DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MURATA (JP 2007134444 A, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, MURATA teaches a solar cell device (see the organic thin-film solar cell, see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a first electrode (see the first electrode 12);
a photoelectric converter (see the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15, which has photoelectric conversion function); and
a first carrier transporter (see the energy transfer layers 13a, 13b) between the first electrode and the photoelectric converter (see Fig. 1),
wherein the first carrier transporter includes a first surface in contact with the photoelectric converter (The energy transfer layer 13a includes a first surface in contact with the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15; see Fig. 1) and a second surface in contact with the first electrode (The energy transfer layer 13b includes a second surface in contact with the first electrode 12; see Fig. 1), and
in the first carrier transporter, a first level being an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of a first interface area along the first surface is lower than a second level being an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of a second interface area along the second surface (see Fig. 3; The first level being an energy level of a HOMO of a first interface area along the first surface (see the discussion above) is lower than the second level being an energy level of a HOMO of a second interface area along the second surface (see the discussion above)).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MURATA teaches wherein an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the first carrier transporter increases from the first interface area to the second interface area in a first direction from the first surface toward the second surface (The energy level of a HOMO of the energy transfer layers 13a, 13b increases from the first interface area to the second interface area in a first direction from the first surface toward the second surface; see the rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MURATA teaches wherein the first level is substantially same as a third level being an energy level of an upper end of a valence band of the photoelectric converter (Since the energy transfer layer 13a contacts the electron donor 14, the band bending occurs at interface area due to charge transfer and the establishment of an internal electric field to equalize Fermi levels, causing the valence band to bend/tilt to maintain equilibrium. Therefore, the energy level of HOMO of the energy transfer layer 13a is substantially same as a third level at the interface area) (see Fig. 3 and the rejections of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 3.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a first area along the first surface (see the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a), the first area has a first predetermined thickness from the first surface in a first direction from the first surface toward the second surface (see the first thickness of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a in the first direction from the first surface toward the second surface), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the first area is substantially same as the third level (Since the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a contacts the electron donor 14, the band bending occurs at interface area due to charge transfer and the establishment of an internal electric field to equalize Fermi levels, causing the valence band to bend/tilt to maintain equilibrium. Therefore, the energy level of HOMO of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a is substantially same as a third level at the interface area) (see Fig. 3 and the rejections of claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 4.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a third area between the first area and the first electrode (see the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the first electrode 12), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the third area increases in the first direction (Since the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b contacts the energy transfer layer 13a, the band bending occurs at interface area. Therefore, the energy level of HOMO of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b increases in the first direction) (see Figs. 1, 3 and the rejections of claims 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 15, MURATA teaches a solar cell device (see the organic thin-film solar cell, see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a first electrode (see the first electrode 12);
a photoelectric converter (see the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15, which has photoelectric conversion function); and
a first carrier transporter (see the energy transfer layers 13a, 13b) between the first electrode and the photoelectric converter (see Fig. 1),
wherein the first carrier transporter includes a first surface in contact with the photoelectric converter (The energy transfer layer 13a includes a first surface in contact with the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15; see Fig. 1) and a second surface in contact with the first electrode (The energy transfer layer 13b includes a second surface in contact with the first electrode 12; see Fig. 1), and
in the first carrier transporter, a carrier density in a first interface area along the first surface is greater than a carrier density in a second interface area along the second surface ([0028] In the solar cell of the present invention, excitons generated by light absorption in the energy transfer layer far from the interface 17 also contribute to charge separation; The excited molecules then undergo charge separation at the interface 17, generating electrons and holes; [0032] Furthermore, in order to efficiently transfer holes and electrons generated in the energy transfer layer to the positive electrode and negative electrode, the energy transfer layer between the positive electrode 12 and the electron donor layer 14 is preferably configured to satisfy the following two conditions: (1) it must have the ability to transport holes, and (2) it must prevent electrons from transferring to the positive electrode side. In addition, the energy transfer layer between electron acceptor layer 15 and negative electrode 16 is preferably configured to satisfy the following two conditions: (1) it must have the ability to transport electrons, and (2) it must prevent holes from moving toward the negative electrode. Therefore, it is preferable that the energy levels of the HOMO and LUMO of each layer are configured in a stepped manner as shown in FIG.; Considering the disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when transporting the charge carriers from the photoelectric converting layer to the electrode layer through the carrier transport layers, there is loss of charge carriers between the layers. Therefore, the carrier density in the first interface area along the first surface, between the energy transfer layers 13a and the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15, is greater than the carrier density in a second interface area along the second surface, between the energy transfer layers 13b and the first electrode 12).
