CTFR 17/840,200 CTFR 99449 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendments 2. The applicant’s response dated 29 January 2026 has been entered into the record. The amendment to Claims 1, 7, and 9 and new Claims 10, 11, 12, and 13 did not add any new matter as indicated by the applicant. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are pending and under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 3. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 4. 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. 07-21-aia AIA 5. Claim s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al . Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0173042 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward catalyst for water splitting (abstract). Xiong et al. (“Size-Dependent Activity of Iron-Nickel Oxynitride towards Electrocatalytic Oxygen Evolution,” ChemNanoMat 2019 , 5 , 883-887 – previously presented) is directed toward an OER catalyst based on iron-nickel oxynitrides (pg. 1: abstract). Regarding Claim 1 , Lin et al. discloses an anode for oxygen evolution comprising Ni, Fe, Nb, and nitrogen as per the abstract, which is formed using sputtering methods. Lin et al. terms Ni and Fe as M’ and Nb as M” as per ¶39. FIG. 8 of Lin et al. discloses examples modulating the ratio of Ni to Nb in a nitride finding that higher levels of nickel relative to niobium increased the current density at a lower voltage during the oxygen evolution reaction (i.e.: improved performance). In fact a ratio of ~3 mol nickel to 1 mol niobium provided the best performance. Lin et al. further indicates that higher levels of metal species such as Fe and Ni (i.e.: a for M’ in Lin et al.) compared to Nb (i.e.: b for M”) improve the anode performance (¶39). Therefore, Lin et al. discloses that a nitrogen-containing anode catalyst comprising higher levels of iron and nickel relative to niobium improve the catalyst performance for the oxygen evolution reaction. Lin et al. discusses the incorporation of nitrogen into the catalyst by the use of nitrogen-containing atmosphere as per ¶41, However, Lin et al. does not discuss including oxygen into the catalyst (i.e.: oxynitride), nor does Lin et al. disclose all the ratios as per Claim 1 (a5) where Nb is the “M” species in the instant application. Xiong et al. discloses that the oxygen evolution reaction is efficiently catalyzed by anode materials that comprise iron, nickel, nitrogen, and oxygen (pg. 883: abstract). Xiong et al. further discloses the monometallic species (either nickel nitride or iron oxide) are inferior to the mixed metal oxynitride with respect to both catalytic activity and stability (pg. 886 and Figures 4 and 5). Xiong et al. hypothesizes that the inclusion of both oxide (from iron oxide) and nitride (from nickel nitride) result in the enhanced stability and catalytic activity with the oxide provides stability against dissolution in the basic electrolyte and the nitride provides catalytic activity (pg. 883 and 886). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a transition metal oxynitride anode catalyst for the oxygen evolution reaction using the sputtering method disclosed in the combination of Lin et al. and Xiong et al targeting an oxynitride composition with higher levels of iron and nickel relative to niobium as taught by Xiong et al. The stoichiometry of nickel, iron, niobium, oxygen, and nitrogen is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the elemental levels of nickel, iron, niobium, oxygen, and nitrogen, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation by varying the ratios of the metallic targets (i.e.: Fe, Ni, and Nb) and the concentrations of gases (oxygen and nitrogen). One would have been motivated to do so in order to form an anode catalyst material with enhanced catalytic activity for OER and enhanced stability against alkaline electrolytes. Regarding Group VB elements other than Nb, Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. explicitly discloses the use of Ta (Lin et al. in the abstract) and the use of vanadium would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as congeners (i.e.: V, Nb, and Ta) are known to have similar chemical properties such as catalysis. Regarding Claim 2 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. teaches the anode catalyst as per Claim 1 as being a continuous layer deposited on a glassy carbon electrode with a thickness of 100 nm (Lin et al.: Preparation example 5 for NiNbN compounds in ¶64). Regarding Claim 3 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. teaches the anode of Claim 2, wherein the support is a carbon material, e.g.: glassy carbon, as described for Preparation Ex. 5 of Lin et al. (¶64). Moreover, Lin et al. also discloses the electrode support includes a porous conductive layer, such as metal mesh (¶42). Examples of metal mesh materials include: stainless steel, titanium, nickel, nickel alloys, niobium alloys, copper, or aluminum (Lin et al. in ¶42). Regarding Claim 4 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the anode catalyst as per Claim 3, wherein the metal mesh support is selected from titanium, nickel, nickel alloys, or aluminum (Lin at al. in ¶42). Regarding Claim 6 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the anode catalyst as per Claim 3, wherein the support includes mesh-shape material as evidenced by the lists in ¶42 of Lin et al. that lists: metal mesh materials made of stainless steel, titanium, nickel, nickel alloys, niobium alloys, copper, or aluminum. Regarding Claim 7 , Lin et al. discloses an anode for oxygen evolution comprising Ni, Fe, Nb, and nitrogen as per the abstract, which is formed using sputtering methods. Lin et al. terms Ni and Fe as M’ and Nb as M’ as per ¶39. FIG. 8 of Lin et al. discloses examples modulating the ratio of Ni to Nb in a nitride finding that higher levels of nickel relative to niobium increased the current density at a lower voltage during the oxygen evolution reaction (i.e.: improved performance). In fact, a ratio of ~3 mol nickel to 1 mol niobium provided the best performance. Lin et al. further indicates that higher levels of metal species such as Fe and Ni (i.e.: a for M’ in Lin et al.) compared to Nb (i.e.: b for M”) improve the anode performance (¶39). Therefore, Lin et al. discloses that a nitrogen-containing anode catalyst comprising higher levels of iron and nickel relative to niobium improve the catalyst performance for the oxygen evolution reaction. Lin et al. discusses the incorporation of nitrogen into the catalyst by the use of nitrogen-containing atmosphere as per ¶41, However, Lin et al. does not discuss including oxygen into the catalyst (i.e.: oxynitride), nor does Lin et al. disclose all the ratios as per Claim 7 (a5) where Nb is the “M” species. Xiong et al. discloses that the oxygen evolution reaction is efficiently catalyzed by anode materials that comprise iron, nickel, nitrogen, and oxygen (pg. 883: abstract). Xiong et al. further discloses the monometallic species (either nickel nitride or iron oxide) are inferior to the mixed metal oxynitride with respect to both catalytic activity and stability (pg. 886 and Figures 4 and 5). Xiong et al. hypothesizes that the inclusion of both oxide (from iron oxide) and nitride (from nickel nitride) result in the enhanced stability and catalytic activity with the oxide provides stability against dissolution in the basic electrolyte and the nitride provides catalytic activity (pg. 883 and 886). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a transition metal oxynitride anode catalyst for the oxygen evolution reaction using the sputtering method disclosed by Lin et al. targeting an oxynitride composition with higher levels of iron and nickel relative to niobium as taught by the combination of Lin et al. and Xiong et al. The stoichiometry of nickel, iron, niobium, oxygen, and nitrogen is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of the elemental levels of nickel, iron, niobium, oxygen, and nitrogen, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation by varying the ratios of the metallic targets (i.e.: Fe, Ni, and Nb) and the concentrations of gases (oxygen and nitrogen). One would have been motivated to do so in order to form an anode catalyst material with enhanced catalytic activity for OER and enhanced stability against alkaline electrolytes. Pertaining to Claim 7 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the catalyst as per the limitation of (a5) where M = Nb as described in the previous paragraphs. Lin et al. discloses the use of such anode materials in a water electrolysis device to produce hydrogen as explained in ¶45-46 and depicted in FIG. 1 . Lin et al. indicates the membrane electrode assembly (MEA 100 ) comprises an anode ( 11 ) and a cathode ( 15 ) with a separator ( 13 ) (¶45-49). In ¶49, Lin et al. indicates that when MEA 100 is used to generate hydrogen by electrolysis, whereon MEA 100 is dipped into an electrolyte comprising an alkaline aqueous solution. Regarding Claim 8 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses a water electrolysis device as per Claim 7 wherein the alkaline solution is 0.1 M potassium hydroxide (¶67 – Example 5); however, the pH of the electrolyte is not specified. The pH of a solution can be derived from the hydroxide concentration of the electrolyte according to the relationship: pH + pOH = 14. The pH of a 0.1 M KOH solution is 13 as calculated in the box below. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range (12<pH ≤ 15) contains a value (pH=13) disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05(I) Regarding Claim 9 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the anode catalyst material as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the M c of Claim 1 is tantalum (“Ta”) as evidenced by ¶39-41 in Lin et al. where the identity of M” can be Ta. Regarding Group VB elements, Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. explicitly discloses the use of Ta and Nb (Lin et al. in the abstract) and the use of vanadium would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as congeners (i.e.: V, Nb, and Ta) are known to have similar chemical properties (i.e.: catalysis). Therefore, Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. renders where M c is vanadium (“V”) obvious. Regarding Claim 11 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the anode catalyst as claimed in Claim 1, wherein M is Nb, V, or Ta as explained above. Nb, V, and Ta are all congeners of each other as they are all transition metals in Group VB meaning they have similar chemical properties (i.e.: catalysis). The limitations of Claim 12 are merely further limiting an optional limitation of Claim 1 which stands rejected, as above, since Claim 12 only teaches a different option for the transition element (i.e.: Sn or Si). Regarding Claim 13 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the anode catalyst as claimed in Claim 1, wherein M is Cr as evidenced by the abstract, Claim 1, and Claim 7 of Lin et al . 