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 Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 05/26/2026.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 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 1: The limitation “…distinct from and separate from the photocatalytic layer” lacks antecedent basis because it proceeds the limitation claiming “a photocatalytic layer”.
Any claim(s) dependent on the above claim is/are rejected for their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo et al (JP 6774165 B2, Espacenet translation used for citations) in view of Ye et al (“BiOI–BiVO4 photoanodes with significantly improved solar water splitting capability: p–n junction to expand solar adsorption range and facilitate charge carrier dynamics”, Nano Energy (2015) 18, 222–231).
Claim 1: Takeo discloses a photocatalytic apparatus comprising:
a first electrode disposed in an electrolytic solution (water) (see e.g. #12 in the Figures) and functioning as an anode (see e.g. [0012]: “an oxidation reaction electrode that selectively oxidizes water to generate oxygen”); and
a second electrode electrically connected to the first electrode and disposed in an electrolytic solution (see e.g. #10 in the Figures), the second electrode functioning as a cathode (see e.g. [0012]: “a reduction reaction electrode that reduces a different second carbon compound”), wherein
the first electrode includes a first transparent conductive substrate having light transmittivity and electrical conductivity (FTO, see e.g. [0040]) and a photocatalytic layer that is disposed on the first light power generation layer and catalyzes an oxidation reaction when being irradiated with light (BiVo4, see e.g. [0040]), and
the second electrode includes a second transparent conductive substrate having light transmittivity and electrical conductivity (“transparent conductive film”, see e.g. #36 on Fig 3; [0033]), a second light power generation layer that is disposed on the second transparent conductive substrate and absorbs light to generate electrons and holes (“second a-SiGe laminate”, see e.g. #34a-#34c on Fig 3, [0033]), and a catalytic layer that is disposed on the second light power generation layer and catalyzes a reduction reaction (see e.g. #22 on Fig 3; [0050]).
Takeo does not explicitly teach that the first electrode further includes a first light power generation layer that is disposed on the first transparent conductive substrate and absorbs light to generate electrons and holes with the photocatalytic layer disposed on the first light power generation layer, wherein the first light power generation layer is distinct from and separate from the photocatalytic layer. Takeo teaches that apparatus is “a photochemical reaction device for synthesizing a carbon compound by reducing carbon dioxide using water as an electron source” (see e.g. [0001]). Ye teaches a photelectrode for generation of oxygen from water (see e.g. abstract; Fig 1), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Ye, the inclusion of a first light power generation layer made of BiOI with a photocatalytic layer of BiVO4 improves the photocurrent density of BiVo4 because the combination “facilitates the separation and transfer of photo-generated charges, but also expands the light absorption range” (see e.g. abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo by incorporating the first light power generation layer taught in Ye to improve the photocurrent density of BiVO4 for the reaction.
Claim 3: Takeo in view of Ye discloses that the second electrode includes a charge transport layer between the second transparent conductive substrate and the second light power generation layer, the charge transport layer transporting charge (“third a-SiGe laminate”, see e.g. #35a-#35c; [0033]).
Claim 4: Takeo in view of Ye discloses that the second electrode includes a second electron transport layer between the second light power generation layer and the catalytic layer, the second electron transport layer selectively transporting electrons (“first a-SiGe laminate”, see e.g. #33a-#33c; [0033]).
Claim 5: Takeo in view of Ye discloses that the second electrode includes a conductive reflection layer between the second electron transport layer and the photocatalytic layer, the conductive reflection layer having electrical conductivity and reflecting irradiation light (see e.g. #31 on Fig 3; [0033]: “the metal reflective layer 31 is a layer…”).
Claim 6: Takeo in view of Ye discloses a promotor is supported or a promotor layer is laminated on the photocatalytic layer (see e.g. #24 on Fig 3, [0051]).
Claim 11: Takeo in view of Ye discloses that the first electrode oxidizes water to generate oxygen (see e.g. [0012]: “an oxidation reaction electrode that selectively oxidizes water to generate oxygen”), and the second electrode reduces carbon dioxide (see e.g. [0012]: “a reduction reaction electrode that reduces a different second carbon compound”).
Claim 12: Takeo in view of Ye teaches a material of the first light power generation layer includes a band gap smaller than a band gap of a material of the photocatalytic layer (BiOI and BiVO4, see e.g. abstract of Ye).
Claim 13: Takeo in view of Ye teaches a material of the first light power generation layer includes a valence band having an energy level lower than an energy level of a valence band of a material of the photocatalytic layer (BiOI and BiVO4, see e.g. abstract of Ye).
Claim 14: Takeo in view of Ye teaches a material of the first light power generation layer includes a conduction band having an energy level higher than an energy level of a conduction band of a material of the photocatalytic layer (BiOI and BiVO4, see e.g. abstract of Ye).
Claim 15: Takeo in view of Ye teaches that the first light power generation layer comprises bismuth oxyiodide (see e.g. abstract of Ye).
Claim 16: Takeo in view of Ye teaches that the photocatalytic layer comprises bismuth vanadium oxide (see e.g. [0040] of Yakeo; abstract of Ye).
Claim 18: Takeo in view of Ye discloses that the second electrode includes a conductive reflection layer between the second light power generation layer and the catalytic layer, the conductive reflection layer having electrical conductivity and reflecting irradiation light toward the second light power generation layer. (see e.g. #31 on Fig 3; [0033]: “the metal reflective layer 31 is a layer…”).
Claim 20: Takeo in view of Ye discloses that the second electrode includes a conductive adhesion layer that closely contacts a side of the second light power generation layer with a side of the catalytic layer and transports electrons from the second light power generation layer side toward the catalytic layer side (see e.g. #32 on Fig 3; [0033]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo in view of Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Menezes (US 8388818 B1).
Claim 2: Takeo does not explicitly teach that the first electrode includes a first electron transport layer between the first transparent conductive substrate and the first light power generation layer, the first electron transport layer selectively transporting electrons. However, Takeo teaches the first electrode uses solar power to drive the oxygen evolution reaction (see e.g. [0040]). Menezes discloses a photoelectrode for oxygen evolution from water (see e.g. abstract and Fig 1), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The electrode of Menezes comprises a first transparent conductive substrate having light transmittivity and electrical conductivity (see e.g. #30 on Fig 2; connecting paragraph of col 4 and col 5), a first light power generation layer that is disposed on the first transparent conductive substrate and absorbs light to generate electrons and holes with a first electron transport layer between the first transparent conductive substrate and the first light power generation layer, the first electron transport layer selectively transporting electrons for improved efficiency (see e.g. #32 on Fig 2; col 5, lines 9-27), and a photocatalytic layer that is disposed on the first light power generation layer and catalyzes an oxidation reaction when being irradiated with light (see e.g. #33 on Fig 2; col 5, lines 27-44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo by using the first light power generation layer and first electron transport layer structure disclosed in Menezes to improve the device efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo in view of Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kitagawa et al (US 10062520 B2).
Claim 7: Takeo in view of Ye does not explicitly teach that the electrode elements of the first electrode are divided into cell structures by an insulator. Kitagawa teaches a photoelectrode (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The electrode of Kitagawa divides the electrode using an insulator (see e.g. #10 on Fig 1 and Fig 2) prevents corrosion of the semiconducting layers (see e.g. col 5, lines 50-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo so that the electrode elements of the first electrode are divided into cell structures by an insulator as taught in Kitigawa to protect the electrode from corrosion.
Claim 8: Takeo in view of Ye does not explicitly teach that electrode elements of the second electrode are divided into cell structures by an insulator. Kitagawa teaches a photoelectrode (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The electrode of Kitagawa divides the electrode using an insulator (see e.g. #10 on Fig 1 and Fig 2) prevents corrosion of the semiconducting layers (see e.g. col 5, lines 50-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo so that the electrode elements of the second electrode are divided into cell structures by an insulator as taught in Kitigawa to protect the electrode from corrosion.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo in view of Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Monzyk et al (US 20160201197 A1).
Claim 9: Takeo in view of Ye does not explicitly teach a recovery mechanism that recovers a product generated by the first electrode; and a recovery mechanism that recovers a product generated by the second electrode. However, Takeo teaches that the apparatus forms oxygen and formic acid as products from water and carbon dioxide (see e.g. [0044]; [0045]). Monzyk discloses a photoelectric apparatus comprising two photoelectrodes (see e.g. [0128]; Fig 2), for generating oxygen and formic acid from water and carbon dioxide (see e.g. [0074]; [0101]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The apparatus of Monzyk includes a recovery mechanism that recovers a product generated by the first electrode; and a recovery mechanism that recovers a product generated by the second electrode (see e.g. [0129]; Fig 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo to include a recovery mechanism that recovers a product generated by the first electrode; and a recovery mechanism that recovers a product generated by the second electrode, such as that shown in Monzyk, so that the products of the reaction can be recovered.
Claim 10: Takeo in view of Ye does not explicitly teach a feeding mechanism that feeds a reactant of the oxidation reaction to the first electrode; and a feeding mechanism that feeds a reactant of the reduction reaction to the second electrode. However, Takeo teaches that the apparatus forms oxygen and formic acid as products from water and carbon dioxide (see e.g. [0044]; [0045]). Monzyk discloses a photoelectric apparatus comprising two photoelectrodes (see e.g. [0128]; Fig 2), for generating oxygen and formic acid from water and carbon dioxide (see e.g. [0074]; [0101]), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The apparatus of Monzyk includes a feeding mechanism that feeds a reactant of the oxidation reaction to the first electrode; and a feeding mechanism that feeds a reactant of the reduction reaction to the second electrode (see e.g. #286 and #290 on Fig 2; [0129]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo to include a feeding mechanism that feeds a reactant of the oxidation reaction to the first electrode; and a feeding mechanism that feeds a reactant of the reduction reaction to the second electrode such as that shown in Monzyk, so that the reactants can be supplied to the cell.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo in view of Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kuang et al (“Enhanced Photoelectrocatalytic Activity of BiOINanoplate–Zinc OxideNanorodp–n Heterojunction”, Chem. Eur. J.2015, 21,15360–15368).
Claim 17: Takeo in view of Ye does not explicitly teach that the second light power generation layer comprises at least one of bismuth oxyiodide, bismuth oxybromide, and bismuth oxychloride. Takeo teaches the second electrode can include ZnO (see e.g. [0033]). Kuang teaches a photoelectrode comprising ZnO, making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Kuang, the inclusion of bismuth oxyiodide with the ZnO improves electrode performance because the bismuth oxyiodide acts a sensitizer to absorb visible light but also increases reaction contact area (see e.g. abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the apparatus of Takeo by using the bismuth oxyiodide of Kuang as the second light power generation layer because of the positive effects it provides to the ZnO layer.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeo in view of Ye and Menezes as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Kuang.
Claim 19: Takeo in view of Ye and Menezes does not explicitly teach a thin line structure is formed on a surface of the first electron transport layer on a side of the first light power generation layer, the thin line structure forming transport paths through which electrons are selectively transported along a lamination direction of electrode elements of the first electrode. Kuang teaches a photoelectrode, making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Kuang, the inclusion of a thin line structure on a surface of the first electron transport layer (rods) on a surface (see e.g. Scheme 1) which forms a transport paths through which electrons are selectively transported along a lamination direction of electrode elements (see e.g. abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary to modify the apparatus of Takeo by incorporating the thin line structure taught in Kuang on the first electron transport layer to improve electron transport of the electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 102 over Takeo et al have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 102 over Takeo in view of Ye.
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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, Luan Van can be reached at 571-272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights