of the device of Choi using a vacuum thermal evaporation method, based on the disclosure of Forrest.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0319765 A1), in view of Chen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0261768 A1), and further in view of Shrotriya, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0276071 A1).
In reference to Claims 10 and 13, modified Choi is silent regarding whether the solar cell of his invention is transparent or opaque. Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claims 10 or 13.
To solve the same problem of providing an organic photovoltaic device that comprises a bulk heterojunction, Shrotriya teaches that such solar cells may be suitably made to be transparent or opaque, depending on their substrate and electrode materials (paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the solar cell of Choi to be either transparent or opaque, based on Shrotriya’s disclosure that such cells may be suitably made to be either transparent or opaque.
Forming the solar cell of Choi to be transparent teaches the limitations of Claim 10.
Forming the solar cell of Choi to be opaque teaches the limitations of Claim 13.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0319765 A1), in view of Chen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0261768 A1) and Shrotriya, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0276071 A1), and further in view of Sotzing, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0232622 A1).
In reference to Claims 11-12, modified Choi is silent regarding the glass reflected a* and b* values of the solar cell of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach the limitations of Claims 11-12.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic device, Sotzing teaches that, as the values of a* and b* in the L*a*b* system approach 0, the saturation color of the device is even (paragraph [0103]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the solar cell of modified Choi so that the a* and b* values are both 0, so that a color saturation of the device is even, as taught by Sotzing.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the organic photovoltaic device has a glass-reflected a* between -10 and 10 in International Commission on Illumination (CIE) L*a*b* (CIELAB) color space.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the organic photovoltaic device has a glass-reflected b* between -10 and 10 in International Commission on Illumination (CIE) L*a*b* (CIELAB) color space.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0319765 A1), in view of Chen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0261768 A1), and further in view of Bazan, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0032791 A1).
In reference to Claim 14, modified Choi does not include the hole injection layer of Claim 14.
To solve the same problem of providing an organic photoelectric device, comprising a glass substrate, and ITO electrode, an organic hole transport layer, a photoactive layer forming a bulk heterojunction, and a metal electrode (Bazan, paragraphs [0081]-[0085]), Bazan teaches that such a device may be suitably modified to comprise an inorganic hole injection layer comprising MoO3, V2O5, NiO, or WO3, disposed between the ITO layer and the organic hole transport layer (paragraph [0088]).
Bazan further teaches that this layer provides the benefit of performing hole injection (paragraph [0088]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed a layer of MoO3, V2O5, NiO, or WO3 between the ITO layer and the p-phenylene layer of the device of modified Choi, based on the disclosure of Bazan.
Forming a layer of MoO3, V2O5, NiO, or WO3 between the ITO layer and the p-phenylene layer of the device of modified Choi teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the method further comprises forming a hole injection layer disposed between the first electrode and the p-phenylene layer, wherein the hole injection layer is one of MoOx, NiOx, VOx, or WOx, corresponding to both stoichiometric and non- stoichiometric compositions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm 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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights