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 Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
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 4 and 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the active layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the hole extraction layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (“Evaluation of the impact of trivalent metal doping on the performance of titanium dioxide as an electron transport layer of inverted-structured organic solar cells”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an inverted-structure organic solar cell (OSC) comprising an electron transport layer (ETL) made of trivalent metal-doped titanium dioxide (TiO2) (4. Conclusion; see Figure 3a and Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the trivalent metal is indium (In) (4. Conclusion).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the trivalent metal is gallium (Ga) (4. Conclusion).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the active layer comprises PTB7:PC7oBM (see Figure 3a).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the hole extraction layer (HEL) comprises molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) (see Figure 3a).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Thambidurai et al. (“Solution-processed Ga-TiO2 electron transport layer for efficient inverted organic solar cells”).
Regarding claim 1, Thambidurai discloses an inverted-structure organic solar cell (OSC) (Figure 2d) comprising an electron transport layer (ETL) made of trivalent metal-doped titanium dioxide (TiO2) (it is disclosed the Ga doped TiO2 is a trivalent metal; 2. Experimental section).
Regarding claim 3, Thambidurai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the trivalent metal is gallium (Ga) (2. Experimental section).
Regarding claim 4, Thambidurai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the active layer comprises PTB7:PC7oBM (see Figure 2d).
Regarding claim 5, Thambidurai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the hole extraction layer (HEL) comprises molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) (see Figure 2d).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Suto et al. (EP 4024487).
Regarding claim 1, Suto discloses an inverted-structure organic solar cell (OSC) ([0010]; see Figure 1) comprising an electron transport layer (ETL) (3) made of trivalent metal-doped titanium dioxide (TiO2) ([0049]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Suto discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the trivalent metal is Indium (In) (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, Suto discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the hole extraction layer (HEL) (5) comprises molybdenum trioxide (MoO3) ([0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722