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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claim 1, as amended, overcomes the claim objection(s) and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) from the Office Action of 12/04/2025; the objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are therefore withdrawn.
Claim(s) 12, 26, and 27 is/are canceled.
Currently, claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-9, 13-14, and 18 is/are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronald L. Cook of US 5022970 A (hereinafter, Cook) in view of Jae Wan Kwon of US 2015/0364781 A1 (hereinafter, Kwon) and Chu-Fang Wang of US 2006/0025304 A1 (hereinafter, Wang).
As to claim 1, Cook teaches to a method of converting CO2, a bicarbonate, a carbonate, a carbonate ore, and/or a gaseous CO2 mixed with water vapor to one or more small organic compounds (Cook, col. 1, ln. 8-11, teaches photoelectrochemical reduction for converting carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon products), the method comprising:
exposing the CO2, the bicarbonate, the carbonate, the carbonate ore, and/or the gaseous CO2 mixed with water vapor (Cook, col. 2, ln. 56-58, teaches that reducing carbon dioxide in presence of SiC powders is known, wherein SiC is a high band-gap semiconductor and is known to be capable of acting as a catalyst for an electrochemical reaction when ionized by radiation).
Cook does not explicitly teach to a solid radioactive catalyst.
In an analogous art, Kwon teaches to a solid radioactive catalyst (Kwon, paragraph [0114], teaches that beta radiation can create vacancies in a solid by primary knock-on atoms; Kwon teaches to a solid radioactive catalyst; Kwon, paragraph [0057], teaches radionuclides that emit beta particles for generating electron-hole pairs in semiconductors through coupling, thereby providing a beta particle-activated high band-gap semiconductor).
Both Cook and Kwon relate to generating electron-hole pairs in semiconductors for electrochemical reduction. Cook does not explicitly teach a radionuclide. Cook does teach converting CO2 to one or more small organic compounds (Cook, col. 1, ln. 8-11, teaches converting carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon products) by generating electron-hole pairs in semiconductors for electrochemical reduction, wherein Cook teaches that the same principle is applied at the interface of semiconductor (Cook, col. 5, ln. 8-10) for both water splitting and CO2 reduction reactions. Kwon teaches water splitting using the radioactive catalyst comprising a beta particle-activated high band-gap semiconductor (Kwon, paragraph [0111], teaches coupling of 90Sr/90Y to nanoporous TiO2 structure, delivering beta particles as a reliable energy source for electricity generation via water splitting), which is provided by coupling of a high band-gap semiconductor and a radionuclide.
Cook establishes that the same principle is applied at the interface of semiconductor (Cook, col. 5, ln. 8-10) for both water splitting and CO2 reduction reactions. Kwon above teaches that the high band-gap semiconductor can be activated by ionizing radiation instead of illumination for generating electron-hole pairs in semiconductors. Kwon in paragraph [00146] teaches that electrical energy generated by radiocatalytic chemical cell is greater than the one generated by a photocatalytic chemical cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the CO-2 conversion method of Cook with the method comprising a beta particle-activated high band-gap semiconductor of Kwon for providing large electrical energy.
Cook in view of Kwon teaches to in a macroscopic form (Cook, col. 2, ln. 58, teaches SiC is in a powder form), thereby converting the CO2, the bicarbonate, the carbonate, the carbonate ore, and/or the gaseous CO2 mixed with water vapor to the one or more small organic compounds (Cook, col. 1, ln. 8-11, teaches converting carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon products) when
(i) the one or more small organic compounds comprises one or more of carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, methane, methanol, formic acid, ethanol, acetaldehyde, acetic acid, propanol, and isopropanol (Cook, col. 3, ln 11-19, teaches methane as a product among others),
(ii) the method is carried out in solution (Cook, col. 3, ln. 11-19 and col. 6, ln. 58, teaches using dispersed particulate semiconductors in a liquid aqueous containing electrolyte, CO2 saturated KHCO3 solution); and
(iii) the solid radioactive catalyst comprises a high band-gap semiconductor (Kwon, paragraph [0057], teaches to comprising semiconductor; Kwon, paragraph [0097], teaches to using nanoporous TiO2 for the semiconductor).
Cook in view of Kwon does not explicitly teach that is loaded with a radionuclide.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches to that is loaded with a radionuclide (Wang, Fig. 4, teaches to that the adiation source Co-60 is placed in the mixture of TiO2, resin, and water).
