DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/921,478, filed on 10/21/2024, which is a CON of PCT/KR2022/016074, filed on 10/20/2022, and which claims foreign priority to KR 10-2022-0049613, filed on 04/21/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 12/02/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A4 (claims 1, 5, and 8-11) in the reply received on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 7 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-11 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
The examiner requests that the applicant confirm that no Information Disclosure Statement is necessary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “any one of Formulas 1 to 7”. Only a Formula 1 is previously recited in earlier pending claims. Thus, the scope of the claimed invention is ambiguous and unclear. Claims 10 and 11 depend on indefinite claim 9 and are similarly rejected.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SON (“Synthesis of indandione-based Conjugated polymers for Polymer Solar Cells”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, SON teaches a conjugated polymer compound for a polymer solar cell donor represented by Formula 1, including recited substituent requirements (see Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
210
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
376
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The small difference in chemical structure where there is a phenyl rather than a thiophene is noted, and the examiner concludes that there is a reasonable expectation of similar properties. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." Here, the examiner concludes that skilled artisans would have found it obvious to make the claimed compound based on similarity in chemical structure and function, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.
Regarding claim 8, SON teaches a polymer solar cell having an active layer comprising the conjugated polymer compound of claim 1 as a donor (Formula 1 is a donor).
Regarding claim 9, SON teaches the polymer solar cell of claim 8, wherein the polymer solar cell is an inverted-type structure in which an ITO substrate; an active layer comprising a donor composed of a conjugated polymer compound represented by any one of Formulas 1 to 7, and an acceptor; a metal oxide layer comprising molybdenum oxide (MoO3); and a silver (Ag) electrode layer, are sequentially stacked (“ITO/ZnO (~25 nm)/active layer (IND-DHT-BDT or IND-DHT-BDTF:Y6BO) (75 nm)/MoO3 (3 nm)/Ag (100 nm)”, pg. 58).
PNG
media_image3.png
345
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, SON teaches the polymer solar cell of claim 9, wherein the acceptor is composed of 2,2'- ((2Z,2'Z)-((12,13-bis(2-butyloctyl)-12,13-dihydro-[1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4- e]thieno[2",3":4',5']thieno[2',3':4,5]pyrrolo[3,2-g]thieno[2',3':4,5]thieno[3,2-b]indole-2,10- diyl)bis(methanylylidene))bis(5,6-difluoro-3 -oxo-2,3 -dihydro-1H-indene-2,1- diylidene))dimalononitrile (Y6BO) (“ITO/ZnO (~25 nm)/active layer (IND-DHT-BDT or IND-DHT-BDTF:Y6BO) (75 nm)/MoO3 (3 nm)/Ag (100 nm)”, pg. 58).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
938
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, SON teaches the polymer solar cell of claim 9, further comprising a zinc oxide (ZnO) layer between the ITO substrate and the active layer (“ITO/ZnO (~25 nm)/active layer (IND-DHT-BDT or IND-DHT-BDTF:Y6BO) (75 nm)/MoO3 (3 nm)/Ag (100 nm)”, pg. 58).
Claims 1, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SON (“Synthesis of indandione-based Conjugated polymers for Polymer Solar Cells”) in view of OWCZARCZYK (“Cyclopenta[c]thiophene-4,6-dione-Based Copolymers as Organic Photovoltaic Donor Materials”).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, SON teaches a conjugated polymer compound for a polymer solar cell donor represented by Formula 1, including recited substituent requirements (see Fig. 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
210
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
376
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The small difference in chemical structure where there is a phenyl rather than a thiophene is noted. In the parallel rejection above, the examiner asserts that the claimed chemical structure is prima facie obvious as explained earlier. Alternatively, other prior art references teach and suggest the use of substantially similar chemical compounds reading on the claimed substructure.
OWCZARCZYK (2014) teaches conjugated copolymers based on cyclopenta[c]
thiophene-4,6-dione (CTD) (equivalent to the “TIND” type molecule labeled by applicant) and benzodithiophene (BDT) (the same types as the claimed Formulas 1 and 5) (see Scheme 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
381
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
OWCZARCZYK remarks that these CTD compounds allow for polymer energy levels to be further fine-tined (pg. 1301821, sect. 2.1, para. 2), and optimize device performance (sect. 3).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify SON and use the cyclopenta[c]thiophene-type CTD because this provides for greater fine-tuning capability and the ability to further optimize device performance as taught by OWCZARCZYK.
Regarding claim 8, modified SON teaches a polymer solar cell having an active layer comprising the conjugated polymer compound of claim 1 as a donor (Formula 1 is a donor).
Regarding claim 9, modified SON teaches the polymer solar cell of claim 8, wherein the polymer solar cell is an inverted-type structure in which an ITO substrate; an active layer comprising a donor composed of a conjugated polymer compound represented by any one of Formulas 1 to 7, and an acceptor; a metal oxide layer comprising molybdenum oxide (MoO3); and a silver (Ag) electrode layer, are sequentially stacked (“ITO/ZnO (~25 nm)/active layer (IND-DHT-BDT or IND-DHT-BDTF:Y6BO) (75 nm)/MoO3 (3 nm)/Ag (100 nm)”, pg. 58).
PNG
media_image3.png
345
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified SON teaches the polymer solar cell of claim 9, wherein the acceptor is composed of 2,2'- ((2Z,2'Z)-((12,13-bis(2-butyloctyl)-12,13-dihydro-[1,2,5]thiadiazolo[3,4- e]thieno[2",3":4',5']thieno[2',3':4,5]pyrrolo[3,2-g]thieno[2',3':4,5]thieno[3,2-b]indole-2,10- diyl)bis(methanylylidene))bis(5,6-difluoro-3 -oxo-2,3 -dihydro-1H-indene-2,1- diylidene))dimalononitrile (Y6BO) (“ITO/ZnO (~25 nm)/active layer (IND-DHT-BDT or IND-DHT-BDTF:Y6BO) (75 nm)/MoO3 (3 nm)/Ag (100 nm)”, pg. 58).
PNG
media_image4.png
376
938
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, modified SON teaches the polymer solar cell of claim 9, further comprising a zinc oxide (ZnO) layer between the ITO substrate and the active layer (“ITO/ZnO (~25 nm)/active layer (IND-DHT-BDT or IND-DHT-BDTF:Y6BO) (75 nm)/MoO3 (3 nm)/Ag (100 nm)”, pg. 58).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights