DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of copending Application No. 18266551 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 4-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-17 of copending Application No. 18266551 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The present claims require a method for producing hydrogen by means of energy radiation, comprising: contacting a composite catalyst with at least one hydrogen-containing source, and subjecting the composite catalyst and the hydrogen-containing source to energy radiation, to produce hydrogen molecules, wherein the composite catalyst comprises at least one nano-base structure and at least one atomic sites, the atomic sites comprise one or two or more chemical elements selected from Ru, Rh, Ag, Au, Pt, Pd, Os, and Ir.
The patent/co-pending claims meet all limitations of the present claims. Specifically, claims 1-2 of application recites: A method for producing hydrogen by means of energy radiation, comprising: contacting a composite catalyst with at least one hydrogen-containing source, and subjecting the composite catalyst and the hydrogen-containing source to energy radiation, to produce hydrogen molecules, wherein the composite catalyst comprises at least one nano-base structure and at least one atomic sites, the atomic sites comprise one or two or more chemical elements selected from Mn, Co, Fe, Al, Cu, Ni, Zn, Ti and La, preferably comprise one or two or more selected from Co, Fe and Mn;
the method according to claim 1, wherein the atomic sites further comprise one or two or more chemical elements selected from Ru, Rh, Ag, Au, Pt, Pd, Os and Ir.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/09/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i), specifically regarding the No.2 Non-patent Literature Document, because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 5, it is suggested to amend “an surface” to “a surface” for proper claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation one or two or more chemical elements selected from Ru, Rh, Ag, Au, Pt, Pd, Os, and Ir, and the claim also recites preferably one or two selected from Ru and Au which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets that Claim 1 refers to one or two or more chemical elements selected from Ru, Rh, Ag, Au, Pt, Pd, Os, and Ir. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Regarding dependent claims 2-17, these claims does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation one or two or more chemical elements selected from Mn, Co, Fe, Al, Cu, Ni, Zn, Ti and La, and the claim also recites preferably one or two or more selected from Co, Fe and Mn which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets that Claim 2 refers to one or two or more chemical elements selected from Mn, Co, Fe, Al, Cu, Ni, Zn, Ti and La. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation wherein the energy radiation is at least one selected from light radiation and heat radiation, and the claim also recites preferably which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets that Claim 3 refers to wherein the energy radiation is at least one selected from light radiation and heat radiation. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 5 nm or less, and the claim also recites 1 nm or less which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Furthermore, claim 4, line 4, recites a phrase “most preferably the nano-base structure and the atomic site are in close contact with each other” (emphasis added). However, it is unclear what this phrase means, firstly what distance close contact is referring to, and secondly, whether this phrase is merely exemplary or a required feature.
The examiner interprets that Claim 4 refers to wherein a distance between the nano-base structure and the atomic sites is 5 nm or less. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5, line 2, recites a phrase “for example by physical manner or chemical manner”. It is unclear if the phrase is a required feature or merely an optional feature.
The examiner interprets that this feature refers to an optional feature. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation 50% of less, and the claim also recites preferably 0.01% to 30%, preferably 0.01% to 5%, more preferably 0.01% to 2%, most preferably 0.1% to 1% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the recited mass percentages are based on, i.e., based on a total weight of the composite catalyst, based on the hydrogen-containing source, etc.
The examiner interprets claim 6 refers to wherein a mass percentage of the atomic sites and the nano-base structure is 50% or less, based on the hydrogen-containing source. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation wherein the atomic sites are loaded on surface, internal pores of the nano-base structure, or distributed in internal crystal lattices of the nano-base structure, and the claim also recites preferably respective atomic sites are dispersed uniformly, and internals between respective atomic sites are 0.2-500 nm, preferably 1-50 nm, more preferably 1-10 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 7 refers to wherein the atomic sites are loaded on surface, internal pores of the nano-base structure, or distributed in internal crystal lattices of the nano-base structure. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation wherein, and the claim also recites preferably the metal-organic frameworks, TiO2, Al2O3 or CeO2 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 8 refers to wherein the nano-base structure is selected from a group consisting of Mn, Co, Ce, Fe, Al, Ca, Ce, Cu, Ni, Ti, Zn, Si, Mo, Bi, V, C, N and oxides, nitrides, sulfites, carbides, hydroxides, chlorides thereof and metal-organic frameworks (MOF). Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation 1 nm to about 1000 nm, and the claim also recites preferably about 70 nm to about 1000 nm, about 100 nm to about 800 nm, about 200 nm to about 500 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 10 refers to wherein the nano-base structure . Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation 1 nm to about 3000 nm, and the claim also recites preferably is about 100 nm to about 3000 nm, about 500 nm to about 2500 nm, or about 1000 nm to about 2000 nm in length, and/or about 1 nm to about 1000 nm, about 70 nm to about 1000 nm, about 100 nm to about 800 nm, or about 200 nm to about 500 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 11 refers to herein the nano-base structure each independently is about 1 nm to about 3000 nm in length, width or height. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
Furthermore, claim 11 recites the broad recitation an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 20, and the claim also recites preferably an aspect ratio of about 1to about 10, or about 2 to about 8 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 11 refers to an aspect ratio of about 1 to about 20. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation wherein a plurality of the atomic sites are arranged in a patterned configuration, and the claim also recites preferably in a plurality of layers, on the nano-base structure which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 13 refers to wherein a plurality of the atomic sites are arranged in a patterned configuration. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation a temperature between about 20, and the claim also recites preferably about 50˚C to about 300˚C, about 70˚C to about 250˚C, about 90˚C to about 200˚C, about 100˚C to about 200˚C, about 100˚C to about 180˚C, about 110˚C to about 160˚C, about 120˚C to about 150˚C, about 130˚C to about 150˚C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 14 refers to a temperature between about 20. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation wherein light radiation power of the light radiation is 200-1500 W/m, and the claim also recites preferably 200-1000 W/m which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 15 refers to wherein light radiation power of the light radiation is 200-1500 W/m. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation wherein temperatures of the composite catalyst and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light radiation, and the claim also recites preferably the light radiation is the sole source for raising the temperatures which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The examiner interprets claim 16 refers to wherein temperatures of the composite catalyst and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light radiation. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation wherein the hydrogen-containing source is selected from a group consisting of water, saturated alcohols, carboxylic acids, phenols and any combination thereof, and the claim also recites preferably water which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7- 8, 10-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al., CN 110327920A (Wang).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Wang et al., CN 110327920A (Wang). The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation, except that Figure(s) refers to Figures included in the original patent publication of Wang.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8 and 17, Wang discloses a single-atom catalyst and application thereof, with visible light response, good visible light response, good photo-catalytic activity, especially catalytic water splitting hydrogen production (i.e., photo-catalytic water splitting for hydrogen production, reading upon a method for producing hydrogen by means of energy radiation, and water reads upon at least one hydrogen-containing source).
During the photo-catalytic water splitting for hydrogen production, the single-atom catalyst and water would necessarily be subjected to light to produce hydrogen.
Wang further discloses single atom Au (reading upon at least one atomic sites) loaded on titanium dioxide as the single atom catalyst (Wang, page 2, 5th paragraph from bottom); the titanium dioxide is a titanium dioxide nano-material (reading upon at least one nano-base structure) (Wang, page 3, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7, as applied to claim 1, Wang further discloses forming new chemical bond to Ti-Au-Ti (Wang, page 3, 4th paragraph), reading upon wherein the atomic sites are bonded with the nano-base structure and wherein a distance between the nano-base structure and the atomic sites is 5 nm or less, and wherein the atomic sites are loaded on surface, internal pores of the nano-base structure, or distributed in internal crystal lattices of the nano-base structure.
Regarding claims 10-12, Wang further discloses the titanium dioxide is titanium dioxide nanosheet (Wang, page 5, bottom paragraph); Figure 2 shows that the titanium dioxide nanosheet has a width or length of 20-50 nm (Wang, Figure 2), which is within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, given that Wang discloses that the single atom catalyst Au/TiO2 is prepared by deposition-precipitation method (Wang, page 5, bottom two paragraphs), therefore, the single atom Au would necessarily be either arranged in a patterned configuration or dispersed randomly in and/or on a surface of TiO2.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barrios et al., Photocatalytic hydrogen production over titania modified by gold – metal (palladium, nickel and cobalt) catalysts, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016 (Barrios).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Wang does not explicitly disclose the atomic sites further comprises one or two or more chemical elements selected from Mn, Co, Fe, Al, Cu, Ni, Zn, Ti and La.
With respect to the difference, Barrios teaches photocatalytic production of hydrogen on modified Au/TiO2 based photocatalyst (Barrios, Abstract). Barrios specifically teaches Au-Ni/TiO2 and Au-Co/TiO2 catalysts (Barrios, Abstract).
As Barrios expressly teaches, nickel and cobalt oxides worked as promoters (with additives effects) because of the formation of a p-n heterojunction (Barrios, Abstract); Au could be partially replaced with Ni or Co, acting as promoting co-catalysts to reduce the final cost of the photocatalyst if Au was replaced with less expensive metals as Co or Ni (Barrios, page 23299, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Barrios is analogous art as Barrios is drawn to teaches photocatalytic production of hydrogen on modified Au/TiO2 based photocatalyst.
In light of the motivation of including nickel and cobalt in Au/TiO2 based catalyst for catalytic production of hydrogen, as taught by Barrios, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include Ni or Co in the single atom Au/TiO2 catalyst of Wang for catalytic splitting of water for hydrogen production, in order to reduce the final coast and also achieve additive effects, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silva et al., Influence of excitation wavelength on the photocatalytic activity of titania containing gold nanoparticles for the generation of hydrogen or oxygen from water, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011 (Silva).
Regarding claims 6, and 14, as applied to claim 1, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein a mass percentage of the atomic sites and the nano-base structure is 50% or less; or wherein the energy radiation allows the reaction progresses at a temperature between about 20˚C to about 500˚C.
With respect to the difference, Silva teaches gold nanoparticles supported on TiO2 for photocatalytic water splitting (Silva, Abstract). Silva specifically teaches in photocatalytic tests, 45 mg of Au/TiO2 was dispersed in 22.5 ml of water/methanol solution, with H2O:methanol of 3:1 v/v%, (Silva, page 597, left column, 1st paragraph).
Silva is analogous art as Silva is drawn to gold nanoparticles supported on TiO2 for photocatalytic water splitting.
In light of the disclosure of Silva how photocatalytic test of Au/TiO2 based catalyst for water splitting, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct photocatalytic test of the single atom Au/TiO2 catalyst of Wang, e.g., by using 45 mg of single atom Au/TiO2 catalyst dispersed in 22.5 ml of water/methanol solution, with H2O:methanol of 3:1 v/v%, which reads upon a mass percentage of the atomic sites and the nano-base structure is 50% or less, (wherein water/methanol solution reads upon the at least one hydrogen-containing source), and achieve excepted results, thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Silva teaches in photocatalytic tests, the formation of hydrogen was confirmed operating at isothermal conditions (50 ˚C).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Silva.
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 3, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein temperatures of the composite catalyst and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light radiation.
With respect to the difference, Silva teaches gold nanoparticles supported on TiO2 for photocatalytic water splitting (Silva, Abstract). Silva specifically teaches the stationary temperature was lower than 38˚C (Silva, page 597, left column, 1st paragraph), i.e. the temperature of the Au/TiO2 catalyst and the water/methanol solution is raised from room temperature.
Silva is analogous art as Silva is drawn to gold nanoparticles supported on TiO2 for photocatalytic water splitting.
In light of the disclosure of Silva how photocatalytic test of Au/TiO2 based catalyst for water splitting, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to conduct photocatalytic test of the single atom Au/TiO2 catalyst of Wang, e.g., the stationary temperature was lower than 38˚C (Silva, page 597, left column, 1st paragraph), i.e. the temperature of the Au/TiO2 catalyst and the water/methanol solution is raised from room temperature, and achieve excepted results, thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Alternatively, given that Wang in view of Silva teaches an identical or essentially identical process, i.e., photocatalytic water splitting, using identical and substantially identical catalyst, i.e., Au/TiO2, with those of the present inventions, therefore, Wang in view of Silva would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitation of wherein temperatures of the composite catalyst and the hydrogen-containing source are raised by the light radiation.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Primo et al., Efficient visible-light photocatalytic water splitting by minute amounts of gold supported on nanoparticle CeO2 obtained by a biopolymer templating method, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2011 (Primo).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the composite catalyst is a catalyst in which Ru and Co are loaded on or bonded to TiO2, a catalyst in which Ru is loaded on or bonded to A12O3, a catalyst in which Au is loaded on or bonded to A12O3, or a catalyst in which Au is loaded on or bonded to CeO2.
With respect to the difference, Primo teaches photocatalytic water splitting by supported gold catalyst (Primo, Title and Abstract). Primo specifically teaches Au/CeO2 catalyst (i..e, Au loaded on CeO2) (Rrimo, page 6932, Scheme 2).
As Primo expressly teaches, there is unprecedented photocatalytic activity of ceria nanoparticles and the ceria samples containing gold under visible light irradiation outperform the photocatalytic activity of a benchmark material under UV irradiation (Primo, page 6932, right column, bottom paragraph).
Primo is analogous art as Primo is drawn to photocatalytic water splitting by supported gold catalyst.
In light of the motivation of using Au/CeO2 catalyst (i..e, Au loaded on CeO2) for photocatalytic water splitting, as taught by Primo, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use CeO2, instead of Al2O3, in the atomic Au/Al2O3 catalyst of Wang, in order to achieve improved photocatalytic activity for water splitting, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bell et al., Light intensity effects on photocatalytic water splitting with a titania catalyst, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2013 (Bell).
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 1, Wang discloses a single-atom catalyst and application thereof, with visible light response, good visible light response, good photo-catalytic activity, especially catalytic water splitting hydrogen production (i.e., photo-catalytic water splitting for hydrogen production, reading upon wherein the reaction is initiated by utilizing light radiation or heat radiation, and the reaction is continued to progress by utilizing light radiation or heat radiation).
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein light radiation power of the light radiation is 200-1500 W/m2.
With respect to the difference, Bell teaches photocatalytic water splitting (Bell, Abstract). Bell specifically teaches the effect of light intensity on photocatalytic water splitting (Bell, Abstract).
As Bell expressly teaches, light intensity is an important parameter for system design (i.e., of photocatalytic water splitting), and light intensities up to 52 suns does not saturate the photocatalyst (Bell, page 6946, Conclusion).
Bell is analogous art as Bell is drawn to photocatalytic water splitting.
In light of the motivation of varying the light intensity for photocatalytic water splitting, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the light intensity for the photocatalytic water splitting of Wang, in order to achieve desired process performance.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of light radiation powder as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of light intensity (i.e., light radiation power), including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired process performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732