Both Cook in view of Kwon and Wang relate to TiO2-based photocatalytic reaction (Wang, paragraph [0011]). Cook in view of Kwon does not explicitly teach a loading between radionuclide and the semiconductor. Cook in view of Kwon does teach to the solid radioactive catalyst comprising the semiconductor and radionuclide. Wang teaches to a loading between radionuclide and the semiconductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photocatalyst of Cook in view of Kwon with the loading of Wang for providing radiation sensitive photocatalyst that has high permeability to radiation sources, thereby increasing catalytic efficiency in participating reactions.
As to claim 6, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the high band-gap semiconductor comprises one or more of a titanate (Cook, col. 5, ln. 22, teaches TiO2).
As to claim 7, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein high band-gap semiconductor is activated via continuous excitation by beta particles emitted from the radionuclide (Kwon, paragraph [0048], teaches continuous generation of free radicals in liquid; Kwon, paragraph [0003], teaches a beta particle emitting radioisotopes for the generated free radicals that participate in redox reactions).
As to claim 8, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the high band-gap semiconductor is activated via emission from the radionuclide (Kwon, paragraph [0109], teaches using 90Sr/90Y for emitting the beta radiation).
As to claim 9, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the radionuclide comprises one or more of 90Sr (Kwon, paragraph [0109], teaches using 90Sr/90Y for emitting the beta radiation).
As to claim 13, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the solid radioactive catalyst is porous (Kwon, paragraph [0103], teaches a nanoporous TiO2).
As to claim 14, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the solid radioactive catalyst is in the form of a particle, granule, a bead, a powder, a pellet or a frit (Cook, col. 2, ln. 58, teaches SiC is in a powder form).
As to claim 18, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to a method of producing one or more small organic compounds, the method comprising using a method according to claim 1 to convert the CO2, the bicarbonate, the carbonate, the carbonate ore, and/or the gaseous CO2 mixed with water vapor to the one or more small organic compounds (see above for claim 1 rejection; Cook, col. 1, ln. 8-11, teaches converting carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon products).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ronald L. Cook of US 5,022,970 A (hereinafter, Cook) in view of Jae Wan Kwon of US 2015/0364781 A1 (hereinafter, Kwon) and Chu-Fang Wang of US 2006/0025304 A1 (hereinafter, Wang), as applied to claim 1 above, relying on Linsebigler, et al. "Photocatalysis on TiO2 surfaces: principles, mechanisms, and selected results." Chemical reviews 95.3 (1995): 735-758 (hereinafter, Linsebigler) as an evidentiary support for claim 3.
As to claim 3, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the high band-gap semiconductor has a band-gap of at least 2.6 eV (Kwon, paragraph [0013], teaches using TiO2, among others, are known to possess at least a value of 2.6 eV).
The Office notes that, as a known knowledge in the art, high band-gap or wide-bandgap semiconductors are materials that exhibit semiconducting properties and have a bandgap in the range above 2 eV, in contrast to the conventional bandgap values in the range between 0.7 eV and 1.5 eV. TiO2, for instance, in its anatase phase is well-known to be one of the high-bandgap semiconductors and has a bandgap of 3.2 eV (the band gap is large (Eg=3.2 eV); see page 754 of Linsebigler).
The Office notes that the semiconductor used in electrochemical reduction of CO2 in Cook is materially equivalent to the list of semiconductors of Kwon that are beta particle activated (TiO2 are among the semiconductors listed by Kwon in paragraph [0013]). Cook in view of Kwon, relying on Linsebigler as an evidentiary support, inherently teaches to the method of claim, wherein the high band-gap semiconductor has a band-gap of at least 2.6 eV.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ronald L. Cook of US 5,022,970 A (hereinafter, Cook) in view of Jae Wan Kwon of US 2015/0364781 A1 (hereinafter, Kwon) and Chu-Fang Wang of US 2006/0025304 A1 (hereinafter, Wang), as applied to claim 1 above, and further relying on Xu, Yong, and Martin AA Schoonen. "The absolute energy positions of conduction and valence bands of selected semiconducting minerals." American mineralogist 85.3-4 (2000): 543-556 (hereinafter, Xu) as an evidentiary support.
As to claim 4, Cook in view of Kwon and Wang teaches to the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor has a conduction band edge energy of less than -0.15 volts, with respect to the standard hydrogen electrode (Kwon, paragraph [0013], teaches using TiO2, among others, is known to has a conduction band edge energy of less than -0.15 volts; Xu, relied on as an evidentiary support, pg. 548, Table 1, teaches conduction band edge energy, ECB, as -4.21 volts, less than -0.15 volts).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5 of 6, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. For instance, claim(s) 1, 6-9, 13-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ronald L. Cook of US 5022970 A (hereinafter, Cook) in view of Jae Wan Kwon of US 2015/0364781 A1 (hereinafter, Kwon) and Chu-Fang Wang of US 2006/0025304 A1 (hereinafter, Wang).
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 JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights