DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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
Applicant’s amendment of 04/16/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 03/13/2026, Applicant has amended claims 6-7, 9 and 16-17. Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-15, 18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention and/or species.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claims 6-7, 9 and 16-17, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 03/13/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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.
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 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ye et al. (CN 113644203 A) (refer to translation as provided on 03/13/2026).
Regarding claim 6, Ye discloses a preparation method of an organic cell (solar cell shown in fig. 1; see claim 1, claim 4, [0008], [0014-0016], [0057], and [0073-0075]) comprising a conductive substrate ([0057]), a hole transport layer ([0057]), an active layer ([0057]), an electron transport layer (interface layer which is made of electron transporting material PFN-Br, [0057] and [0075], which is same as instant application – see [0084] of published application), and a metal electrode (see [0057] and [0075]).
Ye further discloses the active layer is made by same process, same materials and same E/D ratio as in the case of the instant application (see the table below).
Instant application (see published application)
Ye et al. (CN 113644203 A)
Donor (D)
PM6 (example 23)
PM6 ([0028] and [0075])
Acceptor (A)
Y6 (example 23)
Y6 ([0029] and [0075])
Elastomer (E)
styrenic thermoplastic elastomer ([0047]) such as SEBS (see example 23, [0183])
styrenic thermoplastic elastomer, SEBS ([0027] and [0075])
E:D mass ratio to control elastomeric layer thickness
< 2:1 ([0059], specifically
0.5 to 1.5 ([0060])
0.66
1
= 0.66 ([0075])
D/A mass ratio
1:1.2 (example 23, [0183])
1:1.2 ([0075])
Active layer thickness
20-1000 nm ([0061])
20-1000 nm ([0018])
Preparation method
Deposition of a mixed system of donor, acceptor and elastomer ([0049])
Deposition of a mixed system of donor, acceptor and elastomer ([0075])
deposition technique
Spin coating ([0066])
Spin coating ([0016] and [0075])
Solvent
chloroform or chlorobenzene ([0058])
chloroform or chlorobenzene ([0017])
Instant application further discloses (see published application):
[0049] allowing a mixed system containing a donor material, an acceptor material and thermoplastic elastomers to form an active layer, wherein the thermoplastic elastomers are spontaneously enriched at the upper and lower interfaces of the active layer to form an enrichment layer.
[0059] In some embodiments, when the thermoplastic elastomers are blended with the active layer, a mass ratio of the thermoplastic elastomers to the donor material is less than 2:1, in other words, a doping ratio of the thermoplastic elastomers is 0-2 times the mass of the donor material in the active layer, and thermoplastic elastomers of different thicknesses can be spontaneously enriched at the upper and lower interfaces of the active layer.
[0060] In some embodiments, the doping ratio of the thermoplastic elastomers is preferably 0.5-1.5 times the mass of the donor material in the active layer.
Since the active layer of Ye is made by same deposition technique (spin coating), with same materials (PM6, Y6 and SEBS), and same E/D ratio (0.66) as in the case of the instant application, top and bottom enrichment layers must be formed by enrichment of thermoplastic elastomers on top and bottom surfaces of the active layer as in the case of the instant application.
Instant application further discloses that E/D ratio of 10% allows for formation of 0.5 nm enrichment layer (see example 1), E/D ratio of 50% allows for formation of 3 nm enrichment layer (see example 2), and E/D ratio of 200% allows for formation of 20 nm enrichment layer (see example 4).
Since the disclosed E/D ratio of Ye is 0.66 or 66% ([0075] or table above), which is within the desired E/D ratio range of 0.5-1.5 of instant application ([0060] of published application) and the active layer is formed by mixed system as in the case of instant application ([0049] of published application), top and bottom enrichment layers must be formed by enrichment of thermoplastic elastomers on top and bottom surfaces of the active layer each a thickness of 0.5-20 nm as in the case of the instant application.
Alternatively, Ye explicitly discloses the elastomer accounts for 2-90 % of the total mass of the active layer ([0033]). Ye further discloses the adhesion strength (figure 2), elasticity (fig. 3) and absorbance (fig. 4 of 5) of the active layer depends on SEBS concentration. Thus, SEBS concentration can be construed as result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum value of the SEBS concentration by routine experimentation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result of effect variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Thus, optimum concentration of SEBS allows upper and lower enrichment layers with optimum thickness.
Regarding claim 7, Ye further discloses that the thermoplastic elastomers comprise a styrenic thermoplastic elastomer (SEBS or SBS, [0027] and [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Ye further discloses the method comprising:
providing the conductive substrate ([0057] and fig. 1);
forming the hole transport layer on the conductive substrate ([0057] and fig. 1);
forming the active layer on the hole transport layer ([0057] and fig. 1), wherein in a process of forming the active layer, the thermoplastic elastomers in the active layer are spontaneously enriched at the upper and lower interfaces of the active layer to form respective enrichment layers each having a thickness of 0.5-20 nm (see rejection of claim 6 with respect to the claimed thickness of each enrichment layers);
forming the electron transport layer (interface layer made of PFN-Br, [0057] and fig. 1) on the active layer ([0057] and fig. 1); and
forming the metal electrode on the electron transport layer (interface layer) ([0057] and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Ye further discloses preparing the hole transport layer (PEDOT:PSS layer) by spin coating ([0075]). Other limitation(s) is/are optional to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Ye further discloses that the thermoplastic elastomers comprise a styrenic thermoplastic elastomer (SEBS or SBS, [0027] and [0075]), wherein each enrichment layer has a thickness of 0.5-20 nm (see rejection of claim 6 with respect to the claimed thickness of each enrichment layers).
Regarding claim 17, Ye further discloses upper and lower interfaces of the active layer have the respective enrichment layers formed by the enrichment of the thermoplastic elastomers (mixed system as disclosed in [0075] allows for formation of elastomer layer on top and bottom surfaces of the active layer, similar to instant application – see rejection of claim 6), each enrichment layer having a thickness of 0.5-20 nm (see rejection of claim 6 with respect to the claimed thickness of each enrichment layers).
Regarding claim 19, Ye further discloses a material of the metal electrode comprises silver ([0075]) and a thickness of the metal electrode is 50-1000 nm (100 nm, [0075]). Other limitation(s) is/are optional to the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 6-7, 9, 11, 16-17 and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
On pages 12-14 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Ye does not disclose the upper and lower enrichment layers each with a thickness of 0.5-20 nm.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the active layer of Ye is made by same process technique (spin coating), with same materials (PM6, Y6 and SEBS), and same E/D ratio (0.66) as in the case of the instant application, top and bottom enrichment layers must be formed by enrichment of thermoplastic elastomers on top and bottom surfaces of the active layer as in the case of the instant application. Applicant is also directed above regarding the thickness of each of the upper and lower enrichment layers (see rejection of claim 6).
Applicant further argues that Ye teaches a separate interface layer such as PFN-Br or PDINO with a thickness of 10 nm, which is not a specifically dimensioned thermoplastic-elastomer enrichment layer at both active layer interfaces (page 14 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Interface layer Ye is not relied upon to teach the elastomer enrichment layer. Also, the interface layer is the electron-transporting layer as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights