Detailed Notice
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
Claims 3-10, 12, 14, 16, 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/16/2026.
Response to Amendment
Claims 28-33 have entered the prosecution in the amendment filed 3/16/2026.
Claims 1-2, 28-33 are pending prosecution.
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.
Claim 30 is 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. Specifically applicant requires that the particles “comprise or consist of”. It is unclear which version is required. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood that the nanoparticles comprise bimetallic gold and silver nanoparticles on titanium dioxide nanoparticles.
Claims 31-33 are rejected as being dependent from 30.
Claim 30 is 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. Specifically applicant requires that the composition of the bimetallic particles be selected from 5 separate sets of ranges, each having “about” near a value. The specification does not provide a definition for the limitation of “about” and is consequently indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution it is understood that the bimetallic composition will be between 5-25% of Ag and 75-95% of Au.
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) 1-2, 29, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qingguo Bai, “Synthesis of nano heterodimers by laser photodeposition of metal nanodots on TiO2 nanoparticles” Material chemistry. Université de Bordeaux, 2019. English.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 30-31, Bai teaches a method for forming bimetallic Ag@Au nanoparticles on TiO2 nanoparticles via a two-step photodeposition process: (1) an aqueous solution of TiO2 and KAuCl4 followed by exposure to a UV laser [see Pg.150, Sec. 5.1.3; and Pg. 209, bottom paragraph]; (2) subsequently a second precursor of AgNO3 is added to solution and a second photodeposition is performed to form Ag@Au coreshell particles on TiO2 particles [Sec. 6.2 Pg. 210]. As the method of making the Ag@Au coreshell particles on TiO2 particles naturally produces materially with the same structure, it is understood that the method inherently produces photocatalytic plasmonic nanoparticles having a plasmonic resonance frequency int the visible spectrum. Further, it is understood that the formation of the Ag@Au coreshell particles on TiO2 particles in solution comprises a sol.
Regarding Claim 29, Fig. 6.3 and 6.4 is provided below. As seen in Fig. 6d, the TiO2 nanoparticles are approximately 20 nm in diameter. As seen in Fig. 6.3b, a wider field of view presents that the average TiO2 particle size falls within the range of 10-50 nm. See pages 212 to 213 for descriptions of the figures presented above.
PNG
media_image1.png
211
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
335
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qingguo Bai, “Synthesis of nano heterodimers by laser photodeposition of metal nanodots on TiO2 nanoparticles” Material chemistry. Université de Bordeaux, 2019. English, as applied to claim 31 above.
Regarding Claim 32, Bai teaches that the Ag@Au coreshell particles on TiO2 particles nm a mean size of 18.2 +/- 3.4 nm, such that the Au thickness was initially 15.9 +/- 3.4 nm, and the Ag thickness was estimated to be 1.2 nm [Sec. 6.3.2.Pg. 212]. The courts have held broadly that where a claimed range is so close to the prior art that one of ordinary skill would not distinguish between the prior art and claimed invention, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In this case, the Ag layer thickness is so close to claimed range, it is understood that one of ordinary skill would recognize the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qingguo Bai, “Synthesis of nano heterodimers by laser photodeposition of metal nanodots on TiO2 nanoparticles” Material chemistry. Université de Bordeaux, 2019. English, as applied to claims above, and further in view of Patra et. al “Bimetallic and Plasmonic Ag–Au on TiO2 for Solar Water Splitting: An Active Nanocomposite for Entire Visible-Light-Region Absorption” ChemCatChem 2016, 8, 3294 – 3301.
Regarding Claims 28 and 33, Bai teaches to claims as shown above.
However, Bai does not teach that the wt.% of the gold and/or silver nanoparticles is between 0.07 – 0.3%.
Patra teaches a method for forming Ag@Au particles on TiO2 via photodeposition [Abstract].
Patra teaches that the formation of Ag@Au particles on TiO2 via successive photodeposition of first HAuCl4 from a solution of methanol and subsequent irradiation with UV light to form 0.25 wt.% Au on TiO2 particles; then deposition of Ag from a solution of AgNO3 onto the Au on TiO2 particles previously formed [Pg. 3300, Experimental Sec. Preparation of AgAuT Composite]. Patra teaches that variation of the concentration and deposition duration creates AgAuT with varying compositions 0.07 to 0.27 wt.% [Pg. 3300, Experimental Sec. Preparation of AgAuT Composite], such that a 0.32 wt.% coating would comprise 0.25 wt.% Au and 0.07 wt.% Ag, meaning that the composition of the coating would be 21.8% Ag and 78.1% Au.
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the photodeposition duration parameter variations, as per Patra, into the method of making AuAg TiO2 nanoparticles, as per Bai, in order that one would arrive at a method for making AuAg TiO2 nanoparticles with variable coating compositions around 0.3%. Further, the courts have held broadly that where a claimed range is so close to the prior art that one of ordinary skill would not distinguish between the prior art and claimed invention, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In this case, the 0.32% AuAg composite nanoparticles on TiO2 is so close to claimed range, it is understood that, barring a demonstration of criticality, one of ordinary skill would recognize the same properties (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights