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 .
Summary
This is the Office Action in response to the 18/718,332 application filed on 06/10/2024.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “C1-C30, preferably C1-C20” on numerous occasions that render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires C21-C20 that are outside of the preferred range. Claim 1 further recites the limitation “a halogen atom such as chlorine, fluorine, bromine, preferably chlorine, fluorine” that renders the claim indefinite. Claim 2 is rejected as dependent of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “preferably R1 represents n-octyl and R2 represents a hydrogen atom” and “preferably 2-octyldodecyl, 2-hexyldecyl, 2-butyloctyl” that render the claim indefinite for the reason stated above.
Claim 3 recites “An organic photovoltaic device (or solar device) selected from organic, binary, ternary, quaternary photovoltaic cells (or solar cells) (the limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation requires the photovoltaic cells to be binary, ternary and quaternary which is impossible since a binary organic photovoltaic cell cannot be also a ternary and quaternary structure; likewise, a ternary structure cannot be binary and quaternary), having both simple and tandem architecture (it is unclear as to what architecture of a photovoltaic cell is considered as “simple” when the word “simple” is read in light of the specification; furthermore, it is unclear as to the structure of a photovoltaic cell that has both simple and tandem architecture when the phrase “both simple and tandem” is read in light of the specification), organic photovoltaic modules (or solar modules) (the preamble already recites organic photovoltaic device; therefore, it is unclear whether claim is drawn to organic photovoltaic device or organic photovoltaic modules), both (it is unclear as to which two structures the word “both” refers) on rigid support and on a flexible support (it is unclear as to how the structures can be on a support that is both rigid and flexible, which are opposite properties) … preferably an organic, binary, ternary, quaternary photovoltaic cell (or solar cell), having both simple and tandem structure (the word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires the previously recited structures that are not recited after the word “preferably”).
Claim 4 recites “binary, ternary, quaternary organic photovoltaic cell (or solar cell) (the limitation renders the claim indefinite because the limitation requires the photovoltaic cells to be binary, ternary and quaternary which is impossible since a binary organic photovoltaic cell cannot be also a ternary and quaternary structure; likewise, a ternary structure cannot be binary and quaternary), having both simple and tandem architecture (it is unclear as to what architecture of a photovoltaic cell is considered as “simple” when the word “simple” is read in light of the specification; furthermore, it is unclear as to the structure of a photovoltaic cell that has both simple and tandem architecture when the phrase “both simple and tandem” is read in light of the specification). Claims 5-7 are rejected as dependents of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “The organic photovoltaic cell” that renders the claim indefinite because claim 4, on which claim 5 depends, recites “A binary, ternary, quaternary organic photovoltaic cell). Claim 5 further recites “having both simple and tandem architecture” and “binary, ternary, quaternary” that render the claim indefinite for the reasons stated above. Claim 5 further recites “C1-C20, preferably C2-C10” and “identical to or different from each other, preferably identical to each other” on numerous occasions that render the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 6 recites “The ternary organic photovoltaic cell” that renders the claim indefinite because claim 4, on which claim 6 depends, recites “A binary, ternary, quaternary organic photovoltaic cell”.
Claim 6 recites “having both simple and tandem architecture” that renders the claim indefinite for the reason stated above.
Claim 6 recites “two photoactive organic polymers selected from those according to claim 4” and “one photoactive organic polymer selected from those according to claim 4” that render the claim indefinite because claim 4 does not recite any list of photoactive organic polymers. Therefore, it is unclear as to which photoactive organic polymers of claim 4 that claim 6 refers.
Claim 6 recites “one non-fullerene compound selected from non-fullerene compounds, optionally polymeric, such as compounds based on perylene-diimides or naphthalene-diimides and fused aromatic rings” that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires compounds based on perylene-diimides or naphthalene-diimides and fused aromatic rings since the phrase “such as” simply lists examples of non-fullerene compounds without definitively requiring compounds based on perylene-diimides or naphthalene-diimides and fused aromatic rings as part of the claim. Likewise, limitations “one fullerene derivative such as PC61BM (6,6-phenyl-C61-methyle butyric ester) or PC71BM (6,6-phenyl-C71-methyl butyric ester)” and “such as derivatives of corannulene or truxenone” also render the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The limitation “The quaternary organic photovoltaic cell” renders the claim indefinite because claim 4, on which claim 7 depends, recites “A binary, ternary, quaternary organic photovoltaic cell”.
Claim 7 further recites “having both simple and tandem architecture” that renders the claim indefinite for the reason stated above.
Claim 7 recites “two photoactive organic polymers selected from those according to claim 4” that renders the claim indefinite because claim 4 does not recite any list of photoactive organic polymers. Therefore, it is unclear as to which photoactive organic polymers of claim 4 that claim 7 refers.
Claim 7 recites “one fullerene derivative such as PC61BM (6,6-phenyl-C61-methyle butyric ester) or PC71BM (6,6-phenyl-C71-methyl butyric ester)” that renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires fullerene derivative PC61BM or PC71BM since the phrase “such as” simply lists examples of fullerene derivative without definitively requiring the derivatives PC61BM or PC71BM as part of the claim. Likewise, the limitations “such as compounds based on perylene-diimides or naphthalene-diimides and fused aromatic rings” and “such as derivatives of corannulene or truxenone” also render the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 recites “non-fullerene compounds, possibly polymeric” that renders the claim indefinite because the word “possibly” does not definitively require the non-fullerene compound being polymeric.
Claim 8 is indefinite for requiring the compound of claim 1 that includes limitations that render the recited compound indefinite as discussed above. Claim 8 also recites “the electron-carrying material-based layer” that lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is indefinite for requiring the compound of claim 1 that includes limitations that render the recited compound indefinite as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (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 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/02/2025