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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 05/11/2026.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claim(s) 3 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-13 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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 1-5, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al. (“Atomic Layer Deposition of Platinum Catalysts on Nanowire Surfaces for Photoelectrochemical Water Reduction” and Supplementary Information, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2013) in view of Cao et al. (“Inherently Selective Atomic Layer Deposition and Applications”, Chem. Mater., Feb 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Dasgupta teaches an electrode for a reaction in a chemical cell (see e.g. Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-4, photocathode for photoelectrochemical water reduction), the electrode comprising:
a substrate having a surface (see e.g. SI-Fig. 1, Si wafer base; Page S2, lines 9-11);
an array of nanostructures supported by the substrate and extending outward from the surface of the substrate, each nanostructure of the array or nanostructures having a semiconductor composition (see e.g. SI-Fig. 1, semiconductor Si nanowire (NW) array extending up from Si wafer base; Page 12932, Col. 2, lines 7-9, and Page S2, lines 9-11); and
a catalyst arrangement disposed along each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures, the catalyst arrangement comprising a metal-based catalyst for the reaction in the chemical cell (see e.g. Fig. 1a-c, Pt nanoparticles (NPs) as cocatalyst for photoelectrochemical water reduction deposited along the length of the NWs; Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8);
wherein the semiconductor composition of each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures establishes sites at which the metal-based catalyst is anchored to the nanostructure (see e.g. Fig. 1a-c, Pt NPs nucleated on NW surface; Page 12933, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5); and
wherein the array of nanostructures and the catalyst arrangement are configured such that the metal-based catalyst is distributed along sidewalls of each nanostructure of the array at an atomic scale (see e.g. SI-Fig. 1 and Fig. 1c, subnanometer-scale, i.e. atomic scale, Pt islands deposited along length, i.e. sidewalls, of NWs; Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 4-8, and Page 12933, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5).
Dasgupta does not explicitly teach the sites at which the metal-based catalyst is anchored to the nanostructure being established by a lattice structure of the semiconductor composition, but does teach the desire for the electrode to be stabilized (see e.g. Page 12935, Col. 1, lines 5-11), as well as the nanostructures comprising a surface layer of an oxide (see e.g. Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-2, and Page 12935, Col. 1, lines 7-16) on which the metal-based catalyst is formed by atomic layer deposition (see e.g. Abstract).
Cao teaches approaches for selective atomic layer deposition (see e.g. Abstract), wherein lattice vacancies of oxides can be exploited to anchor single atoms such as Pt with strong interactions and thus stabilize the deposited atoms (see e.g. Page 2197, Col. 2, paragraph starting “In addition…”).
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 electrode of Dasgupta to have the metal-based catalyst deposited by atomic layer deposition anchored at lattice vacancies of oxides of the semiconductor composition on the surface of the nanostructure as taught by Cao to provide strong interactions that stabilize the atoms of the deposited metal-based catalyst.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dasgupta teaches the catalyst arrangement comprising a distribution of metal species in a discrete number of atomic layers (see e.g. Dasgupta Fig. 1 and Table 1; 1, 2, 3 and 10 cycles, i.e. layers, of the subnanometer-scale deposition; Page 12933, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, modified Dasgupta teaches the discrete number of atomic layers being 1, 2 or 3 (see e.g. Dasgupta Fig. 1b-c and Table 1; 1, 2 and 3 cycles, i.e. layers).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dasgupta teaches the catalyst arrangement disposed along each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures comprising a plurality of atomically dispersed catalysts (see e.g. Dasgupta SI-Fig. 1 and Fig. 1c, plurality of subnanometer-scale, i.e. atomic scale, Pt islands deposited along each of NWs; Page 12933, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Dasgupta teaches adjacent nanostructures of the array of nanostructures being positioned relative to one another such that the catalyst arrangement along the sidewalls is spatially confined by the adjacent nanostructures (see e.g. Dasgupta SI-Fig. 1 and Fig. 1c, subnanometer-scale, i.e. atomic scale, Pt islands deposited along length, i.e. sidewalls, of each of the NWs, thereby being confined therebetween; Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 4-8, and Page 12933, Col. 1, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Dasgupta teaches the substrate comprising a semiconductor material (see e.g. Dasgupta SI-Fig. 1, semiconductor Si wafer base; Page S2, lines 9-11, and Page 12932, Col. 2, lines 7-9); and the semiconductor material being configured to generate charge carriers upon absorption of solar radiation such that the chemical cell is configured as a photoelectrochemical system (see e.g. Dasgupta Page S2, lines 9-11, and Page 12932, Col. 2, lines 7-12, Si semiconductor which traps light and transports generated charge carriers).
Regarding claim 10, modified Dasgupta teaches the semiconductor material of the substrate and the semiconductor composition of the array of nanostructures being configured such that the charge carriers generated in the substrate are extracted by the array of nanostructures (see e.g. Dasgupta Page S2, lines 9-11, and Page 12932, Col. 2, lines 7-12, Si semiconductor nanowire array in which the generated charge carriers are transported for the electrode reaction).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dasgupta teaches each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures comprising a respective nanowire (see e.g. Dasgupta SI-Fig. 1, semiconductor Si nanowire array; Page S2, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dasgupta teaches the chemical cell being a photoelectrochemical cell (see e.g. Dasgupta Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-4, photocathode for photoelectrochemical water reduction).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta in view of Cao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (U.S. 2017/0183787).
Regarding claim 6, modified Dasgupta teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Dasgupta does not teach the metal-based catalyst comprising an iron species, instead teaching it comprising platinum (see e.g. Dasgupta Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-4).
Katayama teaches a photocatalyst electrode for water decomposition (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a co-catalyst used with the photocatalyst may include Pt, Fe and oxides thereof (see e.g. Paragraphs 0048-0050).
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 metal-based catalyst of modified Dasgupta to comprise an Fe species as taught by Katayama as an alternate or additional suitable co-catalyst for photoelectrochemical water decomposition. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, modified Dasgupta teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Dasgupta does not teach the metal-based catalyst comprising iron oxide, instead teaching it comprising platinum (see e.g. Dasgupta Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-4).
Katayama teaches a photocatalyst electrode for water decomposition (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a co-catalyst used with the photocatalyst may include Pt, Fe and oxides thereof (see e.g. Paragraphs 0048-0050).
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 metal-based catalyst of modified Dasgupta to comprise Fe oxide as taught by Katayama as an alternate or additional suitable co-catalyst for photoelectrochemical water decomposition. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta in view of Cao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vanka et al. (“High Efficiency Si Photocathode Protected by Multifunctional GaN Nanostructures”, Nano Lett., 2018).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dasgupta teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Dasgupta does not teach the semiconductor composition of each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures comprising nitrogen such that the sites are nitrogen sites, instead teaching it just comprising Si with a thin stabilizing TiO2 layer (see e.g. Dasgupta Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-2, and Page 12935, Col. 1, lines 7-16).
Vanka teaches a photocathode (see e.g. Abstract) comprising GaN nanowires formed on an Si substrate (see e.g. Fig. 2a and Page 6531, Col. 1, lines 7-13), the GaN nanowires protecting the Si surface from corrosion and reducing charge carrier transfer resistance at the semiconductor liquid junction as compared to use of a protection layer such as TiO2, leading to long-term stability at a large current density under sun illumination (see e.g. Abstract and Page 6530, Col. 1, line 16-Col. 2, line 5)
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 array of nanostructures of modified Dasgupta to comprise GaN instead of Si with TiO2, thereby providing nitrogen sites for anchoring of the metal-based catalyst, as taught by Vanka to protect the Si substrate surface from corrosion and reduce charge carrier transfer resistance at the semiconductor liquid junction, leading to long-term stability at a large current density under sun illumination.
Regarding claim 12, modified Dasgupta teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Dasgupta does not teach the semiconductor composition of each nanostructure of the array of nanostructures comprising a Group III-V semiconductor material, instead teaching it just comprising Si with a thin stabilizing TiO2 layer (see e.g. Dasgupta Page 12932, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-2, and Page 12935, Col. 1, lines 7-16).
Vanka teaches a photocathode (see e.g. Abstract) comprising GaN nanowires formed on an Si substrate (see e.g. Fig. 2a and Page 6531, Col. 1, lines 7-13), the GaN nanowires protecting the Si surface from corrosion and reducing charge carrier transfer resistance at the semiconductor liquid junction as compared to use of a protection layer such as TiO2, leading to long-term stability at a large current density under sun illumination (see e.g. Abstract and Page 6530, Col. 1, line 16-Col. 2, line 5)
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 array of nanostructures of modified Dasgupta to comprise GaN instead of Si with TiO2 as taught by Vanka to protect the Si substrate surface from corrosion and reduce charge carrier transfer resistance at the semiconductor liquid junction, leading to long-term stability at a large current density under sun illumination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 over Dasgupta, particularly regarding the lattice structure establishing anchoring sites, 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 in view of Dasgupta and Cao.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (“Nitrogen Photofixation over III-Nitride Nanowires Assisted by Ruthenium Clusters of Low Atomicity”, Angew. Chem., 2017) discloses a heterogeneous catalyst comprising metal sub-nanoclusters decorated on gallium nitride nanowires, wherein the clusters are firmly and stably anchored on the surface of the nanowires by strong interaction between the metal and the gallium nitride lattice.
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 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
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights