DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The applicant’s response is considered fully responsive. The examiner acknowledges no claim amendments have been presented by the applicant in their response dated 6 November 2025. The pending Claims are: 1-5, 7, and 13.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. with evidence of inherency from Pawar et al.
Lu et al. (CN 104134788 B – previously presented) is directed at the preparation and application of a three-dimensional gradient metal hydroxide/oxide electrode material (title). Pawar et al. (“Nanoporous CuCo2O4 nanosheets as a highly efficient bifunctional electrode for supercapacitors and water oxidation catalysis,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 470, 360-367 – previously presented) is directed toward the preparation of ultrathin nanosheets comprised of CuCo2O4 (pg. 360: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu et al. discloses an electrode (and a super capacitor) material (¶4-6) : comprising an electrode substrate (i.e.: copper foam) and a catalyst layer (copper cobalt oxide) as per Ex. 7 (¶250-252). Lu et al. further discloses the material has a three-dimensional cellular nanosheet (i.e.: nanosheets in a honey-comb shape) as depicted in Figure 1 (reproduced below) from Ex. 1. For electrodeposition, Lu et al. prepares four different copper (II) nitrate and cobalt(II) nitrate electrolyte baths at 0.50 M total metal ion concentration with the ratios of metal ions of: (i) 0.40 M Cu2+ to 0.10 M Co2+; (ii) 0.38 M Cu2+ to 0.12 M Co2+; (iii) 0.33 M Cu2+ to 0.17 M Co2+; and (iv) 0.25 M Cu2+ to 0.25 M Co2+ (¶252). Lu et al. explains that the binary metal oxide layer is prepared using electrodeposition to furnish a mixture of hydroxides, which is subsequently annealed at 300℃ for 1 hour to convert the hydroxides to a gradient metal oxide. Lu et at. discloses an electrode material, where the X-oxide of Claim 1 is cobalt oxide. Lu et al. further indicates the general form of the gradient oxide is CuxCoyO4 (¶252). Lu et al. indicates that the values of x and y satisfy the relationships below:
I.
x: 0 < x < 4
II.
y: 0 < y < 8/3
III.
2x + 3y = 8
Lu et al. further indicates that the concentration of copper and cobalt in the gradient oxide vary within the thickness of the layer. The concentration of copper oxide is highest at the substrate coating interface transitioning primarily into cobalt oxide at the surface of the oxide layer (¶252). Therefore, Lu et al. discloses a composite metal oxide comprising Cu-Co oxide with both a copper oxide and a cobalt oxide (i.e.: an X-oxide) given the variation in composition of the deposited oxide layer at different heights in the film relative to the substrate surface (¶252).
Further pertaining to Claim 1, the stoichiometric ranges taught in Ex. 7 of Lu et al. contain the mixed Cu-Co oxide that has the formula Cu1Co2O4, where x = 1 and y =2 and satisfy equation III (above). The materials disclosed in Lu et al. serve as both electrode and super capacitors (¶4-6). Pawar et al. discloses the water oxidation catalytic activity of CuCo2O4. Pawar et al. provides inherency of the oxygen evolution reaction (and super capacitor) properties of the electrode materials of Lu et al. according to pg. 361 in the introduction section, where the direct synthesis of CuCo2O4 nanosheets on a nickel foam (NF) substrate via an electrodeposition method results in a highly-efficient electrode for water splitting catalysis in an alkaline 1M KOH solution (pg. 360: Abstract; pg. 361: 1. Introduction section; pg. 366: Fig. 7 & Fig. 8). Pawar et al. further indicates that the electrodeposition method of forming copper-cobalt oxides results in better OER performance than thermal or hydrothermal methods as per Fig. 1 (pg. 361). Pawar et al. also indicates that OER of the copper-cobalt oxide is also stable for up to 25 h supporting its chemical and structural durability (pg. 366: Fig. 7a, Fig. 8, and 4. Conclusions section). Therefore, Pawar et al. provides evidence to support the inherent OER activity for the copper-cobalt oxides in particular when the catalyst layer is comprised of Cu1Co2O4.
Regarding Claim 2, Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode as per Claim 1 wherein the electrode substrate is generally taught as nickel or copper foam (¶65, 94, 96, 145, 147) and specifically copper foam in Ex. 7 (¶250-252).
Regarding Claim 3, Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode as per Claim 1, wherein the electrode substrate is specifically copper foam as taught in Ex. 7 for the preparation of mixed copper-cobalt oxides (¶250-252).
