DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-26 are pending in the instant application.
Priority
This application is a U.S. national stage entry under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/US2022/039128, filed August 2, 2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application Serial No. 63/228,467 filed August 2, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 11/24/2025, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e. claims 1-12) in the reply filed by Applicant’s representative G. Christopher Braidwood on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 13-26 are withdrawn from further consideration by Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions under 37 CFR 1.142(b) due to the restriction requirement. Claims 1-12 are under examination on the merits.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan et al., ACS Energy Letters, (2018), v.3, p.2230-2231, in view of Kibria et al., Nature Communications, (2015), p1-8 (Published Apr 9, 2015) (“Kibria-1”), Kibria et al ACS Nano (2013) 7(9) p7886-7893 (“Kibria-2”), and of WO2020/039205 A1 (“the `205 publication”) to R. Chiverton.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method of promoting a chemical reaction, the method comprising: immersing a device in a solution contained in a reaction chamber, the device comprising a substrate and a plurality of conductive projections supported by the substrate, each conductive projection of the plurality of conductive projections having a semiconductor composition; irradiating the device to drive the chemical reaction; and controlling a temperature of the solution contained in the reaction chamber such that the temperature is maintained in a temperature range closer to a boiling temperature of the solution than a freezing temperature of the solution.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Guan et al. discloses a method for making a photosynthesis device for splitting water (H2O) into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) comprising: immersing a device in a solution contained in a reaction chamber, the device comprising a substrate and a plurality of conductive projections supported by the substrate, each conductive projection of the plurality of conductive projections having a semiconductor composition; irradiating the device to drive the chemical reaction (see “Photocatalytic overall water splitting”, p.3 of “Supplementary Methods”), wherein the reaction chamber is a Pyrex chamber, the device of GaN/InGaN nanowire is supported on a silica water and the GaN/InGaN nanowire is loaded with Rh/Cr2O3 and CO3O4 nanoparticles (see Figure 1, at p.2231), the GaN/InGaN nanowire is a semiconductor composition, and irradiating the device with a 300W Xenon lamp equipped with AM1.5G filter as an outer irradiation source.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Guan et al. is silent on the step of controlling temperature of the solution contained in the reaction chamber such that the temperature is maintained in a temperature range closer to a boiling temperature of the solution than a freezing temperature of the solution.
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, Guan et al. does teach the water splitting reaction was performed using a 300W Xenon lamp equipped with AM1.5G filter as an outer irradiation source. One ordinary skilled in art would have known that such irradiation would have raised the temperature of water splitting reaction further in view of the system’s enhanced water splitting efficiency at ~14%, see right column at p.2230.
In addition, Kibria-1 discloses the same process of water splitting reaction using the same device for producing hydrogen at around 45 °C (see “Photocatalytic reaction” at p.7). Furthermore, Kibria-2 teaches performing the same photocatalytic reaction with the temperature of the reaction chamber was kept constant with a water bath (see “Photocatalytic reaction and Quantum Measurement” at p.7892).
One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to try various reaction temperatures less than boiling temperature of water solution with a water bath in order to optimize the performance of the hydrogen production through the water splitting maintaining the temperature range closer to a boiling temperature of the solution than a freezing temperature of the solution. Therefore, Guan et al. in view of Kibria-1 and Kibria-2 would have rendered claims 1-3 obvious.
In terms of claim 4 wherein controlling the temperature comprises focusing solar radiation, Guan et al. teaches irradiating the device with a 300W Xenon lamp equipped with AM1.5G filter as an outer irradiation source, which is a simulated solar radiation in light of Applicant’s specification [0035].
In terms of claim 5 wherein controlling the temperature comprises disposing of a support stand on which the device rests in a focal plane of a lens device, see Figure 1 of the `205 publication.
In terms of claim 6 wherein controlling the temperature comprises circulating heated water into the reaction chamber, it would be a very common method for maintaining reactor’s temperature as being suggested by the `205 publication (p.15, ln.8; and p.17, ln.23). It would have been obvious in view of the disclosures of Guan et al. in view of Kibria-1, Kibria-2, and the `205 publication.
In terms of claim 7 wherein controlling the temperature comprises implementing a thermal energy transfer procedure, Kibria-2 teaches performing the same photocatalytic reaction with the temperature of the reaction chamber was kept constant with a water bath (see “Photocatalytic Reaction and Quantum Measurement” at p.7892), wherein using a water bath implementing a thermal energy transfer procedure.
In terms of claim 8 wherein the reaction chamber is thermally insulated, the `205 publication (p.14, ln.20) teaches maximize the insulating ability of the heat reflector in the reaction chamber.
In terms of claims 9-10, Kibria-1 discloses the process of water splitting reaction using the same device for producing hydrogen at around 45 °C (see “Photocatalytic reaction” at p.7). Furthermore, Kibria-2 teaches performing the same photocatalytic reaction with the temperature of the reaction chamber was kept constant with a water bath (see “Photocatalytic reaction and Quantum Measurement” at p.7892). One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to try various reaction temperatures less than boiling temperature of water solution with a water bath in order to optimize the performance of the hydrogen production through the water splitting maintaining the temperature range closer to a boiling temperature of the solution than a freezing temperature of the solution. Therefore, Guan et al. in view of Kibria-1 and Kibria-2 would have rendered claims 9-10 obvious.
In terms of claim 11 wherein each conductive projection of the plurality of conductive projections comprises a nanowire; and the semiconductor composition comprises indium gallium nitride doped with magnesium, see Figure 3 at p.4 of Kibria-1.
In terms of claim 12 wherein the device further comprises first and second pluralities of catalyst nanoparticles disposed over each conductive projection of the plurality of conductive projections; each catalyst nanoparticle of the first plurality of catalyst nanoparticles comprises cobalt oxide; each catalyst nanoparticle of the second plurality of catalyst nanoparticles comprises a core and shell surrounding the Rh core; and the core comprises rhodium (Rh) core and the shell comprises chromium oxide, Guan et al. discloses a method for making a photosynthesis device for splitting water (H2O) into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen (H2) comprising: immersing a device in a solution contained in a reaction chamber, the device comprising a substrate and a plurality of conductive projections supported by the substrate, each conductive projection of the plurality of conductive projections having a semiconductor composition; irradiating the device to drive the chemical reaction (see “Photocatalytic overall water splitting”, p.3 of “Supplementary Methods”), wherein the reaction chamber is a Pyrex chamber, the device of GaN/InGaN nanowire is supported on a silica water and the GaN/InGaN nanowire is loaded with Rh/Cr2O3 and CO3O4 nanoparticles (see Figure 1, at p.2231), the GaN/InGaN nanowire is a semiconductor composition, and irradiating the device with a 300W Xenon lamp equipped with AM1.5G filter as an outer irradiation source.
Conclusions
Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Claims 13-26 are withdrawn.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights