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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 7-10, 20 and 22-26 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/13/2025. 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. 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 . Claim (s) 7, 9, 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asefa (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0255822) . Regarding claim 7, Asefa discloses an electrocatalyst polyaniline-derived nitrogen-doped mesoporous carbon, wherein the mesoporous carbon has an I D /I G ratio measured with Raman spectrum of 0.93 to 1.0, depending on temperature (Paragraphs 0033, 0126). Asefa also discloses that the I D /I G ratio decreases with increasing temperature due to an increase in graphitic structure (Paragraph 0131). As to claim 9, Asefa teaches that a BET specific surface of the carbon material is 200-400 m 2 /g (Tables 3-5). Regarding claim 10, Asefa states that the phases of nitrogen are pyridinic, pyrrolic , graphitic, etc. (Paragraphs 0081, 0127). As to claim 20, Asefa teaches that the mesoporous carbon is used as an electrocatalyst in an electrode of a fuel cell (Paragraph 0011). Asefa fails to specifically state that that mesoporous carbon contains 0.5 to 6 atom% of nitrogen. Asefa discloses that the N/C atomic ratio is 2-6% above 700 degrees Celsius (Paragraph 0127 and Fig. 15B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the N/C atomic ratio would result in an atomic percent of nitrogen between 0.5 and 6 at% because Asefa states that the mesoporous carbon at 900 degrees Celsius has 3.29 at% of nitrogen (Paragraph 0129), which shows that the N/C percentage would be about equal to the nitrogen atomic percentage. Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asefa (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0255822) in view of Ghezelbash (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0248175) . The teachings of Asefa have been discussed in paragraph 5 above. Asefa fails to disclose that the mesoporous carbon has a peak intensity ratio I 2D /I G of 0.5 or more. Regarding claim 8, Ghezelbash discloses porous carbon-based materials that can be doped with nitrogen, wherein the I 2D /I G ratio of a carbon material containing graphite and graphene is greater than 0.5 (Paragraphs 0023, 0046, 0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the I 2D /I G ratio of the mesoporous carbon of Asefa could be greater than 0.5 because Ghezelbash teaches that porous carbons containing graphite/graphene can have a high ratio depending on how the carbon is made and the number of layers of carbon atoms. Claim (s) 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0341626) . Regarding claim 22, Kishimoto discloses a method for producing a carbon catalyst comprising: carbonizing a raw material containing a nitrogen-atom containing organic substance and a metal, wherein the carbonization comprises mixing a transition metal powder into a solution of a nitrogen-atom-containing resin, drying, infusibilizing treatment, baking, acid washing, and re-baking, and wherein the heating is performed in an atmosphere of inert gas (Paragraphs 0040, 0047). As to claim 25, Kishimoto teaches that the content of the metal is 1 to 90 parts by mass relative to 100 parts by mass of the organic substance (Paragraph 0045), which could result in a ratio of 1:0.5. Kishimoto fails to specifically state that a nitrogen element-containing precursor is polymerized to produce a polymer and that the mixture is heated at a temperature equal to or higher than a melting point of the metal. Kishimoto teaches that the mixture can be heated to 700-2000 degrees Celsius, and that the metal powder can be a transition metal, such as iron, cobalt, or copper (Paragraphs 0043, 0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the organic substance of Kishimoto has already been turned into a polymer and thus the polymerizing step has already occurred. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heating temperature could be higher than a melting point of the metal because the higher temperatures in the range of temperatures for the heating step of Kishimoto are higher than the heating point of the preferred metals used (about 1000 or 1500 degrees Celsius). Claim (s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0341626) in view of Guo (CN Publication 106882783) . The teachings of Kishimoto have been discussed in paragraph 7 above. Regarding claim 23, Kishimoto discloses that the organic substance can be a urea resin or polyaniline (Paragraph 0042). Kishimoto fails to disclose that the metal powder is one of magnesium, calcium, aluminum, lithium, sodium and potassium. Guo discloses a method of forming porous carbon materials containing heteroatoms such as nitrogen comprising the use of lithium oxide to form the template for the porous material (Paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the metal powder used in the formation of the porous carbon material of Kishimoto could be lithium because Guo teaches that lithium can be mixed with a nitrogen containing precursor and heated in the same manner as Kishimoto to form a porous material. Additionally, lithium has a much lower melting point, which would reduce the temperature needed for the heating step. Claim (s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0341626) in view of Calabrese Barton (U.S. Patent 9379388) . The teachings of Kishimoto have been discussed in paragraph 7 above. Kishimoto fails to disclose that the polymer contains 40-80 atom% of nitrogen, and that the N:M ratio of the mixture is 1:0.3 to 1:7.5. Regarding claim 24, Calabrese Barton discloses a method of making a cathode catalyst of a fuel cell comprising: mixing a carbon support, a transition metal precursor and nitrogen precursor molecules, such as polymers of aniline, which can have a N:C ratio of 1:1 or greater, and heating (Col. 4, Lines 39-63, Col. 7, Lines 43-48, Col. 8, Lines 1-14 , Col. 9, Lines 37-50 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the nitrogen precursor of Kishimoto could have 40-80 atomic percent of nitrogen because Calabrese Barton teaches that nitrogen precursors, such as aniline, can have nitrogen at this percentage. Additionally, Calabrese Barton teaches that the ratio can be adjusted to increase accessible active site d e nsity . As to claim 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that with the percentage of nitrogen in the polymer as taught by Calabrese Barton and the ratio of polymer to metal as taught by Kishimoto , the N:M ratio would fall between 1:0.3 and 1:7.5. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 7-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 18/834149 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/834149 teaches a highly graphitic porous carbon structure that is doped with nitrogen (claim 1) and has a peak intensity ratio I D /I G of less than 1 (inverse of claim 7). Although the claims of Application No. 18/834149 do not teach a percentage of nitrogen doped into the carbon, paragraph 0090 teaches that the nitrogen is doped to an amount of 3-10 at %. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the specification for exact amounts of the components listed in the claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6545 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3433 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT BRITTANY L. RAYMOND Primary Examiner Art Unit 1722 /BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722