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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-5 are currently pending.
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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1
The recitation “an indoor photovoltaic cell…and a device using the indoor photovoltaic cell” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite because it attempts to improperly mix more than one statutory class of invention within a single claim: 1) a photovoltaic cell, and 2) a device that uses the photovoltaic cell. One of ordinary skill would not reasonably ascertain whether infringement would require the indoor photovoltaic cell alone, the device incorporating the photovoltaic cell, or both. A single claim must be limited to one statutory class of invention [See MPEP 2173.05]. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
To overcome the rejection, examiner suggests the following:
Amend the claim to be directed to the indoor photovoltaic cell.
Rewrite the claims as two independent claims. For example:
An indoor photovoltaic cell....
6. A device comprising the indoor photovoltaic cell of claim 1.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “using PPY:PSS coated with a PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer as a hole transport layer (HTL)”. One of ordinary skill would recognize that PPY:PSS corresponds to the HTL while PTB7-Th:PC70BM to the polymer active material (see paragrapgs 0026-0028 of the instant published application). However, the way in which the limitation is worded appears to indicate that PTB7-Th:PC70BM corresponds to the HTL. This renders the claim unclear and therefore indefinite.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Regarding claims 2-5
Claims 2-5 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 1. Further, in view of the above, Examiner suggests that claims 2-5 be amended as follows:
2. The indoor photovoltaic cell 70BM layer has a PTB7-Th:PC70BM weight ratio of 1.5:1.
3. The indoor photovoltaic cell
4. The indoor photovoltaic cell 70BM layer.
5. The indoor photovoltaic cell
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Self-powered Near-infrared Organic Photodiode with Functional Interlayer”*, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”, published September 30, 2022).
*Reference cited in the IDS received on 06/24/2025.
Regarding claim 1
Lee teaches an indoor photovoltaic cell (referred to as organic photovoltaic (OPV) throughout the Lee, the OPV generating light in the near-infrared wavelength band) using PPY:PSS (denoted as A below) coated with a PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer (denoted as B below) as a hole transport layer (HTL) [Abstract, Fig. 2 and section 2.2] and a device (e.g., autonomous vehicles, Internet of Things (IoT), optical image sensors, bioimaging sensors, chemical imaging sensors, and optical communications) using the indoor photovoltaic cell [Pages, 1-2, Abstract, Introduction and Experimental methods].
PNG
media_image1.png
536
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cut-out portion of Lee’s Fig. 2
The limitation “indoor” in the preamble of the instant claim merely states the intended use of the claimed photovoltaic cell and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Since the structure of the prior art is identical to the one claimed, the same is capable of performing the intended use.
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See in re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 3
Lee teaches the indoor photovoltaic cell and the device as set forth above, wherein the PPY:PSS has a PPY:PSS doping concentration ratio of 1:2 (see Page 3, Table 1, Example 4).
The court has held that when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art [see MPEP 2131.03].
Regarding claim 4
Lee teaches the indoor photovoltaic cell and the device as set forth above, wherein a lithium fluoride (LiF) layer is deposited on an upper surface of the PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer (See cut-out portion of Fig. 2 above; see also Page 2, section 2.2).
Regarding claim 5
Lee teaches the indoor photovoltaic cell and the device as set forth above, wherein an Al layer is deposited on an upper surface of the LiF layer (See cut-out portion of Fig. 2 above; see also Page 2, section 2.2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Micropower energy harvesting using high-efficiency indoor organic photovoltaics for self-powered sensor systems”, Biswas et al. (hereinafter “Biwas”, published November 2021) in view of “PPy:PSS as alternative to PEDOT:PSS in organic photovoltaics”, Andreoli et al. (hereinafter “Andreoli”, published December, 2013).
Regarding claim 1
Biwas teaches an indoor photovoltaic cell (see indoor organic photovoltaic cell in Fig. 1(a) below; see also Abstract and Page 365, Col. 2 to Page 366, Col. 1) using PEDOT:PSS coated with a PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer as a hole transport layer (HTL) [Fig. 1(a) and Pages 365-366] and a device (corresponding to a wireless sensor) using the indoor photovoltaic cell (“PV energy harvesting is one of the most suitable methods for powering wireless sensors owing to the ambient availability and easy accessibility of artificial light indoors”) [Pages 364-365].
PNG
media_image2.png
204
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Biwas, Fig. 2(a)
Biwas does not teach the HTL comprising PPY:PSS and, instead, disclosed PEDOT:PSS.
In the same field of endeavor of organic photovoltaic cells, Andreoli teaches that PPY:PSS is an alternative hole-transport material to PEDOT:PSS, wherein PPY:PSS exhibits performance comparable to PEDOT:PSS [see Abstract]. Andreoli further discloses that PPY:PSS does not etch the ITO electrode, in contrast to the known degradation effect of the PSSH acid excess present in spin-coated PEDOT:PSS thereby resulting in a more stable ITO/HTL interface [Abstract].
