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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 09/02/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no evidence that the claimed product of group I can be made by the proposed alternate process to group II, it has not been established that the proposed alternative process with which the product of group I can be used is a materially different process than that of group III, and distinctness has not been adequately demonstrated between the process of groups II and III. This is not found persuasive because the alternative example of a process of making the product acts as support for distinction of groups I and II. MPEP § 806.05(f) states that “Allegations of different processes or products need not be documented”. Secondly, alternative electrochemical reactions, such as electrochemical or photoelectrochemical carbon dioxide reduction, would materially differ from the process of group II in their reactants, reactions and products, as well as not necessarily requiring light irradiation. Regarding the processes of groups II and III, one is a method of making an electrode while the other is a method of using the electrode, thereby having at least different modes of operation and effect. Furthermore, the inventions do not encompass overlapping subject matter, again as one is a method of making an electrode and the other is a method of using an already completed electrode, and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants, particularly as the steps and overall effect of each of the processes are completely different, as stated above, and therefore do not appear to be obvious variants of one another.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-12 are under consideration in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “60” has been used to designate both a metallic foil in Fig. 1A and a chemical structure in Fig. 1B, and reference character “62” has been used to designate both a second surface of the FTO glass in Fig. 1A and a chemical structure in Fig. 1B, as per pages 16 and 21 of the instant specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 2, “(θ)value” should read “(θ) value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (“Pyrimidine-modified g-C3N4 nanosheets for enhanced photocatalytic H2 evolution”, Materials Research Bulletin, 2021); claims 11-12 evidenced by Tang et al. (“Supramolecular Copolymerization Strategy for Realizing the Broadband White Light Luminescence Based on N-Deficient Porous Graphitic Carbon Nitride (g-C3N4)”, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a photoelectrode (see e.g. Page 2, Col. 2, under “2.5”, lines 1-6, working electrode in electrochemical photocurrent characterization), comprising:
a fluorine-doped tin oxide (FTO) substrate (see e.g. Page 2, Col. 2, under “2.5”, lines 8-12, FTO glass); and
a layer of graphitic-poly (2,4,6-triaminopyrimidine) (g-PTAP) nanoflakes at least partially covering a surface of the FTO substrate (see e.g. Scheme 1, Page 1, Col. 1, lines 10-12, Page 2, Col. 1, lines 6-17, and Col. 2, under “2.5”, lines 8-12, sample of graphitic carbon nitride polycondensed with 2,4,6-traminopyrimidine (Pym-CN), i.e. g-PTAP, in the form of nanosheets coated on FTO glass);
wherein the layer of g-PTAP nanoflakes has a sheet like morphology (see e.g. Scheme 1 and Page 2, Col. 2, under “2.5”, lines 8-12; Pym-CN nanosheets forming sample film).
Chen does not explicitly teach the g-PTAP nanoflakes having an average thickness of 5 to 100 nm, an average length of 0.2 to 10 µm, and an average width of 0.1 to 5.0 µm. Chen does however show exemplary g-PTAP nanoflakes having a thickness of ~10 nm (see e.g. Fig. 1d, approximated based on measurement of apparent edges of shown nanosheets); a length of ~0.78 µm (see e.g. Fig. 1c, approximated based on measurement of representative Pym2-CN nanosheet shown below); and a width of ~0.58 µm (see e.g. Fig. 1c, approximated based on measurement of representative Pym2-CN nanosheet shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 g-PTAP nanoflakes of Chen to have an average thickness of ~10 nm, average length of ~0.78 µm and average width of ~0.58 µm as taught by Chen as exemplary suitable dimensions for the g-PTAP nanoflakes.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having an average width of ~0.58 µm (see e.g. Fig. 1c, approximated based on measurement of representative Pym2-CN nanosheet).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the layer of g-PTAP nanoflakes having a pore size of 2-4 nm (see e.g. Page 3, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having an interlayer stacking of repeated triazine units (see e.g. Page 3, Col. 2, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes being arranged in an aggregated lamellae form and being slackly packed (see e.g. Figs. 1c-1d, curled Pym-CN nanosheets shown slackly packed in aggregated lamellae; connecting paragraph of Pages 2-3, lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having a maximum light absorbance in a visible range (see e.g. Fig. 3a and Page 3, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having a broad and intense peak of 2 theta (θ) value 27.2° in an XRD spectrum (see e.g. Fig. 2a and Page 3, Col. 2, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having a first main peak of 284.8 eV in an XPS spectrum (see e.g. Fig. 2e and Page 4, Col. 1, lines 7-11), and a second main peak of 398.8 eV in the XPS (see e.g. Fig. 2f and Page 4, Col. 1, lines 11-14), very close to the claimed range.
MPEP § 2144.05 states “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having peaks at 1330, 1456, ~1529 and ~1590 cm-1 (see e.g. Fig. 2b and Page 3, Col. 2, lines 12-17) and 3165, 3327 and 3431 cm-1 in a FT-IR spectrum (see e.g. Scheme 1, Page 1, Col. 1, lines 10-12, Page 2, Col. 1, lines 6-17, supramolecular Pym-CN comprising graphitic carbon nitride polymerized with TAP; which is evidenced by Tang to exhibit FT-IR peaks at 3165, 3327 and 3431 cm-1, see e.g. Tang Abstract Fig. 3b).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the g-PTAP nanoflakes having a peak at ~1529 and ~1590 cm-1 (see e.g. Fig. 2b and Page 3, Col. 2, lines 12-17) and 3327 and 3431 cm-1 in a FT-IR spectrum (see e.g. Scheme 1, Page 1, Col. 1, lines 10-12, Page 2, Col. 1, lines 6-17, supramolecular Pym-CN comprising graphitic carbon nitride polymerized with TAP; which is evidenced by Tang to exhibit FT-IR peaks at 3327 and 3431 cm-1, see e.g. Tang Abstract Fig. 3b).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu et al. (“High-performance photoelectrochemical aptasensor for enrofloxacin based on Bi-doped ultrathin polymeric carbon nitride nanocomposites with SPR effect and carbon vacancies”, Sensors & Actuators B: Chemical, 2020).
Regarding claims 7-8, Chen teaches all the elements of the photoelectrode of claim 1 as stated above. Chen does not teach the photoelectrode having a band gap at 1.2 to 2.5 eV, of claim 7, or further 1.5 to 2.0 eV, of claim 8, instead teaching a band gap at 2.65 eV (see e.g. Fig. 3 and Page 4, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 7-9). Chen does however teach the incorporation of the TAP reducing the band gap of regular graphitic nitride from 2.74 to the 2.65 eV, the reduced band gap being indicative of improved photocatalytic performance (see e.g. Page 1, Col. 2, lines 14-17, and Page 4, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 5-9).
Xu teaches a photoactive material with high photoelectrochemical activity (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a polymeric carbon nitride nanocomposite incorporating TAP (see e.g. Page 2, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-7), wherein the band gap of regular graphitic carbon nitride can be reduced from 2.70 eV to 1.70 eV with increased visible light activity by the polymeric TAP incorporation in addition to incorporation of metallic Bi and carbon vacancies (see e.g. Abstract Page 3, Col. 2, under “3.2”, lines 10-16).
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 photoelectrode of Chen to have a reduced band gap of 1.70 eV by incorporation of metallic Bi and carbon vacancies in addition to the polymeric TAP incorporation as taught by Xu to increase visible light activity and further increase photocatalytic performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Song et al. (“A Facile and Green Combined Strategy for Improving Photocatalytic Activity of Carbon Nitride”, ACS Omega, 2019) discloses a photocatalyst comprising polymeric graphitic carbon nitride with incorporated TAP, wherein the band gap of the photocatalyst can be reduced by increasing the content of the TAP.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795