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 Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 3, each instance of “IZTO” should read “indium-zinc-tin-oxide”.
Claims 1-3, each instance of “PANI” should read “polyaniline”.
Claims 1-3, each instance of “PSS” should read “polystyrenesulfonate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim, Hyeok (KR 2022/0015765 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim, Hyeok discloses a transparent electrode (pg 2, lines 29-30) comprising an indium zinc tin oxide layer forming the upper surface of the electrode (pg 2, line 44) and a PANI:PSS intermediate layer applied to the upper surface of the electrode (pg 3, lines 8-9).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim, Hyeok discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Kim, Hyeok further discloses an intermediate layer comprising PANI:PSS in a weight ratio of 1:1 applied to the upper surface of the electrode (pg 4, Experiment 3, PANI:PSS #2).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim, Hyeok discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Although Kim, Hyeok does not disclose the intermediate layer is formed by spin coating the PANI:PSS as claimed, it is noted that “[E]ven though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Kim, Hyeok meets the requirements of the claimed transparent IZTO electrode, Kim, Hyeok clearly meet the requirements of present claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biswas et al. ("Decent efficiency improvement of organic photovoltaic cell with low acidic hole transport material by controlling doping concentration") in view of Kim, Young Sung et al. ("Mechanical reliability of transparent conducting IZTO film electrodes for flexible panel displays").
Regarding Claim 1, Biswas discloses organic photovoltaic cells having a hole transport layer between the electrode and the active material (Introduction, lines 6-9), wherein the electrode comprises an indium-tin-oxide (ITO) layer (2.4, lines 1-2) and the hole transport layer comprises PANI:PSS (2.4, lines 8-9). The materials are transparent (4, line 3).
Biswas does not disclose the IZTO film as claimed.
Kim, Young Sung discloses transparent conducting film IZTO electrodes, and discloses IZTO films have excellent mechanical durability and flexibility in comparison to ITO films (Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Biswas to incorporate the teachings of Kim, Young Sung, and use IZTO film instead of the ITO film in the electrode of Biswas. Doing so would provide excellent mechanical durability and flexibility.
Regarding Claim 2, Biswas in view of Kim, Young Sung discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Biswas further discloses PANI:PSS II, having a weight ratio of 1:1, is preferred (Table 2; 4, lines 17-22).
Regarding Claim 3, Biswas in view of Kim, Young Sung discloses all the limitations of the present invention according to Claim 1 above. Biswas further discloses the PANI:PSS layer is spin coated (2.4, lines 8-9).
Although Biswas in view of Kim, Young Sung does not disclose the spin coating is conducted at 3,000 rpm for 60 seconds as claimed, it is noted that “[E]ven though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Biswas in view of Kim, Young Sung meets the requirements of the claimed transparent IZTO electrode, Biswas in view of Kim, Young Sung clearly meet the requirements of present claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2109. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/BETHANY M MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787