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 .
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments. All 35 U.S.C. § 102 from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are outlined below.
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.
Claims 21-24, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Kusterer et al. (US 20120312353) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 20150047973).
Regarding claim 21, Kusterer et al. teaches an electrolysis device comprising a substrate on which an anode formed of a first diamond layer and a cathode formed of a second diamond layer are provided (Fig. 2 and [0014], [0026], and [0031-0032]), said first and second diamond layers each being made of boron-doped diamond ([0026] and [0031]),
wherein the first and the second diamond layer are separated from each other by an electrically insulating path and are arranged in such a way that, when a voltage is applied between the first and the second diamond layer, an electric field is formed, the field lines of which run at least partially transversely to a longitudinal extension direction of the path (Fig. 2, [0018], [0030], and [0039], [0055]; electrode arrangement is disposed on the side of the solar cell 11 which is orientated towards the incident light. The electrodes 11 and 11' including diamond are integrated here in an insulating diamond layer and/or a transparent substrate 13. A basic substrate 14 is disposed on the rear-side of the solar cell.).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kusterer et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the path is serpentine.
Yoshida et al. teaches an electrolysis device for removing a scale component contained in water (abstract, para. [0009]). The device includes a plurality of electrodes disposed such that a meandering flow channel is formed through which water flows while meandering inside the container (para. [0056], [0248]). This configuration causes water to flow along a meandering pathway along the electrodes, which increases the contact surface area between the electrodes and the water, thereby enhancing the removal efficiency of scale components (para. [0249]).
Kusterer et al. and Yoshida et al. are analogous because both references are in the field of electrochemical devices for water treatment. It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified flow path of Kusterer et al. with the meandering, i.e., serpentine, flow channel along the electrodes, as taught by Yoshida et al. (para. [0056], [0248]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the contact surface area between the water and the electrodes, thereby enhancing the efficiency of water electrolysis (para. [0249]). Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
For claim 22, Kusterer et al. teaches the diamond is doped with 100 to 10,000 ppm boron (Kusterer [0031]; the concentration of the doping agent being in the range of 8x1019 to 1022 cm-3). Using density for diamond 3.51 g/cm3, the atomic mass for carbon, 12.01 g/mol, Avogadro’s number, 6.022*10^23 atoms/mol, one can obtain the number of carbon atoms in 1cm^3 of diamond= 3.51g/cm3*(12.01g/mol)* 6.022*10^23 atoms/mol =1.76 *10^23 atoms/cm3. PPM =doping conc/total carbon)*10^6) =(8*10^19 atoms/cm3/1.76*10^23 atoms/cm3)=455ppm which falls within the claimed range.
For claim 23, Kusterer et al. teaches that the substrate is (i) made of an electrically insulating material (Kusterer [0039]).
For claim 24, Kusterer et al. teaches the electrically insulating material or layer (2) is formed of at least one of the following materials: metal oxide, diamond, SiO2, or glass (Kusterer [0039]).
For claim 27, Kusterer et al. teaches a thickness of the first and second diamond layers is 1 nm to 5µm which overlaps the claimed range of 5 to 100 µm (Kusterer [0033]).
For claim 30, Kusterer et al. teaches the path has a width of 0.5 mm which overlaps the claimed range of 2-500 µm (Kusterer [0033]).
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusterer et al. in view of Yoshida et al., and further in view Provent et al. ("Boron-doped diamond electrodes and microelectrode-arrays for the measurement of sulfate and peroxodisulfate." Electrochimica acta 49.22-23 (2004): 3737-3744).
Kusterer in view of Yoshida et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 21. Kusterer does not explicitly teach a surface of the first and second diamond layers facing the substrate is formed by more than 50% each of facets forming the (111) or (001) planes of diamond crystals (claim 28) or that diamond single crystals extend predominantly in a [111] or [110] direction from the substrate or an intermediate layer provided between the substrate and the respective diamond layer to the surface of the respective diamond layer (claim 29).
