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Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 June 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 17 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng (US20170175276A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a photoelectrode (i.e., BiVO4 electrodes [0143]) comprising a photoactive semiconductor (i.e., BiVO4 in Example 1 [0143]; inherently photoactive) and a plurality of plasmonic nanoparticles (i.e., Au nanoparticles [0140, 0143]).
Since Zheng discloses wherein the Au nanoparticles are directed deposited onto BiVO4 [0141], a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the Au nanoparticles to electrically communicate with the BiVO4 particles. Thus, the limitation of “plasmonic nanoparticles in electrical communication with the photoactive semiconductor” is considered met.
Zheng further discloses wherein each plasmonic nanoparticle having a largest cross-sectional dimension of 32 nm [0144], which falls within the claimed range of “about 200 nm or less”.
Zheng further discloses wherein each plasmonic nanoparticle can comprise particles of any shape such as a sphere, a rod, a quadrilateral, an ellipse, a triangle, a polygon, an anisotropic to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected shapes such as a triangle, quadrilateral, a polygon, and an anisotropic (i.e., having a plurality of points and/or edges), with a reasonable expectation to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083].
Regarding claim 2, Zheng discloses the photoelectrode of claim 1, wherein the photoactive semiconductor comprises BiVO4 in Example 1 [0143], which is a metal oxide.
Regarding claim 3, Zheng discloses the photoelectrode of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide is BiVO4 in Example 1 [0143], which is not titanium dioxide, as claimed. In this regard, Zheng further discloses wherein the semiconductor may be a metal oxide selected from the list comprising TiO2 and BiVO4[0087]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected TiO2 as an alternative semiconductor with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng disclose the photoelectrode of claim 1, wherein the photoelectrode comprises a plurality of semiconductor particles (i.e., BiVO4 in Example 1; [0143]), each semiconductor particle comprising the photoactive semiconductor (see Fig 4-9, 11 comprising only BiVO4 as the semiconductor particle).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng discloses the photoelectrode of claim 1. Zheng further discloses wherein the photoactive semiconductor may further comprise one or more dopants [0110]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have added one or more dopants in the semiconductor with a reasonable expectation to form a nanostructured semiconductor having a band gap with a conduction band [0077].
Regarding claim 6, Zheng discloses the photoelectrode of claim 1, wherein the plasmonic nanoparticles may have a shape selected from the list comprising polygon to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083], wherein the polygon shape would include claimed nanocubes and nanopyramids. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the polygon shaped plasmonic nanoparticles (e.g., nanocubes or nanopyramids) with a reasonable expectation to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083].
Regarding claim 7, Zheng discloses the photoelectrode of claim 1, wherein the plasmonic nanoparticles comprise gold (Example 1; [0143]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US20170175276A1), in view of Li (CN108447693, copy and translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Zheng discloses the photoelectrode of claim 1. However, Zheng does not disclose wherein the photoelectrode further comprises a photoactive dye.
In this regard, Li teaches a photoelectrode comprising TiO2 and nanoparticles (e.g., Ag) [Li 0025], wherein the photoelectrode is further coated with a photoactive dye (i.e., N-719 [Li 0039]), wherein the dyes capture photons from sunlight [Li 0027] to excite electrons in the photoelectrode. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added the photoactive dye N-719 with a reasonable expectation to better capture photons from sunlight to initiate chemical reaction in the photoelectrode [Li 0027].
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US20170175276A1), in view of McKone (US20170179558A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng discloses a redox flow battery (i.e., photoelectrochemical cell [0147]) comprising:
photoelectrode (i.e., BiVO4 electrodes [0143]) comprising a photoactive semiconductor (i.e., BiVO4 in Example 1 [0143]; inherently photoactive) and a plurality of plasmonic nanoparticles (i.e., Au nanoparticles [0140, 0143]).
Since Zheng discloses wherein the Au nanoparticles are deposited onto the BiVO4 electrode [0141], a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the Au nanoparticles to electrically communicate with the BiVO4 particles. Thus, the limitation of “plasmonic nanoparticles in electrical communication with the photoactive semiconductor” is considered met.
Zheng further discloses wherein each plasmonic nanoparticle having a largest cross-sectional dimension of 32 nm [0144], which falls within the claimed range of “about 200 nm or less”.
Zheng further discloses wherein each plasmonic nanoparticle can comprise particles of any shape such as a sphere, a rod, a quadrilateral, an ellipse, a triangle, a polygon, an anisotropic to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected shapes such as a triangle, quadrilateral, a polygon, and an anisotropic (i.e., having a plurality of points and/or edges), with a reasonable expectation to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083].
Zheng further discloses:
a second electrode (i.e., additional electrode [0124]; e.g., Pt cathode [0133]]);
Zheng in Example further discloses wherein the electrodes are in electrochemical contact with liquid samples comprising water [0124], but does not expressly disclose that the photoelectrochemical cell comprises an ion exchange membrane separating the photoelectrode and the second electrode, and further does not disclose wherein the liquid samples comprise a first redox couple configured for contact with the photoelectrode and a second redox couple configured for contact with the second electrode, as claimed.
In this regard, McKone also teaches a solar flow battery comprising a positive electrode in contact with a positive electrolyte containing a first redox active molecule, a negative electrode in contact with a negative electrolyte containing a second redox active molecule, and a separator that separates the positive and the negative electrolytes to prevent intermingling of the redox molecules in the positive and negative compartments while also permitting the passage of non-redox-active species between the positive and negative electrolyte solutions [McKone 0019].
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the solar flow battery of Zheng to includes the positive electrolyte containing a first redox active molecule, a negative electrolyte containing a second redox active molecule, and a separator, with a reasonable expectation to establish electrical communication between the positive and the negative electrodes via the electrolytes while preventing intermingling of the redox molecules via the separator [McKone 0019].
Regarding claim 10, Zheng discloses the redox flow battery of claim 9, further comprising a conductive substrate in electrical communication with the photoelectrode [Zheng 0110], wherein the substrate can comprise FTO glass [Zheng 0110], which a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as “a transparent current collector”.
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Zheng discloses the redox flow battery of claim 9, comprising the ion exchange membrane (modified in claim 9 rejection). McKone further teaches that the ion exchange membrane may be a cation-selective or anion-selective membrane [McKone 0020], which meets the claim limitation of “wherein the ion exchange membrane is a cation exchange membrane” {claim 11} and “wherein the ion exchange membrane is an anion exchange membrane” {claim 12}.
Regarding claim 13, modified Zheng discloses the redox flow batter of claim 9, wherein the metal oxide is BiVO4 in Example 1 [Zheng 0143], which is not titanium dioxide, as claimed.
In this regard, Zheng further discloses wherein the semiconductor may be a metal oxide selected from the list comprising TiO2 and BiVO4 [0087]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected TiO2 as an alternative semiconductor with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, modified Zheng discloses the redox flow battery of claim 9, wherein the plasmonic nanoparticles may have a shape selected from the list comprising polygon to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083], wherein the polygon shape would include claimed nanocubes and nanopyramids. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the polygon shaped plasmonic nanoparticles (e.g., nanocubes or nanopyramids) with a reasonable expectation to maximize the electromagnetic field enhancement [0082-0083].
Regarding claim 15, modified Zheng discloses the redox flow battery of claim 9, wherein the first redox couple and the second redox couple may be any of the inorganic redox active molecules used in conventional redox flow batteries (RFB) of the art, such as a metal halide compound (e.g., Zn/Br2) [0030], or an inorganic molecule or compound comprising at least one selected from the list comprising Zn, Fe, Cr [0030 McKone]. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected a metal halide compound such as Zn/Br2, or Zn/Fe, Fe/Cr as the first and second redox couple with a reasonable expectation to form redox active molecules.
Regarding claim 16, modified Zheng discloses the redox flow battery of claim 9, wherein the redox active molecule may include vanadium [McKone 0030]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected vanadium as the redox active molecule with a reasonable expectation to form a vanadium redox flow battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights