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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CRF 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b) in the action dated 4/13/2026 have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed, which remedy the detailed deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizenberg et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,192,796 B2, published 12/07/2021) in view of Zhou et al. (Nano Lett. 2016, 16, pp. 1478-1484).
In regard to claim 1, Aizenberg et al. teaches a photonic material which is a templated inverse opal superstructure of metal oxide nanocrystals and functional nanoparticles that can be deposited in the form of a thin film onto a substrate. The metal oxide nanocrystals may be alumina (Col. 10, lines 36-39). The functional particles may be metals which provide catalytic properties (Col. 10, lines 41-50) and decorate the outer surface of the metal oxide nanocrystals (Col. 16, lines 45-53), thus embedding the catalytic particles into the superstructure.
Aizenberg et al. does not teach that the major component of the superstructure (i.e. metal oxide nanocrystals) is a plasmonic material. However, Aizenberg et al. suggests the process can be extended to other material classes (Col. 7, lines 56-64). Zhou et a. teaches aluminum nanocrystals with a thin protective layer of alumina as a plasmonic material for use in heterogeneous catalysis, with LSPR generated at absorption of ~460 nm (UV range; pp. 1479, left col., lines 18-28). The alumina shell was observed to be amorphous alumina (pp. 1481, right col.). Aizenberg et al. teaches that in the designed alumina nanocrystals, the inner crystalline region is surrounded by an amorphous alumina layer that is responsible for the observed crack-free matrix (Col. 10, lines 5-19). Thus, the aluminum nanocrystals of Zhou et al., with their amorphous alumina outer layer, are analogous in functionality to the crystalline/amorphous alumina nanocrystals which Aizenberg et al. teaches as the main component of the highly ordered matrix. Furthermore, Aizenberg et al. suggests the highly uniform crystalline structure of the matrix lends itself to increasing the plasmonic behavior of plasmonic materials (Col. 16, lines 53-61), and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that using a plasmonic material (i.e. the aluminum nanocrystals of Zhou et al.) which shares the physical characteristics of the alumina nanocrystals Aizenberg et al. teaches would allow for the coupling of highly ordered large plasmonic nanoparticles with smaller catalytic particles for plasmonic-coupled catalysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Aizenberg et al. to use the plasmonic aluminum/alumina nanocrystals as taught by Zhou et al. instead of the metal oxide nanocrystals taught as the matrix particles to effectively create a highly ordered plasmonic heterogenous catalyst.
In regard to claim 2, Aizenberg et al. teaches that the nanocrystals which comprise the matrix have a particle diameter of 1-50 nm (Col. 10, lines 21-23). In the examples (see Col. 16, Example 5), 7 nm palladium nanoparticles and 10 nm platinum particles (Col. 16, lines 20-26) were embedded into the thin film matrix (Figs. 16D-16F and were found at the matrix particle-air boundary (Col. 16, lines 45-53).
In regard to claim 3, Aizenberg et al. does not provide a generalized range for the size of the catalytically active particles embedded in the superstructure, but does teach that the catalytically active particles embedded in an aluminum-based superstructure are smaller than 10 nm (7 nm Pd particles; Col. 16 lines 20-26), which reads to the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 4, the inverse opal film taught by Aizenberg et al. is a crystalline superstructure (Col. 7, lines 11-21).
In regard to claim 5, the inverse opal film taught by Aizenberg et al. has a 2D hexagonal order (Fig. 10A-B, Figs. 16D-F).
In regard to claim 6, the inverse opal film taught by Aizenberg et al. is a thin film and a multilayer of matrix particles (see Figs. 16E-F, where the overlapping values in the SEM image are indicative of multiple layers of nanocrystals).
In regard to claim 9, Aizenberg et al. teaches that when catalytic particles are incorporated into the greater matrix, they are observed at the nanocrystal-air interface (Col. 16, lines 45-53). Thus, in the examples taught by Aizenberg et al., the plurality of catalytic nanoparticles create a partial coating around the nanocrystal matrix particles (herein modified as plasmonic aluminum nanocrystals). In said configuration, the catalytic particles are accessible to chemical reagents which are introduced to the matrix via a fluid stream. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize said configuration of catalytic and plasmonic particles as a core-shell system. In the absence of a specific claim limitation or special definition of coating in the specification, it is the examiner’s position that the catalytic particles found at the matrix particle-air boundary read to a plurality of smaller catalytically active nanoparticles coating the larger plasmonic nanoparticles as recited in claim 9.
In regard to claim 11, Aizenberg et al. teaches that the inverse opal thin film may be deposited on a substrate made of silica (e.g. fused quartz glass, Col. 11, lines 28-29), silicon (Col. 11, lines 37-38), an inorganic material (Col. 11, lines 55-56), or indium tin oxide (Col. 12, lines 1-3).
In regard to claim 12, Aizenberg et al. teaches that catalytically active particles which are embedded in the matrix may be platinum, palladium, ruthenium, or rhodium (Col. 10, lines 52-55).
In regard to claim 13, Aizenberg et al. teaches that the inverse opal thin film which incorporates catalytic particles can be advantageous for catalysis (Col 10, lines 48-50; Col), were tested for photocatalytic activity (Col. 17, lines 49-59), and are applicable to heterogeneous catalysis, solar/fuel cells, and other semiconductor applications (Col. 18, lines 6-8) rendering the superstructure capable of conducting photocatalytic hydrogen evolution (e.g. water splitting or water shift reaction).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizenberg et al. and Zhou et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller et al. (ACS Nano 2021, 15, pp. 5523-5533).
In regard to claim 7, Aizenberg et al. does not teach that the catalytically active particles are intercalated in interspaces between the plasmonic nanoparticles in the overall superstructure, instead the catalytically active particles are adhered to the surface of the plasmonic material (referred to as a core-shell system). However, antenna-reactor systems, where the plasmonic material and catalytically active material do not physically touch, are a well-recognized configuration in the art. As taught by Mueller et al., in a crystalline film (mono- or multilayer), the array of plasmonic nanoparticles has specific, regional hotspots of higher intensity electric fields and the corresponding charge carriers in the interparticle gaps (pp. 5523, left col.; pp. 5525, right col., lines 20-28). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to place the catalytically active particles in the superstructure within the interspaces of the plasmonic nanocrystals to achieve a higher catalytic activity/efficiency as instantly claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Aizenberg et al. to place the catalytically active particles in the interspaces of the plasmonic particles instead of on the surface of the plasmonic nanoparticles to take advantage of these electric field/charge carrier hotspots.
In regard to claim 8, in a 2D hexagonal film of spherical nanocrystals, the interspaces between the nanocrystals includes small channels between two adjacent particles and larger gaps between three adjacent nanocrystals (see Aizenberg et al. Figs 16D-F). From a practical standpoint, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to place catalytically active particles in the gap between three adjacent particles because it allows for greater flexibility in the diameter of the catalytically active particles. Furthermore, the overlap of intensified electric fields, associated with the area immediately near the particle surface, of three plasmonic nanocrystals rather than two would generate more hot electrons/energy that propels catalysis, and thus a person of ordinary skill would be further motivated in placing catalytically active particles in the interspaces of plasmonic nanocrystals in a 2D hexagonal lattice in the center of three adjacent particles rather than in the channels/gaps between two adjacent particles. The area of effect for plasmonic materials is a specific, small distance from the surface of the material. To achieve an overlap of plasmonic hotspots from multiple plasmonic materials, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to position the catalytically active particle in the center of the interspace between three adjacent plasmonic nanoparticles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Aizenberg et al. to place the catalytically active particles in the interspace of three adjacent particles instead of on the surface of the plasmonic nanoparticles.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizenberg et al. and Zhou et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaikin et al. (Anal. Chem. 2013, 85(21), pp. 10022-10027).
In regard to claim 10, Aizenberg et al. does not teach coating the superstructure of plasmonic nanoparticles (i.e. the matrix particles/nanocrystals) with silica. However, Chaikin et al. teaches the use of a thin silica coating on metallic thin films as a means for the stabilization of the colloidal particles (pp. 10020, Abstract). Specifically, the silica coating prevents particle aggregation and preserves LSPR response during drying-wetting-redrying cycles, which may be necessary during practical use of the thin films (pp. 10027, Conclusions). While the amorphous outer shell of the colloidal particles of Aizenberg et al. prevents defect formation during initial synthesis (Col. 7, lines 56-64; Col. 10, lines 13-19), Aizenberg et al. does not teach or suggest the amorphous layer of the nanocrystals, after initial assembly, prevents defect formation during re-immersion and subsequent drying. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply a thin layer of silica to the formed superstructure of plasmonic and catalytic particles to impact additional stability to the thin film, which is key to maintaining plasmonic functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks pp. 6-8, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § have been fully considered and are persuasive in regards to the characterization of the contents of reference CN-110115996A. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Aizenberg et al. in view of Zhou et al. The examiner agrees that CN ‘996A did not teach a superstructure of plasmonic nanoparticles and catalytically active nanoparticles, rather catalytically active nanoparticles decorating a singular plasmonic nanocrystal. However, the examiner has identified a new reference, Aizenberg et al., which teaches a crystalline thin film superstructure of nanocrystals and catalytically active nanoparticles, which, in combination with Zhou et al. which teaches plasmonic nanocrystals compatible with the synthesis methods of Aizenberg et al. and renders the limitations of claims 1-6, 9, and 11-13 obvious.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks pp. 6-8, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § have been fully considered and are persuasive in regards to the characterization of the contents of reference CN-110115996A. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made with regard to claim 6 over Aizenberg et al. and Zhou et al., and with regard to claims 7-8 over Aizenberg et al. and Zhou et al. as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Mueller et al. See above rejections, pp. 7-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights