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
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 6/18/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 4, 7-10, 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Group.
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kundu et al (Can. J. Chem. Vol. 97, 2019) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (J. Appl. Phys. 128, 085501 (2020)) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a composition comprising an organic semiconductor, and a metal salt having the formula MX, and wherein the ratio of M to X in the composition is less than about 1.00. These recitations were not described in the specification. According to the specification, organic semiconductor solutions contain an organic semiconductor (spiro-OMeTAD, P3HT, PBDB-T, PTAA, MEH-PPV) and a metal salt such as LiTFSI, wherein the ratio of Li:TFSI is 1. When the organic semiconductor:LiTFSI (spiro-OMeTAD:LiTFSI blend) solution (FIG. 19, first step) is bubbled with CO2 gas under UV light, the photoexcited electrons in the spiro-OMeTAD LUMO level are captured by the CO2. The negatively charged (or radical anion) CO2 can now react with the lithium ions (Weber, J. M. Int Rev Phys Chem 2014, 33, 489-519; Liu, B. et al. Energ Environ Sci 2019, 12, 887-922), producing Li2CO3 and carbon species (FIG. 19, second step). During the reaction, spiro-OMeTAD can be oxidized into radical cations and/or diradical dications, and are stabilized by TFSI−, forming stabilized radicals (FIG. 19, third step), resulting in p-type doping (para 0114). Based on these disclosures, the solution before reaction contains an organic semiconductor and LiTFSI, wherein the ratio of Li:TFSI is 1, while the solution after reaction contains TFSI-stabilized organic semiconductor, metal carbonate CO3- and carbon species and no longer contain LiTFSI. Therefore, the limitation of “the ratio of M to X in the composition is less than about 1.00” is not supported.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18-20 are rejected as being dependent of a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3, 6, 11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abate et al (Phys.Chem. Chem. Phys., 2013, 15, 2572).
Regarding claim 1-3, 6, Abate discloses a composition (Spiro-OMeTAD Li-TFSI film) comprising an organic semiconductor (2,20,7,70-tetrakis-(N,N-di-p-methoxyphenylamine)9,90-spirobifluorene (spiro-OMeTAD) and a metal salt LiTFSI. Lithium oxides (Li2O and Li2O2) in form of white powder precipitates formed during the reaction will cause a reduction of the Li content in the LiTFSI, and therefore, the ratio of Li:TFSI is less than 1. See pages 2575-2576.
Regarding claim 11, Abate discloses the organic semiconductor comprises a semiconducting polymer (spiro-OMeTAD). See pages 437, Experimental.
Regarding claim 18, Abate discloses a doped organic semiconductor material comprising the composition of claim 1 (LiTFSI-doped spiro-OMeTAD) (See the Abstract and pages 2575-2576).
Regarding claim 19, Abate discloses a hole transport layer comprising the doped organic semiconductor material of claim 18 (See the Abstract and pages 2575-2576).
Regarding claim 20, Abate discloses a photovoltaic device (solid-state dye-sensitized solar cells) comprising the doped organic semiconductor material of claim 18 (See the Abstract and pages 2575-2576).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abate et al (Phys.Chem. Chem. Phys., 2013, 15, 2572) as applied above, further in view of Yang et al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.,2012,14,779–789).
Abate discloses a composition (Spiro-OMeTAD Li-TFSI film) as described above. Abate discloses metal salts such as Li-TFSI also are used to enhance the hole transport properties in polythiophene derivatives and polyphenylenevinylene derivatives (page 2572). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to use polythiophene derivatives, including poly(3-hexylthiophene) P3HT as taught by Yang (abstract) in the composition of Abate, with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing efficient solid-state dye-sensitized solar cells. Selecting a polymer known to be used as a hole transport material and using it together with another hole transport material is simply a matter of combining equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
8/28/2026
Prosecution Insights