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 .
Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on September 11, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claim 5 has been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency.
No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on October 19, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, "(Original)Semiconductor particles..." should be amended by adding a space between "(Original)" and "Semiconductor".
In claims 2-4 and 6, "(Original)The semiconductor particles..." should be amended by adding a space between "(Original)" and "The".
In claims 7, 9, and 10, “(Original)A photocatalyst”, should be amended by adding a space between "(Original)" and “A”.
In claims 11 and 18, “(Original)A method”, should be amended by adding a space between "(Original)" and “A”.
In claims 12-17, 19, and 20, “(Original)The method”, should be amended by adding a space between "(Original)" and “The”.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 are indefinite due to the presence of the limitation “particles containing strontium titanate to which a co-catalyst is added and used as a photocatalyst…” recited in claim 1, which implies that the semiconductor particles as claimed contain strontium titanate and a co-catalyst.
If such is the case, then claims 7-10 appear directed to a photocatalyst comprising (a) semiconductor particles to which a co-catalyst is added (i.e., the semiconductor particles defined in claim 1) and (b) a co-catalyst added thereto.
If such is not the case, it appears that claims 7, 9, and 10 be amended to recite “photocatalyst comprising the semiconductor particles according to claim…, wherein the co-catalyst…”.
Alternatively, the Examiner respectfully suggests that claim 1 be amended to recite, for example, “Semiconductor particles containing strontium titanate, used in a photocatalyst which is obtained by adding a co-catalyst to semiconductor particles containing strontium titanate and which causes a water decomposition reaction…”; see Applicants’ claim 11.
Clarification is respectfully requested. However, for examination purposes, claim 1 will presently be interpreted as being directed to semiconductor particles containing strontium titanate in which strontium titanate is doped with barium.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Preparation of Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalyst by sol-gel method for hydrogen generation,” by Tanvir Hussain et al. (hereinafter “Hussain et al.”) in view of “Effect of different dopants Ba and Ag on the properties of SrTiO3 nanopowders,” by M. Ghasemifard et al. (hereinafter “Ghasemifard et al.”).
Regarding claim 1, Hussain et al. teach Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts for water splitting (“used as a photocatalyst that causes a water decomposition reaction in which water molecules are decomposed into oxygen molecules and hydrogen molecules according to light emission”), in the form of thin films. See the Abstract, Section 2, Section 3.2, and Section 3.4 of Hussain et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts disclosed in Hussain et al. exhibit the formula BaxSr1-xTiO3, where x = 0.00, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20; see the Abstract. As Hussain et al. do not teach or suggest the presence of aluminum in the aforementioned photocatalysts, the claim limitations “substantially free of aluminum” and “content of aluminum…is 1 part by weight or less”, as respectively recited in Applicants’ claims 5 and 6, are considered read upon by Hussain et al.
Hussain et al. do not teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts being in the form of particles, nor does this reference define the Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts as “semiconductor particles”, as recited in claim 1.
However, because the photocatalysts disclosed in Hussain et al. comprise strontium titanate doped with barium, thus structurally reading upon Applicants’ claim limitation “strontium titanate is doped with barium”, and are employable in water splitting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to reasonably expect the Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts disclosed in Hussain et al. to effectively and successfully function as a semiconductor, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. See also MPEP 2144.09(I).
Regarding claim 1, Ghasemifard et al. teach Ba-doped SrTiO3-based nanopowders (“particles”), having the formula Sr0.9Ba0.1TiO3. See page 310 of Ghasemifard et al., in Figure 1 and the section titled “Results and discussion”, and page 312, in the section titled “Nano-scale characterization”.
Note that the formula Sr0.9Ba0.1TiO3 in Ghasemifard et al. falls within the formula for the Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts disclosed in Hussain et al., i.e., the formula BaxSr1-xTiO3, where x = 0.00, 0.05, 0.10, and 0.20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts disclosed in Hussain et al. by forming the photocatalysts in the form of nanopowders, as suggested by Ghasemifard et al., as it has been held that it such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) and (B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2-4 and 7-10, neither Hussain et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the limitations of these claims, regarding (a) the additional doping of the claimed semiconductor particles with scandium, and (b), the formation of a photocatalyst obtained by adding a co-catalyst to the claimed semiconductor particles, said co-catalyst being either rhodium-chromium oxide or cobalt hydroxide oxide.
Regarding claims 11-20, as neither Hussain et al. nor the cited references of record teach or suggest the claimed methods of synthesizing semiconductor particles, wherein barium titanate, strontium chloride, scandium oxide, barium chloride, and aluminum oxide are employed.
For example, Hussain et al. teach the preparation of the aforementioned Ba-doped SrTiO3 photocatalysts, by separately dissolving stoichiometric amounts of Ba(NO3)2, Sr(NO3)2 and Ti(NO3)4 in deionized water, followed by mixing the separate solutions at room temperature, and heating with continuous stirring at 80°C for 6 hours to form a viscous gel. The gel is deposited on ITO coated glass substrates, followed by forming films using a spin coater, and drying. See page 2, Section 2, of Hussain et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Exemplary prior art includes:
Fang et al. (CN 114192163), which teaches a potassium ion-doped SrTiO3 nano photocatalyst and the preparation thereof, wherein the photocatalyst additionally comprises RhCrOx as a hydrogen evolution promoter, and CoOOH as an oxygen evolution promoter (Abstract).
Chang et al. (CN 112023938), which teaches a bimetal ion doped nanocomposite photocatalyst and the preparation thereof, wherein La and Al are the bimetal ions. The nanocomposite photocatalyst additionally comprises RhCrOx and CoOOH serving as cocatalysts (Abstract).
Chang et al. (CN 114308034), which teaches (III)-valence and (V)-valence double transition metal ion co-doped strontium titanate semiconductor catalyst and the preparation thereof, wherein the metal ions include La and V. The catalyst additionally comprises RhCrOx and CoOOH serving as cocatalysts (Abstract).
Chang et al. (CN 1145703585), which teaches a semiconductor catalyst for hydrogen production and oxygen production, wherein the catalyst comprises K and Al bimetal ion co-doped SrTiO3, and wherein the catalyst additionally comprises RhCrOx and CoOOH serving as cocatalysts (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Patricia L. Hailey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 11, 2026