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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 23 March 2026 has been considered. It is acknowledged that Applicant amended claims 9, 14, and 19. Accordingly, the U.S.C. 112 rejections of claims 9-10, 14-15, and 19-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Mi fails to disclose a semiconductor composition that establishes a photochemical diode because the downward bending as disclosed by Mi prevents a diode from being established. Examiner disagrees, as under BRI, a “photochemical diode” is reasonably a semiconductor that absorbs light, generates charge carriers, and drive directional redox reactions, which Mi absolutely discloses. Surface band bending, as described by Mi, in itself creates internal electric fields which separate carriers directionally. Under BRI, this is effectively and functionally a diode. Further, Mi does not eliminate band bending, but instead controls/optimizes it. In conclusion, Applicant’s argument improperly limits “photochemical diode” to a specific junction-based structure, limitations of which are not recited in the claim. Mi’s disclosure of photoinduced charge separation via surface band bending satisfies the claimed functionality under BRI.
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 1, 6-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe”.
Regarding Claim 1, Mi discloses a photocatalytic device (device for photochemical water splitting; see [0009]) comprising: a substrate having a surface (grown on Si substrates; see [0057]); and an array of conductive projections (vertically aligned InGaN nanowire arrays; see [0057]) supported by the substrate (InGaN nanowire arrays were grown on Si(111) substrates; see [0057]) and extending outward from the surface of the substrate (vertically aligned… on… substrates; see [0057]), each conductive projection of the array of conductive projections having a semiconductor composition (InGaN nanowire; see [0057]); wherein the surface is nonplanar.
Regarding the limitation claiming, “the semiconductor composition establishing a photochemical diode”, the term “photochemical diode” is interpreted as a semiconductor structure that, upon illumination, generates charge carriers and establishes a built-in electric field that directionally separates the carriers to drive a chemical (redox) reaction. Mi discloses the semiconductor composition of InGaN, as explained above. Mi further discloses nanowires formed from a doped compound semiconductor that generate electron-hole pairs under illumination (see Claim 7), predetermined surface band bending, which establishes an internal electric field at the nanowire surface. This field results in directional separation of charge carriers, including electron accumulation and hole depletion in near-surface regions (see [0010]). Mi utilizes these separated carriers to drive photochemical water splitting reactions. Accordingly, Mi discloses a semiconductor composition that, upon illumination, generates charge carriers and directionally separates the carriers via an internal electric field to drive a chemical reaction, thereby establishing a photochemical diode as claimed.
Mi does not explicitly disclose the substrate surface being non-planar. However, Debe discloses that the substrate can be non-planar (see Col. 6 Lines 59-60). The limitation claiming, “such that subsets of the array of conductive projections are oriented at different angles”, this is a natural consequence that occurs due to the non-planarity of the substrate. Therefore, when modifying Mi by incorporating the non-planar substrate surface disclosed by Debe, it would naturally follow that the nanowires would be oriented at different angles.
Mi and Debe are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nanostructure growth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mi by incorporating the teachings of Debe and including a non-planar substrate. Doing so would have modified the angular orientation of the microstructures because the microstructures are usually oriented normal to the original substrate surface, where the normal direction is seen to follow the contours of the surface of the substrate (see Debe, Col. 6 Lines 16-23).
Regarding Claim 6, Mi and Debe together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 1. Mi further discloses wherein the semiconductor composition comprises indium gallium nitride (vertically aligned InGaN nanowire arrays; see [0057]) doped with magnesium (Mg-doped InGaN/GaN nanowire structures; see [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Mi and Debe together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 1. Mi further discloses wherein each conductive projection of the array of conductive projections comprises a nanowire (vertically aligned InGaN nanowire arrays; see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 8, Mi and Debe together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 1. Mi further discloses wherein the substrate comprises silicon (silicon substrate; see [0123]).
