DETAILED ACTION
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harada et al., WO 2020158494 A1, for the reasons set forth in the Office Action of 6-11-2025.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al., WO 2020158494 A1, for the reasons set forth in the Office Action of 6-11-2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and affidavit filed 10-10-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the teachings of Harada, Applicant argues that the product of Harada would not have the claimed iodine : silver ratio of 0.035 to 0.100, citing the experimental results of the affidavit filed 10-10-2025 indicating that the product of Harada would have an iodine : silver ratio of 0.107 (ie, 7% greater than the largest permitted value in the claimed ratio) when measured by X-ray fluorescence. The argument is unpersuasive because the 7% difference between the product of Harada and Applicant’s claimed range is within the normal margin of error for elemental quantitation via X-ray fluorescence. See, for example, “Uncertainty of Quantitative X-ray Fluorescence Micro-Analysis of Metallic Artifacts Caused by Their Curved Shapes,” Trojek et al., Materials 2023, 16, 1133, which states that the uncertainty when measuring relative elemental abundances via X-ray fluorescence on an irregularly-shaped surface is typically 5-10% (Abstract). Note that Trojek teaches that the uncertainty in X-ray fluorescence measurement increases when the surface being measured has a curved or irregular shape, and the surface of the present invention (ie, a disordered collection of round nanowires on a substrate) would be expected to result in relatively high uncertainty. Additionally, as discussed in the prior Office Action, the parameters of Harada’s precursor solutions are within the ranges taught by Applicant’s specification to result in a product that has a ratio within the claimed range. As Applicant’s specification teaches that the method taught by Harada should result in a product featuring a ratio within the claimed range, and as the difference between Applicant’s measured ratio and the claimed range is within the normal bounds of uncertainty when determining relative elemental abundance via X-ray fluorescence, the arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785