07-22-aia AIA 6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al . as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Reece et al . Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0173042 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward catalyst for water splitting (abstract). Xiong et al. (“Size-Dependent Activity of Iron-Nickel Oxynitride towards Electrocatalytic Oxygen Evolution,” ChemNanoMat 2019 , 5 , 883-887 – previously presented) is directed toward an OER catalyst based on iron-nickel oxynitrides (pg. 1: abstract). Reece et al. (US 2011/0048962 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward compositions, electrode, methods, and systems for water electrolysis (Title and Abstract). Regarding Claim 5 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. teaches the anode catalyst material of Claim 3, wherein the carbon material is glassy carbon, as described for Preparation Ex. 5 of Lin et al. (¶64). However, Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. does not disclose a carbon support material other than glassy carbon. Reece et al. is analogous art to Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. since it discloses compositions of catalyst layers for use in a system capable of producing oxygen (i.e.: oxygen evolution reaction) during water electrolysis (Abstract; ¶9, ¶12, ¶30-32, and ¶40; Claims 3, 6, 9, and 10). Reece et al. teaches the current collector (analogous to the “support” of the present application) must have substantial conductivity (¶80). Reece et al. discloses a list of metals including: stainless steel, titanium, nickel, copper, and aluminum as suitable metals for the current collector (Reece et al. ¶80), that overlap with metals disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. Moreover, Reece et al. discloses other suitably conductive current collectors include: conductive carbon mesh (¶79), conductive carbon felt (¶79), or graphite (¶80) as examples. Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of Reece’s graphite support the glassy carbon electrode of Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. with the reasonable expectation of producing an electrode-supported anode catalyst material that will generate oxygen from water since both support materials are substantially conductive (Reece et al.: ¶79 and ¶80). See MPEP 2144.06(II) – substituting equivalents known for the same purpose . 07-22-aia AIA 7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al . as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Liu et al . Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0173042 A1 – previously presented) is directed toward catalyst for water splitting (abstract). Xiong et al. (“Size-Dependent Activity of Iron-Nickel Oxynitride towards Electrocatalytic Oxygen Evolution,” ChemNanoMat 2019 , 5 , 883-887 – previously presented) is directed toward an OER catalyst based on iron-nickel oxynitrides (pg. 1: abstract). Liu et al. (“Improving the HER activity of Ni 3 FeN to convert the superior OER electrocatalyst to an efficient bifunctional electrocatalyst for overall water splitting by doping with molybdenum,” Electrochimica Acta 2020, 333, article 135488, pg. 1-9) is directed toward compositions, electrode, methods, and systems for water electrolysis (Title and Abstract). Regarding Claim 10 , Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. discloses the anode of Claim 1, but does not disclose the use of Mo, W, Sn, or Si as M c . However, Liu et al. is directed at the formation of a bifunctional water splitting catalyst (OER + HER on pg. 1: title and abstract) meaning that Liu et al. is analogous art to Lin et al. and Xiong et al. In particular, Lin et al. indicates that doping an iron-nickel nitride (e.g.: FeNi 3 N) with Mo using the procedure described in section “2.2. Synthesis of Ni 3 N, Ni 3 FeN and Ni 3 FeN:Mo on nickel foam” results in a material having a low cell voltage to reach a current density of 10 mA/cm 2 with very stable bifunctional electrocatalysis (during water splitting) (pg. 2). Like Nb and Ta doping taught in Liu et al. in view of Xiong et al., Mo doping an FeNi-(oxy)nitride as taught in Lin et al. improves OER performance. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elemental composition of the anode of Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. by doping the catalyst with Mo as taught in Liu et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an effective bifunctional catalyst for water splitting (i.e.: both HER and OER) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA 8. Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore the previous rejections of Claims 1-9 are maintained and the rejections for new Claims 10, 11, and 13 are discussed above . 9. Lin et al., which discloses multi-metal nitride materials, provides the basis for selecting the metals (i.e.: Fe, Ni, and Nb) present in the anode material of Claim 1 and Claim 7 . Lin discloses M’ metals which include Fe and/or Ni and M” metals selected from Ta and/or Nb. While the examples in Lin et al. uses nickel (as the applicant points out on pg. 7 of their remarks), Lin et al. does not draw any distinction between the options for the M’ metal in terms of performance. In other words, Lin et al. indicates that all metals listed for M’ provide equivalent performance. Optimization of the ratio of M’ to M” in the multi-metal nitride is what drives improvements catalytic performance according to Lin et al. In particular, Lin et al. indicates that higher levels of metal species such as Fe and Ni (i.e.: a for M’ in Lin et al.) compared to Nb (i.e.: b for M”) improve the anode performance (¶39). Xiong et al. discloses that the oxygen evolution reaction is efficiently catalyzed by anode materials that comprise iron, nickel, nitrogen, and oxygen (pg. 883: abstract) and provides the basis for preparing an oxynitride (as compared to just an oxide or a nitride) material as an anode catalyst. Xiong et al. further shows the mixed metal oxynitride has the best catalytic activity and stability (pg. 886 and Figures 4 and 5). Xiong et al. hypothesizes that the inclusion of both oxide (from iron oxide) and nitride (from nickel nitride) result in the enhanced stability and catalytic activity with the oxide provides stability against dissolution in the basic electrolyte and the nitride provides catalytic activity (pg. 883 and 886). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary to prepare a multi-metal transition metal oxynitride anode catalyst for the oxygen evolution reaction using the sputtering method disclosed in the combination of Lin et al. and Xiong et al. while targeting an oxynitride composition with higher levels of iron and nickel relative to niobium as taught by Lin et al. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence or arguments to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness presented by the combination of Lin et al. and Xiong et al. as discussed above. 10. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 29 January 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of independent Claim 1 and Claim 7 based upon Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. as set forth in the last Office action as being obvious under 35 USC 103. Lin et al. in view of Xiong et al. indicates that doping of an iron-nickel (oxy)nitride with Nb or Ta improves the electrochemical performance of an OER anode. As such, Claim 1 and Claim 7 would be expected to have increased performance as explained in detail above. Moreover, the comparative examples in the declaration are focused on one main group element (i.e.: Al) and a Group IVB transition element (i.e.: Ti) which are not the main group elements (Si and Sn) nor the transition elements (i.e.; Group VB and Group VIB) of Claim 1 and Claim 7 . Since the doping elements of comparative examples are not in the same groups as the inventive examples/claimed doping elements, one of ordinary skill would not expect similar chemical nor catalytic behavior. In other words, elements in the same columns (e.g.: Nb, Ta, and V) are known to have similar chemical and catalytic properties which is often controlled by the oxidation an coordination environment of the element. 11. Regarding the transition elements Nb, V, Ti, Cr, Mo, or W, the applicant may consider including specific method steps (i.e.: how to synthesize catalyst materials) as means to overcome the teaching of Liu et al. in view of Xiong et al. 12. Regarding the use of Sn and Si as the M c of Claim 1 and Claim 7 , the prior art for the use of these dopants in Fe/Ni oxynitrides, Fe oxynitrides, or Ni oxynitrides as OER anodes is relatively sparse. The applicant may consider amending Claim 1 and Claim 7 to recite only the limitations and elemental ratios of (a3) and (a4) as these are outside the prior art and provide support for the criticality of the elemental ratios for OER performance (i.e.: anode catalyst). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 2 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 3 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 4 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 5 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 6 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 7 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 8 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 9 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 10 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 11 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 12 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 13 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 14 Art Unit: 1794 Application/Control Number: 17/840,200 Page 15 Art Unit: 1794
Prosecution Insights