Regarding Claim 4, Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode of Claim 1, wherein the catalyst layer has a thickness of 500 nm to 50,000 nm in ¶178 for the thickness of the metal oxide (hydroxide) layer. In Ex. 1, the specific thickness taught is 900 nm for a catalyst layer comprised of nickel-cobalt oxide (¶201-203) which is consistent across the other embodiments/examples of Lu et al. including the copper-cobalt oxides of Ex. 7. A prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art contains an example that falls within the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03(I) - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
Regarding Claim 7, Lu et al. discloses the water electrolysis electrode of Claim 1, where a unit cell of the three-dimensional honeycomb-like structure has a diameter of 100 nm to 300 nm as evidenced by Figure 1 (reproduced above). The inset 100 nm x 100 nm white cross when compared to the unit cells in the SEM image show the average diameter of said unit cells of the honeycomb-like structure falls within the claimed range and therefore is a prima facie case of anticipation. See MPEP 2131.03(I) - A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE.
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.
4. Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al.
Lu et al. (CN 104134788 B – previously presented) is directed at the preparation and application of a three-dimensional gradient metal hydroxide/oxide electrode material (title). Pawar et al. (“Nanoporous CuCo2O4 nanosheets as a highly efficient bifunctional electrode for supercapacitors and water oxidation catalysis,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 470, 360-367 – previously presented) is directed toward the preparation of ultrathin nanosheets comprised CuCo2O4 (pg. 360: title and abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Pawar et al. discloses a CuCo2O4 nanosheets as electrode for water oxidation catalysis (pg. 360: title and abstract; pgs. 360-361: 1. Introduction section; pg. 362: 3. Results and Discussion section & Fig. 2; pg. 364: Fig. 4; and pg. 366: 4. Conclusions section) which is a Cu-X oxide catalyst with X = Co. Additionally, Pawar et al. discloses the catalyst layer is electrodeposited onto an electrode substrate, i.e.: nickel or foam (pg. 360: abstract; pgs. 361-362: 2. Experimental section; and pg. 366: 4. Conclusions section). However, Pawar et al. does not explicitly disclose an additional oxide selected from a copper oxide or an X-oxide (e.g.: a cobalt oxide) nor does Pawar et al. disclose a honeycomb-like structure for the 3D nanosheet.
Lu et al. discloses an electrode (and a super capacitor) material (¶4-6): comprising an electrode substrate (i.e.: copper foam) and a catalyst layer (copper cobalt oxide) as per Ex. 7 (¶250-252) like Pawar et al. Lu et al. further discloses the material has a three-dimensional cellular nanosheet (i.e.: nanosheets in a honey-comb shape) as depicted in Figure 1 (reproduced above) from Ex. 1. Lu et al., like Pawar et al., uses electrodeposition to synthesize mixed copper-cobalt oxides. Lu et al. specifically prepares four different copper (II) nitrate and cobalt(II) nitrate electrolyte baths at 0.50 M total metal ion concentration with the ratios of metal ions of: (i) 0.40 M Cu2+ to 0.10 M Co2+; (ii) 0.38 M Cu2+ to 0.12 M Co2+; (iii) 0.33 M Cu2+ to 0.17 M Co2+; and (iv) 0.25 M Cu2+ to 0.25 M Co2+ (¶252). Lu et al. explains electrodeposition from the electrolyte forms a mixture of hydroxides, which is then annealed to form a gradient metal oxide (¶124 and 252). Lu et at. discloses an electrode material, where the X-oxide is cobalt oxide. Lu et al. further indicates the general form of the gradient oxide has the form CuxCoyO4 (¶252) with the values of x and y satisfying the relationships below:
I.
x: 0 < x < 4
II.
y: 0 < y < 8/3
III.
2x + 3y = 8
Lu et al. further indicates that the concentration of copper and cobalt in the gradient oxide vary within the thickness of the layer. The concentration of copper oxide is highest at the substrate coating interface transitioning primarily into cobalt oxide at the surface of the oxide layer (¶252). Therefore, Lu et al. discloses a composite metal oxide comprising Cu-Co oxide with both a copper oxide and a cobalt oxide (i.e.: an X-oxide) given the variation in composition of the deposited oxide layer at different heights in the film relative to the substrate surface (¶252).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the electrode composition taught in Pawar et al. with the copper-cobalt oxide/copper oxide/cobalt oxide electrode composition of Lu et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an electrode material capable of OER activity. The preceding case of obviousness is supported by the introduction of Pawar et al. (pg. 360-1) which explains that mixed oxides of copper and cobalt are known to be effective OER catalysts with superior electrochemical activity and electrical conductivity compared to only the monometallic oxides. Moreover, thin nanosheets deposited onto (nickel) foam have the advantages of facile diffusion paths for ions and electrons, large electrochemically active sites at the electrode-electrolyte interface, high electrical conductivity and improved structural stability (pg. 361: 1 Introduction section of Pawar et al.).
Regarding Claim 2, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode as per Claim 1 wherein the electrode substrate is generally taught as nickel or copper foam (Lu et al. in ¶65, 94, 96, 145, 147) and specifically copper foam in Ex. 7 (Lu et al. ¶250-252).
Regarding Claim 3, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode as per Claim 1, wherein the electrode substrate is specifically copper foam as taught in Ex. 7 for the preparation of mixed copper-cobalt oxides (Lu et al. ¶250-252).
Regarding Claim 4, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode of Claim 1, wherein the catalyst layer has a thickness of 500 nm to 50,000 nm in Lu et al. ¶178 for the thickness of the metal oxide (hydroxide) layer. In Ex. 1 of Lu et al., the specific thickness taught is 900 nm for a catalyst layer comprised of nickel-cobalt oxide (Lu et al. ¶201-203) which is consistent across the other embodiments/examples of Lu et al. including the copper-cobalt oxides of Ex. 7. A prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art contains an example that falls within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 5, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis electrode as per Claim 1 above, wherein cobalt is the X in Cu-X oxide and CuxCoyOz satisfies the following criterion: (A) x+y = 3; (B) z =4; (C) x ranges 0.7 to 1.0; and (D) y ranges from 2.0 to 2.3 as evidenced by the example of Cu1Co2O4. In said example from the combination of Pawar et al. and Lu et al., x has a value of 1, y has a value of 2, the sum of x and y is 3, and z has a value of 4. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the chemical formula disclosed in an example in the prior art is contained within claimed range of chemical formulas of the instant application. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 7, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses the water electrolysis electrode of Claim 1, where a unit cell of the three-dimensional honeycomb-like structure has a diameter of 100 nm to 300 nm as evidenced by Figure 1 of Lu et al. (reproduced above). The inset 100 nm x 100 nm white cross when compared to the unit cells in the SEM image show the average diameter of said unit cells of the honeycomb-like structure fall within the claimed range and therefore is a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I) - OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS.
Regarding Claim 13, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses a water electrolysis device comprising, as an anode, the water electrolysis electrode as per Claim 1 above. Specifically, Pawar et al. in view of Lu et al. discloses the evaluation of oxygen evolution reaction activity of the copper-cobalt oxide/copper oxide/cobalt oxide catalyst of Claim 1 as the working electrode (i.e.: the anode), a Pt wire as the counter electrode, and an SCE as the reference electrode in an electrolyte of 1.0 M KOH as explained in section 2.3. Electrochemical measurements of Pawar et al. (pg. 361). The oxygen evolution reaction occurs at the anode when hydroxide anion (oxygen is in the negative two oxidation state) and loses two electrons to form molecular dioxygen (oxygen is in the zero oxidation state).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 6 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13 under 102 in view of Lu et al. with evidentiary support from Pawar et al. or under 103 in view of Pawar et al. and Lu et al. are maintained.
6. The applicant has argued that Lu et al. does not describe a catalyst layer comprising a composite metal oxide comprising Cu-X oxide and at least one of Cu oxide and X oxide, where X is selected from multiple elements including cobalt on pg. 4 of the response dated 06 November 2025. The examiner does not agree with this assertion. In Claim 1 of the instant application, the composite catalyst is comprised of Cu-X oxide and any number or combination of Cu oxides and/or X oxides. Given this claim limitation, a mixed metal oxide of copper and cobalt disclosed by Lu et al. would satisfy the Cu-X oxide in the middle thickness of the catalyst layer and the Cu oxide and X-oxide at the bottom and top layers of the catalyst layer where the ration of cobalt to copper is variable. The applicant has further argued that there must to be distinct oxide phases (e.g.: Cu-X oxide and Cu oxide or X oxide); however, the claim limitation of Claim 1 does not require that as is consistent with the explanation above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krezhov et al. (“Cationic distributions in binary oxide spinel MxCo3-xO4 (M = Mg, Cu, Zn, Ni,” Physica B 1997, 234-236, 157-158) is directed toward cation distribution in the binary oxide spinels (pg. 157: title).
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794