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Claims 14-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 March 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 23 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in KR on 5 August 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 20210016777 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in KR on 5 August 2022. The claim for priority cannot be based on said application because the subsequent nonprovisional or international application designating the United States was filed more than twelve months thereafter and no petition under 37 CFR 1.55 or request under PCT Rule 26bis.3 to restore the right of priority has been granted.
Applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the twelve-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority must include: (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m)(3); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the twelve-month period was unintentional. The petition to restore the right of priority must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 7 August 2023 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 3, "for 100-hour reaction" should read "for a 100-hour reaction".
Claim 12, line 4, “at a fix potential” should read “at a fixed potential”.
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 2-3 and 8-13 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.
Claim 2, lines 2-3, recite “the titanium oxide support can be a cubic crystal phase”. It is unclear if this limitation is required, as the phase “can be” appears to render the limitation optional. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the titanium oxide support exhibits a cubic crystal phase.
Claim 8, lines 2-3, recite “the metal hydroxide can be a metal layered double hydroxide (LDH) composite”. It is unclear if this limitation is required, as the phase “can be” appears to render the limitation optional. This limitation is interpreted as requiring the metal hydroxide is a metal layered double hydroxide (LDH) composite.
Claims 3 and 9-13 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo ("Reduced titania@layered double hydroxide hybrid photoanodes for enhanced photoelectrochemical water oxidation") in view of Antonio (US 2006/0078726) as evidenced by Otun (“Recent advances in the synthesis of various analogues of MOF-based nanomaterials: A mini-review”).
Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses LDH (layered double hydroxide) deposited onto reduced titania (aka Ti-TiO2-x) to produce hybrid composites Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoFe-LDH (pg. 11017, Col. 1, par. 3-4), such that the reduced titania meets the limitation of a titanium oxide support, and the CoAl-LDH, CoCr-LDH, and CoFe-LDH meets the limitation of a metal hydroxide supported on the titanium oxide support. Guo further discloses using the Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoFe-LDH co-catalysts for oxygen evolution reaction (OER) (Abstract; pg. 11022, Col. 2, par. 3; pg. 11023, Col. 2, par. 2-pg. 11024, Col. 1, par. 1; Fig. 9).
Guo is silent to the catalysts being porous, that is having a porous titanium oxide support satisfying TiO2-x (0.1≤x<2).
Guo, however, teaches photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting (pg. 11017, Col. 2, par. 1), wherein the LDH co-catalysts on the surface of the reduced titania photoanode efficiently improves its PEC properties (pg. 11022, Col. 2, par. 3).
Antonio discloses nanomaterials of TiO2-x, where 0≤x≤1 [0020]. Antonio further discusses the pore size of TiO2-x [0139], such that the titanium oxide is porous, and therefore would necessarily form a porous catalyst. Antonio further discloses the TiO2-x is thermally stable with potential applications as catalyst supports [0139]. Specifically, Antonio discloses the nanomaterials are useful as photocatalysts in photoelectric cells [0022].
Regarding the value of x in claim 1, it appears that 0≤x≤1 taught by Antonio overlaps the claimed range of 0.1≤x<2 such that the range taught by Antonio obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding the value for x in TiO2-x, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary amounts for x used in titanium oxide photoelectrochemical catalyst supports. Antonio provides this teaching of nanomaterials of TiO2-x, where 0≤x≤1 [0020] for use as photocatalysts in photoelectric cells [0022]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a porous catalyst of LDH deposited on porous reduced titania of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the oxygen deficiency, represented by the variable x, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Antonio, in order to form a conventional porous catalyst of LDH deposited on porous reduced titania using known and tested oxygen deficiencies for titanium oxide, represented by x, predictably suitable for photoelectrochemical water splitting.
Regarding Claim 4, Antonio discloses nanomaterials of TiO2-x, where 0≤x≤1 [0020], which overlaps the claimed range of 0.7≤x<1.3 such that the range taught by Antonio obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, Guo discloses the LDH is loaded on the Ti-TiO2-x support (pg. 11018, Col. 1, par. 1).
Guo is silent to the metal hydroxide being plate-shaped.
Guo, however, discloses a very thin (no more than 10nm) overlayer on bare Ti–TiO2 x photoanodes for Ti–TiO2-x@CoAl–LDH-40s, Ti–TiO2-x@CoCr–LDH-40s and Ti–TiO2-x@CoFe–LDH-40s (pg. 11018, Col. 1, par. 1).
The Specification of the present application states the plate-shape may refer to a two-dimensional structure including a nanosheet.
Otun discloses a nanosheet is a 2D nanostructure with a thickness on a scale of 1-100 nm (pg. 5, Col. 1, par. 4), such that the very thin (no more than 10 nm) LDH overlayer of Guo meets the limitation of a nanosheet, and therefore meets the limitation wherein the metal hydroxide is plate shaped.
Regarding Claim 6, Guo discloses LDH deposited onto reduced titania to produce hybrid composites Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoFe-LDH (pg. 11017, Col. 1, par. 3-4). The hybrid composites contain a hydroxide of Co and Fe, which are divalent metals.
Regarding Claim 7, Guo discloses LDH deposited onto reduced titania to produce hybrid composites Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoFe-LDH (pg. 11017, Col. 1, par. 3-4). The hybrid composites contain a hydroxide of Co and Fe, which are divalent metals.
Regarding Claim 8, Guo discloses LDH deposited onto reduced titania to produce hybrid composites Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoFe-LDH (pg. 11017, Col. 1, par. 3-4), such that the metal hydroxide is a metal layered double hydroxide composite.
Regarding Claim 9, Guo discloses LDH deposited onto reduced titania to produce hybrid composites Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH, Ti-TiO2-x@CoFe-LDH (pg. 11017, Col. 1, par. 3-4). The hybrid composites contain a hydroxide of Co and Fe, which are divalent metals, and a hydroxide of aluminum and chromium, which are trivalent metals, such that the metal layered double hydroxide composites Ti-TiO2-x@CoAl-LDH and Ti-TiO2-x@CoCr-LDH contain a divalent metal and a trivalent metal.
Regarding Claim 10, Guo discloses the loading amount of LDH on Ti-TiO2-x was controlled by electrodeposition time (pg. 11018, Col. 1, par. 1). Guo further discloses the current density of the bare reduced titania photoanode is 0.65 mA cm-2 (pg. 11019, Col. 2, par. 2). After electrodeposition for 20 s and 40 s, the current densities of the fabricated hybrid photoanodes of Ti–TiO2-x@CoCr–LDH-20s and Ti–TiO2-x@CoCr–LDH-40s rise to 0.76 mA cm2 and 0.93 mA cm-2, respectively (pg. 11019, Col. 2, par. 2). However, in the presence of a thicker LDH shell (Ti–TiO2-x@CoCr–LDH-300s), the photoresponse becomes much weaker compared with the Ti–TiO2-x photoanode below 1.1 V (vs. the RHE), which is ascribed to the decreased light absorption efficiency of reduced titania with the shielding effect of LDH, which indicates that a moderate deposition of LDH can enhance the PEC performance (pg. 11019, Col. 2, par. 2).
As the PEC performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of the divalent metal and the trivalent metal in the catalyst, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of the divalent metal and the trivalent metal in the catalyst to obtain the desired PEC performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo ("Reduced titania@layered double hydroxide hybrid photoanodes for enhanced photoelectrochemical water oxidation") in view of Antonio (US 2006/0078726) and Kornbluth (US 2020/0212455).
Regarding Claim 2, Guo and Antonio teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Guo teaches a higher donor density is beneficial for electronic conductivity within the photoanode, which can also greatly improve the efficiency of photo-generated electron hole pair separation and transport (pg. 11023, Col. 1, par. 2), such that Guo desires a catalyst with a high electrical conductivity.
Guo is silent to the titanium oxide support exhibiting a cubic crystal phase.
Kornbluth discloses an anticorrosive and conductive substrate including a magnesium titanium material having a formula TixMg1-xOy, where x is a number from 0 to ≤1 and y is a number from 1 to ≤2 (Abstract). Kornbluth further discloses the TiO has a cubic crystal structure [0003]. Kornbluth further discloses TiO2 does not have a cubic crystal structure [0035] and is unconducive and insulating [0035], that is, having low electrical conductivity, whereas TiO is electrically conductive [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to incorporate the teachings of Kornbluth, wherein the titanium oxide support exhibits a cubic crystal phase, because cubic crystal TiO has a higher electrical conductivity compared to TiO2, which does not have a cubic crystal structure, as recognized by Kornbluth [0035].
Regarding Claim 3, Guo discloses reduced titanium oxide has an enhanced donor density (pg. 11016, Col. 2, par. 1), and a higher donor density is beneficial for electronic conductivity within the photoanode, which can also greatly improve the efficiency of photo-generated electron hole pair separation and transport (pg. 11023, Col. 1, par. 2). Guo discloses the photo-generated holes can conveniently migrate from the VB of titania to that of each LDH, and this accelerated migration of holes can improve the oxygen evolution efficiency. This fast transport of holes can also facilitate the charge separation transportation, and thus suppress the charge recombination (pg. 11023, Col. 2, par. 2).
Guo is silent to an electrical conductivity of the titanium oxide support at a pressure of 20 MPa is 2 to 10 S/cm.
Kornbluth discloses TiO2 does not have a cubic crystal structure [0035] and is unconducive and insulating [0035], that is, having low electrical conductivity, whereas TiO is electrically conductive [0003]. Kornbluth further discloses a higher amount of Ti may increase the overall conductivity of the material (which corresponds with the oxygen deficient TiO having a higher electrical conductivity vs oxidized TiO2 [0035]), but at the same time, stability of the material may be lowered [0038].
As the oxygen evolution efficiency and catalyst stability are variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the electrical conductivity of the titanium oxide (by adjusting the amount of Ti/oxygen deficiency in the titanium oxide support), the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Ti/oxygen deficiencies in the titanium oxide support, thereby optimizing the electrical conductivity in the titanium oxide support to obtain the desired oxygen evolution efficiency and catalyst stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo ("Reduced titania@layered double hydroxide hybrid photoanodes for enhanced photoelectrochemical water oxidation") in view of Antonio (US 2006/0078726) and Zhao (“Layered Double Hydroxide Nanostructured Photocatalysts for Renewable Energy Production”).
Regarding Claim 11, Guo and Antonio teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Guo is silent to an atomic ratio of the divalent metal : the trivalent metal contained in the catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction is 1:0.01 to 0.5.
Zhao discloses LDH-based photocatalysts for renewable energy applications including water splitting (Abstract). Zhao further discloses the atomic ratio of divalent and tri/tetravalent metal ions in LDH materials can be varied over a wide range from 1:1 to 5:1 without changing the layer structure (pg. 11, Col. 1, par. 1), which is equivalent to 1:0.2 to 1, which overlaps the claimed range of 1:0.01 to 0.5 such that the range taught by Zhao obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo to incorporate the teachings of Zhao wherein an atomic ratio of the divalent metal : the trivalent metal contained in the catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction is 1:0.01 to 0.5, because an atomic ratio of the divalent metal : the trivalent metal of 1:0.01 to 0.5 is a process parameter well-known in the art of LDH-based photocatalyst for water splitting as taught by Zhao.
Regarding Claim 12, Guo is silent to the catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction maintains catalytic performance of 90% or more for a 100-hour reaction at a fixed potential and after an accelerated degradation test (ADT) of 30000 cycles.
However, Guo in view of Antonio and Zhao teaches the catalyst of claim 11 such that having a catalytic performance of 90% or more for a 100-hour reaction at a fixed potential and after an accelerated degradation test (ADT) of 30000 cycles is necessarily present.
Alternatively, Guo discloses the decrease of the band gap is beneficial for PEC performance (pg. 11019, Col. 1, par. 1), a moderate deposition of LDH can enhance the PEC performance (pg. 11019, Col. 2, par. 2), the different kinds of LDHs had different current densities for PEC water oxidation (pg. 11021, Col. 1, par. 1), the hybrid photoanodes integrated with Cr-based LDHs have a much higher PEC performance toward water oxidation (pg. 11012, Col. 1, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo wherein the catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction maintains catalytic performance of 90% or more for a 100-hour reaction at a fixed potential and after an accelerated degradation test (ADT) of 30000 cycles, as the band gap, LDH deposition, and kinds of LDHs taught by Guo would be adjusted as needed for the desired catalytic performance, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Regarding Claim 13, Guo is silent to the catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction maintains catalytic performance of 90% or more for 20 hours at a potential to which a high current density based on 50 mA/cm2 is applied.
However, Guo in view of Antonio and Zhao teaches the catalyst of claim 11 such that having a catalytic performance of 90% or more for 20 hours at a potential to which a high current density based on 50 mA/cm2 is applied is necessarily present.
Alternatively, Guo discloses the decrease of the band gap is beneficial for PEC performance (pg. 11019, Col. 1, par. 1), a moderate deposition of LDH can enhance the PEC performance (pg. 11019, Col. 2, par. 2), the different kinds of LDHs had different current densities for PEC water oxidation (pg. 11021, Col. 1, par. 1), the hybrid photoanodes integrated with Cr-based LDHs have a much higher PEC performance toward water oxidation (pg. 11012, Col. 1, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guo the catalyst for oxygen evolution reaction maintains catalytic performance of 90% or more for 20 hours at a potential to which a high current density based on 50 mA/cm2 is applied, as the band gap, LDH deposition, and kinds of LDHs taught by Guo would be adjusted as needed for the desired catalytic performance, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights