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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 4 encompassing claims 1-2, 4, 9, 13-14, 19-29, 31-32 and 34 in the reply filed on 28 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 13-14, 19-29, 31-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an organic photovoltaic device with an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9V, a power conversion efficiency around 22% and an EL external quantum efficiency around 5% when illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum, does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire scope of the ranges of power conversion efficiency of greater than 22% (e.g. up to 100%) and EL external quantum efficiency >5% (e.g. up to 100%) simultaneously for an organic photovoltaic device having an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9V illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Wands Analysis (MPEP 2164.01(a)):
A. Breadth of claims:
An organic photovoltaic device comprising:
an anode;
a cathode; and
a photoactive organic material in a layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein:
the energy difference between the triplet energy state (T1) and the singlet energy state (S1) (ΔEST) in the photoactive organic material is less than about 300 meV; and
when the organic photovoltaic device is illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum, the organic photovoltaic device has an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9 V and a power conversion efficiency of greater than 22%, and an EL external quantum efficiency >5%.
B. The nature of the invention
An organic photovoltaic device having an anode, a cathode and a photoactive organic material in a layer disposed between the anode and the cathode, wherein: the energy difference between the triplet energy state (T1) and the singlet energy state (S1) (ΔEST) in the photoactive organic material is less than about 300 meV to allow thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF) to provide for an organic photovoltaic device exhibiting greater open circuit voltage, power conversion efficiency and EL external quantum efficiency than prior art organic photovoltaic devices.
C. The state of the prior art
The presently claimed invention has domestic priority to October 2023.
The state of the art for organic solar cells as represented in Wu et al (Prospects and challenges for perovskite-organic tandem solar cells, Joule 7, 484–502, March 2023) is that improvements in non-fullerene acceptors (NFAs) and development of Y-series NFAs have raised efficiencies of single junction organic cells above 19% and allowed development of perovskite-organic tandem photovoltaic devices with open-circuit voltages around 2.1V and efficiencies of about 24% (see Fig. 4 in Wu). However such organic semiconductor materials used in photovoltaic devices continue to have low (0.0006%-0.14%) EL external quantum efficiencies (EQEEL) due to severe non-radiative recombination losses inherent to organic semiconductors (see right hand column of page 2 of Shui et al (Highly-Emissive Organic Photovoltaics Approaching Theoretical Limit Voltage and Enabling Multifunctional Energy-Harvesting Displays, Advanced Materials, 2026;38:e72995)). Shui further notes such loses hinder the simultaneous achievement of both high PCE and high EQEEL in a single device (see page 2) also noted in Lu et al (Decreasing exciton dissociation rates for reduced voltage losses in organic solar cells, Nature Communications| (2024) 15:2693) where increases in EQEEL eventually lead to decreases in PCE (See Figs. 4 and 5).
Given the state of the prior art, the claimed organic photovoltaic device requires a more detailed disclosure by the applicant in order to enable one skilled in the art to make and or use the claimed organic photovoltaic device with an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9V, a power conversion efficiency of greater than 22% (e.g. up to 100%), and an EL external quantum efficiency >5% (e.g. up to 100%).
D. The level of one of ordinary skill:
One of ordinary skill in this art is considered to be a scientist, skilled in the methods of organic photovoltaic device manufacture and familiar with the particular organic semiconductor material systems for formation of organic photovoltaic cells.
E. The level of predictability in the art:
The level of predictability in the art is considered to be somewhat predictable to low, as noted in the attached reference of De Vos (Detailed balance limit of the efficiency of tandem solar cells, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 13 (1980) 83946), the predicted conversion efficiencies of solar cells can be optimized (see Section “Abstract” and page 844 “An Infinite number of cells”) by controlling certain design variables including light concentration, bandgap, and number of absorber cell junctions but optimizing for high PCE and high EQEEL in a single device as noted above is difficult due to severe non-radiative recombination losses inherent to organic semiconductors.
F. The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
Applicant does not provide adequate direction and requires a more detailed disclosure in order to enable one skilled in the art to make and or use the invention of an organic photovoltaic device having an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9 V and a power conversion efficiency of greater than 22% (e.g. up to 100%), and an EL external quantum efficiency >5% (e.g. up to 100%) when illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum. As noted in the attached reference of De Vos (Detailed balance limit of the efficiency of tandem solar cells, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 13 (1980) 83946), that currently the highest theoretical photovoltaic conversion efficiency (PCE) for photovoltaic devices under 1 sun illumination (analogous to claimed AM1.5 spectrum) is ~68% for a tandem system with infinite subcells and ~53% for a more realistic stack of four subcells (See Abstract and Table 1 on page 843). Likewise, given that organic semiconductor materials used in photovoltaic devices in the state of the art have low (0.0006%-0.14%) EL external quantum efficiencies (EQEEL) due to severe non-radiative recombination losses inherent to organic semiconductors which hinder the simultaneous achievement of both high PCE and high EQEEL (see page 2 of Shui), one of ordinary skill in the art would not find sufficient guidance in the disclosure of applicant’s specification for an organic photovoltaic device having conversion efficiency above these theoretical conversion efficiencies and exhibiting such high EQEEL values such as greater than 30% or greater than 50% in an organic photovoltaic device as in claims 9 and 13 without undue experimentation.
G. The existence of working examples:
Applicant’s specification provides working examples for photoactive organic materials exhibiting ΔEST values less than about 300 meV but otherwise does not provide working examples of organic photovoltaic devices having photovoltaic conversion efficiencies over the entire claimed range of greater than 22% (e.g. up to 100%) or having EL external quantum efficiency over the entire claimed range of >5% (e.g. up to 100%) when illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum. Applicant does not provide a working example for how to form an organic photovoltaic device having an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9 V and a power conversion efficiency of greater than 22% (e.g. up to 100%), and an EL external quantum efficiency >5% (e.g. up to 100%) when illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum as claimed.
H. The quantity of experimentation needed to make and/or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
The applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to make and/or use the entire scope of the claimed invention. As recited above, attached reference of De Vos (Detailed balance limit of the efficiency of tandem solar cells, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 13 (1980) 83946) recites that currently the highest theoretical photovoltaic conversion efficiency (PCE) for photovoltaic devices under 1 sun illumination (analogous to claimed AM1.5 spectrum) is ~68% for a tandem system with infinite subcells and ~53% for a more realistic stack of four subcells (See Abstract and Table 1 on page 843). Given that organic semiconductor materials used in photovoltaic devices in the state of the art have low (0.0006%-0.14%) EL external quantum efficiencies (EQEEL) due to severe non-radiative recombination losses inherent to organic semiconductors which hinder the simultaneous achievement of both high PCE and high EQEEL (see page 2 of Shui), one of ordinary skill in the art would not find sufficient guidance in the disclosure of applicant’s specification to make and/or use the entire scope of the claimed invention of an organic photovoltaic device having conversion efficiency above these theoretical conversion efficiencies and exhibiting such high EQEEL values such as greater than 30% or greater than 50% in an organic photovoltaic device as in claims 9 and 13 without an undue level of experimentation.
Therefore, based upon the above analysis claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 13-14, 19-29, 31-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire scope of the ranges of power conversion efficiency of greater than 22% (e.g. up to 100%) and EL external quantum efficiency >5% (e.g. up to 100%) simultaneously for an organic photovoltaic device having an open circuit voltage of greater than 0.9V illuminated with light having an AM1.5 spectrum. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 13-14, 19-29, 31-32 and 34 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 “the energy difference between the triplet energy state (T1) and the singlet energy state (S1) (ΔEST) in the photoactive organic material” where the values within the parentheses (T1) and (S1) for determining the claimed energy difference are narrower than the broader recitations of “the triplet energy state” and “the singlet energy state” as (T1) and (S1) typically respectively refer to the first triplet energy state and first singlet energy state as the lowest excited electronic states in a photoactive organic material which includes other triplet energy states and singlet energy states which can also be referenced for describing an energy difference. This makes it unclear if the values within the parentheses (T1) and (S1) are optional or necessary further limitations in claim 1 for the recited triplet energy state and singlet energy state. As such, the scope of claim 1 cannot be determined and is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 13-14, 19-29, 31-32 and 34 are also rendered indefinite by depending from indefinite claim 1.
Claims 26-29, 31-32 and 34 each recites “the compound of claim 25” in their preambles but claim 25 is directed to an organic photovoltaic device, not simply a compound and as such it’s not clear what the scopes of claims 26-29, 31-32 and 34 are meant to encompass rendering them indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 26-29, 31-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 26-29, 31-32 and 34 recite “the compound of claim 25” in their preambles but claim 25 is directed to an organic photovoltaic device making it appear that claims 26-29, 31-32 and 34 do not include all the device limitations of claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Citation of Closest Prior art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of Wu et al (Prospects and challenges for perovskite-organic tandem solar cells, Joule 7, 484–502, March 2023) discloses perovskite-organic tandem photovoltaic devices with open-circuit voltages around 2.1V and efficiencies of about 24% (see Fig. 4 in Wu) using Y-series NFAs (Y6) in a photoactive organic material between an anode and cathode.
Although Wu does not explicitly recite the energy difference between the triplet energy state (T1) and the singlet energy state (S1) (ΔEST) in the photoactive organic material is less than about 300 meV, the prior art of Han et al (Singlet-Triplet Energy Gap as a Critical Molecular Descriptor for Predicting Organic Photovoltaic Efficiency, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2022, 61, e202213953) calculates such a Y6 material having a ΔEST) of ~0.23 eV (No. 117 in Table S2 on page S15 of supporting material). However, neither Wu or Han recite an EQEEL within the claimed range of >5%.
Rand et al (US 2019/0097148) recites solid-state organic intermediate-band photovoltaic devices having a photoactive organic material (PtTPBP) with a singlet-triplet energy gap of a triplet sensitizer is less than about 0.2 eV or less than 0.1 eV to exhibit thermally activated delayed fluorescent (TADF) (para [0027]) but otherwise does not recite the claimed efficiencies of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