Biwas and Andreoli are analogous inventions in the field of organic photovoltaic cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the PEDOT:PSS hole-transport material of Biwas with PPY:PSS, as disclosed in Andreoli, because these two hole transporting materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made (both exhibit comparable/similar performance) and because PPY:PSS is disclosed to provide a more stable ITO/HTL interface [MPEP 2144.06].
Although disclosed in the art, the limitation “indoor” in the preamble of the instant claim merely states the intended use of the claimed photovoltaic cell and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Since the structure of the prior art is identical to the one claimed, the same is capable of performing the intended use.
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See in re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 4
Modified Biswas teaches the indoor photovoltaic cell and the device as set forth above, wherein a lithium fluoride (LiF) layer is deposited on an upper surface of the PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer (see Fig. 2(a) of Biswas above).
Regarding claim 5
Modified Biswas teaches the indoor photovoltaic cell and the device as set forth above, wherein an Al layer is deposited on an upper surface of the LiF layer (see Fig. 2(a) of Biswas above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1 and 3-5 above, and further in view of “Copper(I) Thiocyanate (CuSCN) Hole-Transport Layers Processed from Aqueous Precursor Solutions and Their Application in Thin-Film Transistors and Highly Efficient Organic and Organometal Halide Perovskite Solar Cells”, Wijeyasinghe et al. (hereinafter “Wijeyasinghe”, published 2017).
All of the limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2
Lee is silent to the PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer having a PTB7-Th:PC70BM weight ratio of 1.5:1.
Wijeyasinghe teaches an organic photovoltaic (OPV) cell comprising a PTB7-Th:PC70BM active material layer having a weight ratio of PTB7-Th to PC70BM of 1.5:1 [Fig. 5b, Pages 2, 16 and 25].
Lee and Wijeyasinghe are analogous inventions in the field of organic photovoltaic cells comprising PTB7-Th:PC70BM active material blends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer of Lee to comprise a PTB7-Th:PC70BM weight ratio of 1.5:1, as disclosed in Wijeyasinghe, as such is a known workable weight ratio for PTB7-Th:PC70BM active material blends.
It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05II(A)].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biswas in view of Andreoli as applied to claims 1, 4 and 5 above, and further in view of “Copper(I) Thiocyanate (CuSCN) Hole-Transport Layers Processed from Aqueous Precursor Solutions and Their Application in Thin-Film Transistors and Highly Efficient Organic and Organometal Halide Perovskite Solar Cells”, Wijeyasinghe et al. (hereinafter “Wijeyasinghe”, published 2017).
All of the limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 2
Modified Biswas is silent to the PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer having a PTB7-Th:PC70BM weight ratio of 1.5:1.
Wijeyasinghe teaches an organic photovoltaic (OPV) cell comprising a PTB7-Th:PC70BM active material layer having a weight ratio of PTB7-Th to PC70BM of 1.5:1 [Fig. 5b, Pages 2, 16 and 25].
Modified Biswas and Wijeyasinghe are analogous inventions in the field of organic photovoltaic cells comprising PTB7-Th:PC70BM active material blends. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the PTB7-Th:PC70BM layer of modified Biswas to comprise a PTB7-Th:PC70BM weight ratio of 1.5:1, as disclosed in Wijeyasinghe, as such is a known workable weight ratio for PTB7-Th:PC70BM active material blends.
It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05II(A)].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biswas in view of Andreoli as applied to claims 1, 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Lee.
All of the limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above.
Regarding claim 3
Modified Biswas is silent to the PPY:PSS has a PPY:PSS doping concentration ratio of 1:2.
Lee, similar to modified Biswas, teaches an organic photovoltaic cell comprising a PPY:PSS hole-transport layer [Abstract], wherein a PPY:PSS doping concentration ratio of 1:2 is an optimal ratio for achieving higher average light transmittance and enhanced photovoltaic performance [Table 1, Page 3, Sections 2.3 and 3.1 and Page 4, Section 3.4].
Modified Biswas and Lee are analogous inventions in the field of organic photovoltaic cells comprising PPY:PSS hole-transport materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the PPY:PSS layer of modified Biswas such that it has a PPY:PSS doping concentration ratio of 1:2, as in disclosed in Lee, as such is an optimal ratio for achieving higher light transmittance and enhanced photovoltaic performance [Lee, Table 1, Page 3, Sections 2.3 and 3.1 and Page 4, Section 3.4].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“All-polymer indoor photovoltaic modules”, Zhang et al. (published October, 2021) teaches an indoor organic photovoltaic module comprising five single cells including a structure comprising ITO/PEDOT:PSS/Active Layer/LiF/Al [Fig. 5(A) and Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (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 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721