Provent et al. teaches boron-doped diamond electrodes for electrochemical analysis (Abstract) which have high stability and good electrochemical properties (Introduction section, page 3737). Provent et al. teaches that the boron-doped diamond films are produced by hot filament chemical vapor deposition (HFCVD), which results in “randomly textured polycrystalline films with a surface dominated by [111] facets” (Experimental section, page 3738). This indicates that the surface of the diamond layers facing the substrate is formed by more than 50% of facets forming the (111) planes of diamond crystals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the diamond layer surface characteristics taught by Provent et al. into the diamond layers of Kusterer et al. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of enhanced stability and good electrochemical performance, as taught by Provent et al.
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusterer et al. in view of Yoshida et al., and further in view of Luo et al. ("Photochemistry and photo-electrochemistry on synthetic semiconducting diamond." Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology C: Photochemistry Reviews 31 (2017): 139-152).
Regarding claim 32, Kusterer et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 21. Kusterer et al. does not explicitly teach a metal layer on the diamond layer.
Luo et al. teaches a review of photo-relative properties, photochemical and photo-electrochemical applications of synthetic diamond materials (abstract). Luo et al. further teaches depositing a metal layer on the diamond layer. (pg. 150 section 3. Conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated a metal layer on the diamond electrodes of Kusterer et al., as taught by Luo et al. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of efficient patterning of the electrodes, as suggested by Luo et al.
For claim 33, Luo et al. further teaches the metal layer is formed of a self-passivating metal such as TiO2 (Pg. 145 section 2.2).
For claim 34, Luo et al. further teaches the metal includes, as a major constituent, Ti. (Pg. 145 section 2.2 and Fig. 7).
Claims 25, 26, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusterer et al. in view of Yoshida et al., and further in view of Bray (US 20210017657 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Kusterer does not teach between the first and/or second diamond layer and the electrically insulating substrate or the electrically insulating layer an electrically conductive intermediate layer is provided, which is formed of Ti, Nb or Ta.
Bray discloses a boron doped diamond electrode assembly comprising a plurality of layers for use in production of ozone during electrolysis (Bray abstract). Bray further teaches an electrically conductive layer such as titanium on the insulating substrate between the first and/or second diamond layer (Bray [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bray of introducing an intermediate layer, to those of Kusterer for improved uniformity or contact of the diamond layer (Bray [0021]).
Regarding claim 26, Kusterer et al. teaches that the first and/or the second diamond layer and/or the electrically insulating layer and/or the electrically conductive intermediate layer are produced by means of a CVD process ([0056]).
Regarding claim 36, Kusterer et al. does not teach teaches a cover layer of an electrically insulating material.
Bray further teaches a cover layer of an electrically insulating material is provided on the first and/or second diamond layer at least in sections (Bray [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bray of introducing an insulating layer to those of Kusterer to obtain insulate the conductive layers and improve the adhesion of a resin onto the conductive materials/electrode body (Bray [0036]).
Regarding claim 37, Kusterer does not teach teaches a cover layer of an electrically insulating material is provided on the metal layer.
Bray further teaches a cover layer or a further cover layer of an electrically insulating material is provided on the metal layer (Bray [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Bray of introducing an insulating layer to those of Kusterer to obtain insulate the conductive layers and improve the adhesion of a resin onto the conductive materials/electrode body (Bray [0036]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusterer et al. in view of Yoshida et al., Luo et al., and further in view of Iida et al. (US 5900127 A).
Kusterer et al. does not explicitly teach that a metal layer and the surface of the first and/or second diamond layer, a further intermediate layer formed of a metal carbide, TiC or WC, is provided.
Iida et al. discloses an electrode assembly comprising of boron doped diamonds with an intermediate layer. Iida et al. further teaches that the electrode further comprises an interlayer comprising at least one of the carbide of a valve metal and silicon carbide disposed between the electrode base material and the electrode substance having an electrically conductive diamond structure (column 7 lines 38-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinally skill skilled in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Iida et al. of introducing a metal carbide interlayer in the electrode of Kusterer et al. to more strongly bind the base material and the electrode substance having an electrically conductive diamond structure (Iida et al., column 7 lines 31-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the Remarks, filed December 18, 2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 31 which is now incorporated with a similar language in claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. At least claim 21 is now rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Kusterer et al. (US 20120312353) in view of Yoshida et al (US 20150047973).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
/LUAN V VAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights