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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al. (“Rough gold films as broadband absorbers for plasmonic enhancement of TiO2 photocurrent over 400–800 nm”).
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses a plasmonic substrate (abstract and Figure 1a) comprising:
a base (Figures 1-2, Page 2, Results section, 1st paragraph, see FTO glass);
a metallic film on the base (Au film), wherein the metallic film has an RMS roughness measured by atomic force microscopy ranging from 10 to 200 nm (Au film has 15 nm RMS roughness, Page 4, 2nd paragraph); and
a semiconducting photocatalyst (TiO2 photocatalyst layer) on the metallic film (TiO2, abstract and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Tan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tan additionally discloses that the base is selected from the group consisting of glass, quartz, silicon, doped silicon, and indium tin oxide (Figure 2, Page 2, Results section, 1st paragraph, see FTO glass).
Regarding claim 4, Tan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tan additionally discloses that the semiconducting photocatalyst is selected from the group consisting of TiO2, Cu2O, CuO, ZnO, VO2, Co3O4, ABX3 type perovskites, CdS, CdSe, ZnS and combinations thereof (TiO2, abstract and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tan additionally discloses that the metallic film comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of silver, copper, gold and aluminum (gold (Au) film, abstract and Figure 1a).
Regarding claim 6, Tan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tan additionally discloses that the metallic film has a thickness ranging from 10 to 500 nm (abstract, 100nm thick Au film).
Regarding claim 7, Tan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tan additionally discloses that the semiconducting photocatalyst has a thickness ranging from 1 to 500 nm (abstract and Figure 3a, 30nm thick TiO2 layer).
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (“Rough gold films as broadband absorbers for plasmonic enhancement of TiO2 photocurrent over 400–800 nm”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kumar et al. (“Field Effects in Plasmonic Photocatalyst by Precise SiO2 Thickness Control Using Atomic Layer Deposition”).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Tan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tan does not disclose an inert spacer layer in between the metallic film and the semiconducting photocatalyst, wherein the inert spacer layer is silica.
Kumar discloses a plasmonic substrate (abstract and conclusion) comprising:
a base (Si substrate, Page 301, Experimental section, 1st paragraph);
a metallic film on the base (Ag nanoparticles, abstract, Page 301, Experimental section, 1st paragraph),
a semiconducting photocatalyst (TiO2 layer) on the metallic film (abstract, Page 302, column 2, 2nd and 3rd paragraph), and
a silica inert spacer layer (SiO2 layer) in between the metallic film (Ag nanoparticles) and the semiconducting photocatalyst (TiO2 layer) (abstract, Page 302, column 2, 2nd and 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a silica inert spacer layer in between the metallic film and the semiconducting photocatalyst in the device of Tan, as taught by Kumar, because the silica inert spacer layer facilitates enhanced photocatalysis in the device (Kumar, abstract and Conclusion section).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights