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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/04/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/10/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501840-NPLCho16) in view of Li et al (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 2490−2495 from the IDS-NPLLi17) from the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, NPLCho16 discloses a flame doping method (Abstract: Lines L 7-8) comprising:
providing a substrate including a material including a dopant providing a substrate including a material including a dopant (Substrate fluorine-doped substrate with hematite photoanode nanorods-Abstract L7-11; sol-flame method which is a method including a precursor of the dopant on the nanorods with a material including a dopant-Page 2 [Introduction] L17-18, Page 2 [Ti Doping by Flame versus Furnace] L 3-10; Fig 1b-Step 1);
bringing a doping target material into contact with the substrate (FeOOH nanorods grown on FTO substrate and dip-coated with Ti-dopant precursor solution-Page 2 [Ti Doping by Flame versus Furnace] L 3-10); and
exposing a flame in a direction from a position spaced apart from an upper end portion of the doping target material to the substrate (flame is spaced over the upper end portion of the doping target material on FeOOH nanorods placed on the substrate FTO so spraying the flame in a direction from a position spaced apart from an upper end portion of the doping target material to the substrate-Fig 1b (Step 1), Page 2 [Ti Doping by Flame versus Furnace] L 3-10),
wherein the exposing of the flame causes at least a portion of the dopant to diffuse into the doping target material (Ti diffusing into the doping target material which are the hematite NRs by the sol-flame method so the exposing of the flame causes at least a portion of the dopant to diffuse into the doping target-Page 2 [Ti Doping by Flame versus Furnace] L 3-10).
NPLCho16 does not disclose a flame doping method
wherein the dopant included in the substrate to diffuse into the doping target material.
NPLLi17 teaches a flame doping method
wherein the dopant included in the substrate to diffuse into the doping target material (Sn diffusion from FTO substrate into hematite film which is the doping target material so the dopant included in the substrate to diffuse into the doping target material-Page 1 Column C1, L14-18, Fig 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 the flame doping method of NPLCho16, as taught by NPLLi17 for the purpose of improving the Sn-doped hematite optical absorption coefficient as a result of the structural distortion of hematite lattice (NPLLi17-Page 1 C1 L18-19, C2 L 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
NPLCho16 further discloses a flame doping method
wherein a temperature of the flame in the exposing of the flame exceeds 800 °C (at 1000oC so exceeding 800oC-pp3, [Ti Doping by Flame Versus Furnace] L9).
Regarding claim 4, NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
NPLCho16 further discloses a flame doping method
wherein the dopant is one or more selected from the group consisting of Sn, Ga, In, Bi, Cu, Ni, Co, Sb, Mo, Cr, Nb, and Ta (metal dopants including Sn, Nb-pp1 [Introduction] L39-40).
Regarding claim 5, NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
NPLCho16 further discloses a flame doping method
wherein the doping target material is one selected from the group consisting of W03, α-Fe2O3 TiO2, ZnO, CuO, BiVO4, A1203, Zr2Co3, Nb2O5, and V205 (α-Fe2O3-Abstract L1).
Regarding claim 6, NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
NPLCho16 further discloses a semiconductor thin film (nanosheets so semiconductor thin film- pp1 [Introduction] L37-38) doped by the flame doping method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
NPLCho16 further discloses an electrode material (photoanode so anode so electrode-Title) doped by the flame doping method of claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501840-NPLCho16) in view of Li et al (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 2490−2495 from the IDS-NPLLi17), and further in view of Feng et al. (US20140294721 A1-Feng21) from the IDS.
Regarding claim 3, NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
NPLCho16 and NPLLi17 combination fails to disclose a flame doping method
wherein an exposing time in the exposing of the flame is in a range of 3 to 70 seconds.
Feng21 teaches a flame doping method
wherein a spraying time in the spraying of the flame is in a range of 3 to 70 seconds (flame at about 1100oC for about 1 min or 60 s so in a range of 3 to 70 seconds-[0018] L6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flame doping method of NPLCho16 in view of NPLLi17, as taught by Feng21 for the purpose of providing a scalable, rapid and general ex-situ method for modifying nanostructures and thin films, such as through doping or reduction, which can avoid or reduce damage of original materials of the nanostructures and thin films (Feng21:[0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 4-8 of Remarks, filed on 02/04/2026 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants' arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument persuasive and has brought in an additional reference to address the amended claim limitations. The applicability of the reference to the amended elements is discussed in the claim rejections above.
Claim 1 has been amended to further define the claimed subject matter see pages 2-3 of Amendments to Claims, filed on 02/04/2026.
Amended claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501840-NPLCho16) in view of Li et al (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 2490−2495 from the IDS-NPLLi17) from the IDS, as described above.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501840-NPLCho16) in view of Li et al (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 2490−2495 from the IDS-NPLLi17) from the IDS.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501840-NPLCho16) in view of Li et al (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 2490−2495 from the IDS-NPLLi17), and further in view of Feng et al. (US20140294721 A1-Feng21) from the IDS.
Therefore, claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (Adv. Energy Mater. 2016, 6, 1501840-NPLCho16) in view of Li et al (Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 2490−2495 from the IDS-NPLLi17), and further in view of Feng et al. (US20140294721 A1-Feng21) from the IDS, as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALIE R FAYETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-1220. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6pm ET.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
NATHALIE R. FAYETTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/NATHALIE R FAYETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 03/10/2026
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights