DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 08 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not demonstrated distinctness of the groups nor demonstrated an undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because the three different inventions are in three different statutory classes and fall under 3 different classifications as indicated on pg. 2 of Restriction Requirement dated 07 October 2025 support an undue search burden.
Pertaining to the comparisons of Invention I (Claims 1-9, a product) and Invention III (Claims 19-20, a process of using the product), atom vacancies (e.g.: oxygen-vacancies) are well known modifications made in the art to change the reactivity and/or catalytic activity of perovskites. Therefore, further support for the distinctness of Invention I and Invention III has been presented. are further supported.
Inventions II (Claims 10-18) and Invention III (Claims 19-20) are both processes. As indicated on pg. 3 of the Restriction Requirement, Group II is a method of making while Group III is a method of using an electrode. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al.
Mousavi et al. (“Novel visible-light responsive Black-TiO2/CoTiO3 Z-scheme heterojunction photocatalyst with efficient photochemical performance for the degradation of different organic dyes and tetracycline,” J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2021, 121, 168-183) is directed toward a photocatalyst (pg. 168: title and abstract. Xu et al. (“Self-assembled CoTiO3 nanorods with controllable oxygen vacancies for efficient photochemical reduction of CO2 to CO,” Catal. Sci. Technol. 2020, 10¸2040-2046) is directed toward controlled oxygen vacancies in Perovskite photocatalysts (pg. 2040: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. are both directed toward photocatalysts comprised of CoTiO3 meaning that both references belong to the same art field.
Mousavi et al. explicitly discloses a composite material comprised of Black-TiO2 and CoTiO3 (pg. 169: Section 2. Experimental). This composite was applied to a transparent substrate (i.e.: fluorine-doped tin oxide, “FTO”) when the electrochemistry was characterized (pg. 170: 2.5. Electrochemical measurements) to form an electrode. SEM imaging of the composite materials indicates that the material is nanostructured with nanoplates with an average size of ~25 nm (pg. 171: Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b). The composite material of Mousavi et al. was characterized by XRD with the spectrum in Fig. 1 (pg. 170) illustrating evidence of a diffraction peak that matches the (101) phase of anatase (i.e.: black TiO2) and a diffraction peak that matches the (104) atomic plane of CoTiO3 (pg. 170-171: Results and Discussion). On pg. 171 in Fig. 2c, Mousavi et al. further indicates that the lattice spacing for the (101) plane of B-TiO2 is 0.35 nm and the lattice spacing 0.25 nm in the (110) plane of CoTiO3, but is silent on the lattice spacing in the (104) plane of CoTiO3.
Xu et al. discloses assembly of nanostructured CoTiO3 with oxygen vacancies (“OV”) for photocatalysis (pg. 2040: title), which is prepared by NaBH4 reduction of the pristine CoTiO3 powder (pg. 2041: 2.2 Preparation of OV-CoTiO3). Xu et al. further discloses the CoTiO3 compound is a defective perovskite nanostructure (DPNSs) because of the presence of oxygen vacancies in the CoTiO3 (pg. 2040: Introduction section where oxygen vacancies or defects are highlighted) and the nanometer size of the CoTiO3 material (pg. 2042: Fig. 2). The OV-material of Xu et al. was characterized by XRD in Fig. 2b and Fig. 2f showing the same (110) plane spacing as Mousavi et al. (i.e.: 0.25 nm) and Xu et al. further shows the (104) plane spacing was 0.27 nm (pg. 2043: Fig. 2g). The OV-material has increased catalytic activity over the pristine material as per the abstract of Xu et al. (pg. 2040).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify TiO2/CoTiO3 composite of Mousavi et al. with the oxygen vacant CoTiO3 of Xu et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a more active catalysts due to the presence of the oxygen vacancies which- improve reactant binding and activation (Xu et al. pg. 2040-2041: Introduction).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses examples that fall within the claimed range (i.e.: particle size and interplanar spacing) of the instant application. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1, wherein the transparent substrate is a glass substrate and wherein the glass substrate is fluorine-doped tin oxide (Mousavi et al. on pg. 170: 2.5. Electrochemical measurements).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1, wherein the nanostructured material has a formula ATiO3-x, wherein: A is Co as evidenced by the formation of CoTiO3 with oxygen vacancies in Xu et al. (analogous to ATiO3-x of the instant application) described on pg. 2041 in section 2.2 Preparation of OV-CoTiO3. The substoichiometric or oxygen vacancies of the OV-material of Xu et al. indicate that x falls between 0 and 3 as required by Claim 4. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses examples that fall within the claimed range (i.e.: ATiO3-x stoichiometry) of the instant application. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1, wherein the nanostructured material is CoTiO3-x since the substoichiometric or oxygen vacancies of the OV-material of Xu et al. indicate that x falls between 0 and 3 as required by Claim 5. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses examples that fall within the claimed range (i.e.: CoTiO3-x stoichiometry) of the instant application. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1. However, the combination of references is silent on the overpotential of the electrode in acidic media. In ¶15, ¶103, ¶119 of the instant application cited as (US Pub. No. 2024/0352604 A1), a preferred embodiment of a CoTiO3-x electrode (i.e.: Claim 1) has an overpotential of 0.2 to 0.5 volts (V) in an acidic medium at a current density of 5 to 20 milliamperes per square centimeter (mA/cm−2). Therefore, the CoTiO3-x nanostructured electrode of Claim 1 taught by Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. would inherently have an overpotential of 0.2 to 0.5 volts (V) in an acidic medium at a current density of 5 to 20 milliamperes per square centimeter (mA/cm−2), as evidenced by, at least, the Applicant’s own disclosure (¶15, 103, and 119). See MPEP 2112-III.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1. However, the combination of references is silent on the double layer capacitance of the electrode in acidic media. In ¶16, ¶103, ¶119 of the instant application cited as (US Pub. No. 2024/0352604 A1), a preferred embodiment of a CoTiO3-x electrode (i.e.: Claim 1) has a double-layer capacitance of 200 to 280 microfarads per square centimeter (μF/cm2) in an acidic medium at an overpotential of 0.352 volts reversible hydrogen electrode (VRHE). Therefore, the CoTiO3-x nanostructured electrode of Claim 1 taught by Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. would inherently have a double-layer capacitance of 200 to 280 microfarads per square centimeter (μF/cm2) in an acidic medium at an overpotential of 0.352 volts reversible hydrogen electrode (VRHE), as evidenced by, at least, the Applicant’s own disclosure (¶16, 103, and 119). See MPEP 2112-III.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1. However, the combination of references is silent on active surface area of the electrode in acidic media. In ¶17, ¶103, ¶119 of the instant application cited as (US Pub. No. 2024/0352604 A1), a preferred embodiment of a CoTiO3-x electrode (i.e.: Claim 1) has an active surface area of 4 to 10 square centimeters (cm2) in an acidic medium at an overpotential of 0.352 VRHE. Therefore, the CoTiO3-x nanostructured electrode of Claim 1 taught by Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. would inherently have an active surface area of 4 to 10 square centimeters (cm2) in an acidic medium at an overpotential of 0.352 VRHE double-layer capacitance of 200 to 280 microfarads per square centimeter (μF/cm2) in an acidic medium at an overpotential of 0.352 VRHE, as evidenced by, at least, the Applicant’s own disclosure (¶17, 103, and 119). See MPEP 2112-III.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1. However, the combination of references is silent on Tafel slope of the electrode in acidic media. In ¶18, ¶103, ¶119 of the instant application cited as (US Pub. No. 2024/0352604 A1), a preferred embodiment of a CoTiO3-x electrode (i.e.: Claim 1) has a Tafel slope of 80 to 110 millivolts per decade (mV/decade) in an acidic medium at a scan rate of 5 to 20 millivolts per second (mV/s). Therefore, the CoTiO3-x nanostructured electrode of Claim 1 taught by Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. would inherently have a Tafel slope of 80 to 110 millivolts per decade (mV/decade) in an acidic medium at a scan rate of 5 to 20 millivolts per second (mV/s), as evidenced by, at least, the Applicant’s own disclosure (¶18, 103, and 119). See MPEP 2112-III.
5. Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cirocka et al.
Mousavi et al. (“Novel visible-light responsive Black-TiO2/CoTiO3 Z-scheme heterojunction photocatalyst with efficient photochemical performance for the degradation of different organic dyes and tetracycline,” J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2021, 121, 168-183) is directed toward a photocatalyst (pg. 168: title and abstract). Xu et al. (“Self-assembled CoTiO3 nanorods with controllable oxygen vacancies for efficient photochemical reduction of CO2 to CO,” Catal. Sci. Technol. 2020, 10¸2040-2046) is directed toward controlled oxygen vacancies in Perovskite photocatalysts (pg. 2040: title and abstract). Cirocka et al. (“Good Choice of Electrode Material as the Key to Creating Electrochemical Sensors—Characteristics of Carbon Materials and Transparent Conductive Oxides (TCO), Materials 2021, 14, article 4743, pg. 1-15) is directed toward electrode selection (pg. 1: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. disclose the electrode of Claim 1, where the transparent substrate is FTO. The combination of references does not disclose the use of a glassy carbon substrate, but the use of said material would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Cirocka et al. is directed toward electrode selection among different transparent materials (pg. 1: title). Cirocka et al. indicates that FTO electrodes generally has similar properties to glassy carbon electrodes. On pg. 5 in Fig. 1, Cirocka et al. indicates that the electrochemical stability of FTO and glassy carbon are nearly identical in 0.5 M Na2SO4. Additionally, both electrode materials display similar reversible redox behaviors using the model ferrocyanide/ferricyanide system (Cirocka et al. on pg. 12). The surface energy and contact angle measurements for FTO and glassy carbon are very similar indicating that interactions at the surface of the electrode with liquid electrolytes would be very similar (pg. 10: Table 3 and Fig. 5. Finally, glassy carbon electrodes are generally less expensive than FTO electrodes.
Given the similarities in the properties of the FTO and glassy carbon electrodes as described by Cirocka et al., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute glassy carbon for FTO as the transparent substrate in the electrode of Mousavi et al. and Xu et al. with the reasonable expectation of having similar physical, chemical, and electrochemical properties,
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakuri et al. (“X-ray Diffraction Imaging of Anatase and Rutile,” Anal. Chem. 2010, 82, 3519-3522) discloses the XRD patterns of crystal forms of titanium dioxide (title). Beissenov et al. (“Fabrication of 3D porous CoTiO3 photocatalysis for hydrogen evolution application: Preparation and properties study,” Mater. Sci. Semicond. Process. 2021, 121, article 105360, pg. 1-6) is drawn towards a photocatalytic HER electrode (pg. 1: title). Fan et al. (“Enhanced electrocatalytic nitrate reduction to ammonia using plasma induced oxygen vacancies in
CoTiO3-x nanofiber,” Carbon Neutralization 2022, 1, 6-13) is directed toward a nitrate reduction electrocatalyst (pg. 6: title and abstract). Tao et al. (“Porous CoTiO3 with highly surface defects as effective sensing materials for ethanol detection,” J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron. 2020, 31, 9919-9927) is drawn toward ethanol detection using cobalt titanate (pg. 9919: title and abstract).
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
8. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794