Regarding Claim 16, Mi discloses a method of fabricating a photocatalytic semiconductor device (a method of photochemical water splitting comprising providing…; see [0008]). The remaining limitations do not exceed those of claim 1. It is understood that because the structure is disclosed, then a method consisting of providing said structure, as claimed in claim 16, must also occur. Please refer to the claim 1 rejection as the rejection of claim 16 follows the same rationale.
Claims 2-3 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe” and Albuschies (US-9366643-B2).
Regarding Claim 2, Mi and Debe together disclosed the photocatalytic device of claim 1.
Mi does not explicitly disclose a multi-faceted surface. However, Albuschies discloses the surface of a substrate (a substrate composed of silicon; see Col. 4 Lines 35-36) comprising a multi-faceted surface (etching of local… depressions into a silicon surface… This gives rise to pyramidal depressions; see Col. 5 Lines 41-44).
Mi and Albuschies are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of nanostructure growth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mi by incorporating the teachings of Albuschies and including a multi-faceted substrate surface. Doing so enables nanopores to be produced in a silicon membrane at the point of intersection, at the lowest point in the pyramids; see Albuschies Col. 6 Lines 19-22).
Regarding Claim 3, Mi and Debe together disclosed the photocatalytic device of claim 1.
Mi does not explicitly teach a pyramidal surface. However, Albuschies discloses the surface of a substrate (a substrate composed of silicon; see Col. 4 Lines 35-36) comprising a pyramidal textured surface (etching of local… depressions into a silicon surface… This gives rise to pyramidal depressions; see Col. 5 Lines 41-44). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because doing so enables nanopores to be produced in a silicon membrane at the point of intersection, at the lowest point in the pyramids; see Albuschies Col. 6 Lines 19-22).
Regarding Claim 17, Mi and Debe together disclose the method of claim 16.
Mi does not explicitly teach crystallographic etching. However, Albuschies discloses wherein providing the substrate comprises implementing a crystallographic etch procedure to define the surface (selective etching of silicon as a function of crystal orientation… The silicon <111> surface is etched much more slowly than the silicon <100> surface; see Col. 5 Lines 37-41). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it gives rise to pyramidal depressions; see Albuschies Col. 5 Lines 43-44).
Regarding Claim 18, Mi, Debe, and Albuschies together disclose the method of claim 17. Albuschies further discloses wherein: the crystallographic etch procedure comprises a wet etch procedure (A similar etching mechanism is triggered by liquid potassium hydroxide solution; see Col. 5 Lines 65-66); and the substrate comprises a silicon wafer of <100> orientation (silicon <100> surface; see Col. 5 Line 42) such that the wet etch procedure establishes that the surface comprises a pyramidal textured surface (gives rise to pyramidal depressions; see Col. 5 Lines 43-44) with faces oriented along <111> planes (sidewalls of which have the silicon <111> surface; see Col. 5 Lines 42-43). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it would cause the four opposite/adjacent flanks of the depression to meet at an atomically sharp point of intersection (see Albuschies, Col. 5 Lines 49-51).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe” and McGill (Highly Stable Photochemical Water Splitting and Hydrogen Generation Using a Double-Band InGaN/GaN Core/Shell Nanowire Photoanode).
Regarding Claim 4, Mi and Debe together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 1. Mi further discloses wherein each conductive projection of the array of conductive projections comprises a layered arrangement of semiconductor materials (three segments of InGaN ternary wires were incorporated along the growth direction of GaN nanowire; see [0059]).
Mi does not explicitly teach a quadruple band structure. However, McGill discloses a layered arrangement of semiconductor material establishing a quadruple band structure (incorporating different In compositions in each InGaN segment can lead to triple or even quadruple band nanowire photoelectrodes; see Col. 2 on Pg. 4359, Lines 1-3).
Mi and McGill are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of photocatalytic nanostructures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mi by incorporating the teachings of McGill and forming a quadruple band structure. Doing so would further enhance efficiency (see McGill, Col. 2 on Pg. 4359, Lines 1-4).
Claims 5, 9, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe”, and Grabowski et al. (US-9768274-B2), hereinafter “Grabowski”.
Regarding Claim 5, Mi and Debe together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 1. Mi further discloses wherein each conductive structure of the array of conductive structures comprises a first side and a second side opposite the first side (this is the natural geometry of a nanowire). Modified Mi further discloses the first side facing away from the substrate and the second side facing toward the substrate (this is a natural consequence of the angles of the nanowires with respect to the substrate that occur due to disposing nanowires on a non-planar surface).
Mi further discloses inclusion of a dopant (doping with a predetermined dopant; see [0011]), but does not explicitly teach a dopant gradient. However, Grabowski discloses a dopant concentration of the semiconductor composition (doping of materials, such as semiconductors; see Col. 1 Line 12) decreasing from a first side to a second side to establish a lateral dopant gradient (to achieve lateral doping gradients; see Col. 2 Lines 1-2).
KSR Rationale C (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to use a “known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed application to apply the known technique of applying a dopant to a semiconductor achieve a lateral doping concentration gradient from Grabowski to the semiconductor nanowire from Mi. Doing so can reshape the electric field and provide a more uniform field distribution (see Grabowski Col. 4 Lines 60-62).
Regarding Claim 9, Mi and Debe together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 1. Mi further discloses first and second pluralities of catalyst nanoparticles (co-catalyst nanoparticles; see [0067]) disposed over the array of conductive projections (Rh/Cr2O3 core-shell co-catalyst was photo-deposited on In0.26Ga0.74N:Mg nanowire surfaces; see [0068]). As mentioned in the claim 5 rejection above, Grabowski discloses a lateral doping gradient. A lateral doping gradient on a nanowire will undeniably establish a built-in electric field that drives electrons and holes toward opposite lateral sides, enabling charge separation without requiring external bias. On a nanowire with a lateral dopant concentration gradient, and thus a built-in lateral electric field, photo-deposition, as disclosed by Mi (see [0068]), naturally becomes selective. Following the standard basis of selective photo-deposition, the semiconductor generates electron-hole pairs, and the built in electric field drives electrons toward the electron-rich side and holes toward the hole-rich side. Surface redox reactions then occur where the appropriate carriers accumulate. When photo-depositing Rh and Cr2O3 as disclosed by Mi (see [0068]), Rh photo-deposition occurs preferentially on the electron-rich side of the nanowire, which then corresponds functionally to a reduction (cathodic) surface (Rh can provide more active sites for H2O reduction; see Mi [0069]), while Cr2O3 deposits preferentially on the hole-rich side, which corresponds functionally to an oxidation (anodic) surface. Therefore, when photo-depositing the catalyst nanoparticles as disclosed by Mi, the structure of Mi modified by Debe and Grabowski would naturally force the photo-deposition to become selective and dispose one catalyst nanoparticle on one side while the other catalyst nanoparticle will be disposed on the other.