Regarding claim 16, MURATA teaches a solar cell module (see the organic thin-film solar cell, see Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a first electrode (see the first electrode 12);
a photoelectric converter (see the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15, which has photoelectric conversion function); and
a first carrier transporter (see the energy transfer layers 13a, 13b) between the first electrode and the photoelectric converter (see Fig. 1),
wherein the first carrier transporter includes a first surface in contact with the photoelectric converter (The energy transfer layer 13a includes a first surface in contact with the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15; see Fig. 1) and a second surface in contact with the first electrode (The energy transfer layer 13b includes a second surface in contact with the first electrode 12; see Fig. 1), and
in the first carrier transporter, a first level being an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of a first interface area along the first surface is lower than a second level being an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of a second interface area along the second surface (see Fig. 3; The first level being an energy level of a HOMO of a first interface area along the first surface (see the discussion above) is lower than the second level being an energy level of a HOMO of a second interface area along the second surface (see the discussion above)).
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.
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.
Claims 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATA (JP 2007134444 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the second level is substantially same as a fourth level being a Fermi level of the first electrode”, taking into consideration the statements in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature means that the absolute value of the difference between the second level and the fourth level is less than a predetermined value. Additionally, since the "predetermined value" is not at all specified in the claim and there is no reason why said "predetermined value" should be limited solely to the value given by way of example in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature is satisfied if the absolute value of the difference between the second level and the fourth level is less than some predetermined value. On the other hand, in the reduction to practice of the invention disclosed in MURATA, one of ordinary skilled in the art would as a matter of course adopt a configuration such that the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of the HOMO in the energy transfer layer 13b and the Fermi level in the positive electrode 12 is less than a predetermined value, in consideration of the transportability of holes from the charge separation region to the positive electrode 12. Therefore, modified MURATA teaches wherein the second level is substantially same as a fourth level being a Fermi level of the first electrode (see Fig. 3 and the discussion above).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a second area along the second surface (see the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), the second area has a second predetermined thickness from the second surface in a second direction opposite to a first direction from the first surface toward the second surface (see the second thickness of the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b in the second direction from the second surface toward the first surface, which is opposite to the first direction from the first surface to the second surface) (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding the claimed “an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the second area is substantially same as the fourth level”, taking into consideration the statements in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature means that the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of HOMO of the second area and the fourth level is less than a predetermined value. Additionally, since the "predetermined value" is not at all specified in the claim and there is no reason why said "predetermined value" should be limited solely to the value given by way of example in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature is satisfied if the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of HOMO of the second area and the fourth level is less than some predetermined value. On the other hand, in the reduction to practice of the invention disclosed in MURATA, one of ordinary skilled in the art would as a matter of course adopt a configuration such that the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of the HOMO in the energy transfer layer 13b and the Fermi level in the positive electrode 12 is less than a predetermined value, in consideration of the transportability of holes from the charge separation region to the positive electrode 12. Therefore, modified MURATA teaches an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the second area is substantially same as the fourth level (see Fig. 3 and the discussion above).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 7.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a third area between the second area and the photoelectric converter (see the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b between the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the electron donor 14 & the electron acceptor 15), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the third area increases in the first direction (Since the band bending occurs at interface area between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the energy transfer layer 13a, the energy level of HOMO of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b increases in the first direction from the first surface to the second surface) (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 4.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the second level is substantially same as a fourth level being a Fermi level of the first electrode”, taking into consideration the statements in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature means that the absolute value of the difference between the second level and the fourth level is less than a predetermined value. Additionally, since the "predetermined value" is not at all specified in the claim and there is no reason why said "predetermined value" should be limited solely to the value given by way of example in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature is satisfied if the absolute value of the difference between the second level and the fourth level is less than some predetermined value. On the other hand, in the reduction to practice of the invention disclosed in MURATA, one of ordinary skilled in the art would as a matter of course adopt a configuration such that the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of the HOMO in the energy transfer layer 13b and the Fermi level in the positive electrode 12 is less than a predetermined value, in consideration of the transportability of holes from the charge separation region to the positive electrode 12. Therefore, modified MURATA teaches wherein the second level is substantially same as a fourth level being a Fermi level of the first electrode (see Fig. 3 and the discussion above).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a second area along the second surface (see the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), the second area has a second predetermined thickness from the second surface in a second direction opposite to the first direction (see the second thickness of the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b in the second direction from the second surface toward the first surface, which is opposite to the first direction from the first surface to the second surface) (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding the claimed “an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the second area is substantially same as the fourth level”, taking into consideration the statements in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature means that the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of HOMO of the second area and the fourth level is less than a predetermined value. Additionally, since the "predetermined value" is not at all specified in the claim and there is no reason why said "predetermined value" should be limited solely to the value given by way of example in paragraph [0048] in the Applicant’s specification, it is found that the claimed feature is satisfied if the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of HOMO of the second area and the fourth level is less than some predetermined value. On the other hand, in the reduction to practice of the invention disclosed in MURATA, one of ordinary skilled in the art would as a matter of course adopt a configuration such that the absolute value of the difference between the energy level of the HOMO in the energy transfer layer 13b and the Fermi level in the positive electrode 12 is less than a predetermined value, in consideration of the transportability of holes from the charge separation region to the positive electrode 12. Therefore, modified MURATA teaches an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the second area is substantially same as the fourth level (see Fig. 3 and the discussion above).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a third area between the first area and the second area (see the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the third area increases in the first direction (Since the band bending occurs at interface area between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a, the energy level of HOMO of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b increases in the first direction from the first surface to the second surface) (see Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter further includes a fourth area between the first area and the second area (see the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the fourth area is substantially same as a fifth level being an energy level between the first level and the second level (Since the band bending occurs at interface area between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a, the energy level of HOMO of the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a is substantially same as a fifth level being an energy level between the first level and the second level) (see Figs. 1, 3 and the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a first interface layer between the first area and the fourth area (see the first interface layer between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the first interface layer is higher than or equal to the energy level of the highest occupied molecular orbital of the first area, and is lower than or equal to the energy level of the highest occupied molecular orbital of the fourth area (Since the material of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the material of the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a are the same, all energy levels of HOMOs the first interface layer, the fourth layer, and the first layer are the same).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
Regarding the claimed limitations required by claims 11 and 12 on which claim 14 depends, MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a third area between the first area and the second area (see the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the third area increases in the first direction (Since the band bending occurs at interface area between the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b, the energy level of HOMO of the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a increases in the first direction from the first surface to the second surface) (see Figs. 1, 3), and teaches wherein the first carrier transporter further includes a fourth area between the first area and the second area (see the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the fourth area is substantially same as a fifth level being an energy level between the first level and the second level (Since the band bending occurs at interface area between the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13a, the energy level of HOMO of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b is substantially same as a fifth level being an energy level between the first level and the second level) (see Figs. 1, 3 and the rejection of claim 1).
Therefore, MURATA teaches wherein the first carrier transporter includes a second interface layer between the second area and the fourth area (see the second interface layer between the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b), and an energy level of a highest occupied molecular orbital of the second interface layer is higher than or equal to the energy level of the highest occupied molecular orbital of the fourth area, and is lower than or equal to the energy level of the highest occupied molecular orbital of the second area (Since the material of the bottom half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b and the material of the top half layer of the energy transfer layer 13b are the same, all energy levels of HOMOs for the second interface layer, the fourth layer, and the second layer are the same).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728