Regarding Claim 19, Mi and Debe together disclose the method of claim 16. The remaining limitations of claim 19 do not exceed those of claim 9. Please refer to the claim 9 rejection as the rejection of claim 19 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Mi, Debe, and Grabowski together disclose the method of claim 19. Mi further discloses using first and second photo-deposition procedures for depositing the first and second pluralities of catalyst nanoparticles (nanowires were decorated with Rh/Cr2O3 core-shell nanoparticles using a two-step photodeposition process; see [0068]). The rejection of claim 9 further explains why the use of photo-deposition would inevitably become a selective photo-deposition process due to the built-in electric field that results from the structure of Mi modified by Debe and Grabowski, and explains how that would result in the photo-deposition procedures directing the first and second pluralities of catalyst nanoparticles to the water-oxidizing anode side and the proton-reducing cathode side of each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures, respectively.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claim 1 and claim 5, with the exception of a cylindrical nanostructure. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 5 as the claim 21 rejection follows the same rationale. Mi further discloses wherein each conductive projection comprises a cylindrically shaped nanostructure (vertically aligned InGaN nanowire arrays; see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 16 and 5, with the exception of the implementation of a molecular beam epitaxy procedure. Please refer to the rejections of claims 16 and 5, as the claim 22 rejection follows the same rationale. Regarding the remaining limitations, Debe discloses forming the array of nanostructures comprises implementing a molecular beam epitaxy procedure (molecular beam epitaxy; see Col. 11 Line 60) in which the substrate is rotated (the substrates were mounted on the drum and rotated; see Col. 13 Lines 31-32). This procedure would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it can enable control of the crystallization and growth mode of the material deposited; see Debe, Col. 11 Lines 65-67) and enable control of the individual layer thickness comprising the final particles; see Debe, Col. 13 Lines 36-38), respectively.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe”, Grabowski et al. (US-9768274-B2), hereinafter “Grabowski”, and Yang et al. (US-20130105305-A1), hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding Claim 10, Mi, Debe, and Grabowski together disclose the photocatalytic device of claim 9. Mi further discloses wherein each catalyst nanoparticle of the second plurality of catalyst nanoparticles on the proton-reducing cathode side comprises rhodium (Rh) (Rh can provide more active sites for H2O reduction; see [0069] and the explanation in the claim 9 rejection).
Mi does not explicitly teach the use of cobalt oxide. However, Yang discloses the use of cobalt oxide on an anode side of a nanowire (co-catalyst particles deposited on photoanode nanowires… selected from the group consisting of… cobalt oxides (see [0032]).
Mi and Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of photocatalytic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mi by incorporating the teachings of Yang and using a cobalt oxide catalyst on the anode side of the nanowire. Doing so may increase the reaction rates of reactions occurring at the photoanode (see Yang [0032]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe”, Albuschies (US-9366643-B2), and Yang et al. (US-20130105305-A1), hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations of this claim do not exceed those of claims 1 and 3, with the exception of the container. Please refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 3 as the rejection of claim 11 follows the same rationale. Regarding the remaining limitations, Mi discloses a photocatalytic system (photocatalytic systems; see [0148]). Meanwhile, Yang further discloses a semiconductor device immersed in water (the nanowire bilayer mesh was tested for overall water splitting by immersing it in deionized water; see [0082]). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because it is necessary to test overall water splitting (see Yang [0082]). The limitation claiming, “a container in which water is disposed”, it is understood that the immersion of the device in water, as disclosed by Yang, necessarily requires a container for the water by nature of the physical properties of liquids.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe”, Albuschies (US-9366643-B2), Yang et al. (US-20130105305-A1), hereinafter “Yang”, and McGill (Highly Stable Photochemical Water Splitting and Hydrogen Generation Using a Double-Band InGaN/GaN Core/Shell Nanowire Photoanode).
Regarding Claim 12, Mi, Debe, Albuschies, and Yang together disclose the photocatalytic system of claim 11. The remaining limitations do not exceed those of claim 4. Please refer to the claim 4 rejection as the rejection of claim 12 follows the same rationale.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US-20170216810-A1), hereinafter “Mi”, in view of Debe et al. (US-5879827-A), hereinafter “Debe”, Albuschies (US-9366643-B2), Yang et al. (US-20130105305-A1), hereinafter “Yang”, and Grabowski et al. (US-9768274-B2), hereinafter “Grabowski”.
Regarding Claim 13, Mi, Debe, Albuschies, and Yang together disclose the photocatalytic system of claim 11. The remaining limitations do not exceed those of claim 5. Please refer to the claim 5 rejection as the rejection of claim 13 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, Mi, Debe, Albuschies, and Yang together disclose the photocatalytic system of claim 11. The remaining limitations do not exceed those of claim 9. Please refer to the claim 9 rejection as the rejection of claim 14 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, Mi, Debe, Albuschies, and Yang together disclose the photocatalytic system of claim 14. The remaining limitations do not exceed those of claims 6, 8, and 10. Please refer to the rejections of claims 6, 8, and 10 as the rejection of claim 15 follows the same rationale.
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 ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights