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. Preliminary Amendments Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on August 1 4 , 2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 are currently pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-4, 7, and 10 -11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masa ( J. Masa, Amorphous Cobalt Boride (Co 2 B) as a Highly Efficient Nonprecious Catalyst for Electrochemical Water Splitting: Oxygen and Hydrogen Evolution , Advanced Energy Materials, 2016(6), 1502313, pp. 1-10 ; Supplemental Information attached ) in view of Oh ( J - H Oh, Synthesis of Cobalt Boride Nano Material in Triple DC Thermal Plasma Jet System , 2 nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Plasma Physics, 12-17, 11.2018, Kanazawa, Japan ). Regarding claim s 1 -2 , Masa teaches a method of producing a water electrolysis catalyst ([Abstract]: electrocatalyst for OER in alkaline electrolytes and simultaneously active for catalyzing HER) electrode ( p. 2, col. 1, para. 1: both the anode and cathode of a water splitting device ) containing cobalt boride nanoparticles (title ; Fig. 1(b) ) comprising: preparing cobalt boride nanoparticles ( p. 2, col. 1, para. 2: to prepare Co 2 B ; Fig. 1(b)) ; and producing an electrode containing the prepared cobalt boride (p. 2, col. 1, para. 1) . Masa does not explicitly disclose the cobalt boride nanoparticles are prepared using thermal plasma (claim 1) or wherein the cobalt boride nanoparticles are prepared by thermal plasma in a triple torch-type plasma device (claim 2). However, Oh teaches synthesis of cobalt boride nanoparticles by triple Direct Current (DC) thermal plasma jet system (p. 1, col. 1, para. 2). The triple thermal plasma jets generated from the three torches are encountered at the center axis of the reaction ( Fig. 1 ; p. 1, col. 1, para. 2 ). The cobalt-based nanoparticles are catalysts for hydrogen storage and fuel cell applications (p. 1, col. 1, para.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masa by substituting the preparation method by the chemical reduction of CoCl 2 using NaBH 4 (Masa, [Abstract]) with the preparation method of thermal plasma using a tripe torch-type plasma device as taught by Oh because both methods are suitable for preparing Cobalt Boride catalyst for water electrolysis and the substitution of one known element for another would yield nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2141(III)(B). Further, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding claim 3 , Masa and Oh discloses all limitations of claim 1. Masa does not disclose wherein the cobalt boride nanoparticles have a size of 1 to 20 nm. However, Oh teaches cobalt boride nanoparticles were synthesized at ten s of nanometer (p. 1, col. 1, para. 4), which overlaps the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masa by adjusting the cobalt boride nanoparticles within the claimed range as suggested by Oh. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 4, Masa teaches wherein the producing the electrode comprises: preparing a catalyst ink containing the cobalt boride nanoparticles (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: catalyst inks were prepared) ; and coating the electrode with the catalyst ink (Masa Supplemental, p. 6, para. 2: a glassy carbon electrode was modified by drop coating the catalysts inks) . Regarding claim 7, Ma sa and Oh discloses all limitations of claim 1. Masa further discloses a specific volume of ink was pipetted onto the pre-cleaned glassy carbon electrode to form a catalyst film with a loading equivalent to 210 µg cm -2 (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2). The water electrolysis was performed using carbon cloth electrodes modified with Co2B with a loading of approximately 5.0 mg per cm 2 ) as the catalysts for both the anode and the cathode (p. 6, last para.) Although Masa does not disclose wherein an amount of the cobalt boride nanoparticles contained in the electrode is 1 to 1.5 mg per a surface area (cm 2 ) of the electrode , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masa and Oh by adjusting the loading amount of the cobalt boride nanoparticles on the electrode within the claimed range because it can be optimized through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). Furthermore, the claimed range lies between the two exemplary loading amounts as taught by Masa. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 10 , Masa in view of Oh teaches a water electrolysis catalyst electrode ([Abstract]) produced using the method according to claim 1 (as described in claim 1) . Regarding claim 1 1, Masa in view of Oh teaches wherein the water electrolysis catalyst generates hydrogen and oxygen at an anode and a cathode, respectively ([Abstract]: efficient electrocatalyst for the OER and simultaneously active for HER) . Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masa in view of Oh, and further in view of Handa (US 2019/0242843) and Hossain (US 2017 / 0354955 ) , supported by Wikipedia (on Nafion) as an evidence . Regarding claim 5, Masa and Oh discloses all limitations of claim 4. Masa further teaches wherein the preparing the catalyst ink comprises mixing cobalt boride nanoparticles (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: catalyst power) , ethanol ( Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: ethanol ) , deionized water (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: Milli Q water) , and an additive (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: Nafion) and then ultrasonicating the resulting mixture (Masa Supplemental, p. 5,para. 2: followed by ultrasonication for 20 min) , and the coating the electrode with the catalyst ink comprises applying the ultrasonicated catalyst ink to the electrode, followed by drying (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: the resulting films were left to dry in air under ambient conditions for at least 20 min) . Masa uses ethanol and the time for ultrasonicating is 20 min (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2), and fails to teach using propanol or ultrasonicating for 50 to 70 minutes. However, Handa teaches 2-propanol (IPA) can be used as a solvent subject to ultrasonic vibration for dispersion (¶56). Hossain teaches an ultrasonic ation for 1-60 minutes would achieve a homogeneous mixture (¶81) , which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masa and Oh by substituting ethanol with propanol as taught by Handa and adjusting sonication time within the claimed range as suggested by Hossain. Here, since both ethanol and propanol are suitable solvent for ultrasonic, the substitution would yield nothing more than predictable results to establish prima facie obviousness . MPEP 2141(III)(B). Further, i n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding claim 6 , Masa teaches wherein the additive is tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octenesulfonic acid copolymer (Masa Supplemental, p. 5, para. 2: Nafion; as evidenced by Wikipedia, Nafion has a name of tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoro-3,6-dioxa-4-methyl-7-octenesulfonic acid copolymer , as shown on p. 2 ) . Claim(s) 8 -9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masa in view of Oh, and further in view of Kim (M. Kim, Synthesis of Metal Boride Nanoparticles Using Triple Thermal Plasma Jet System, Jo u rnal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 2019(19), pp. 6264-70 ; publication date: October 1, 2019, see last page of the attached document ). Regarding claim 8, Masa and Oh discloses all limitations of claim 1. Oh further discloses wherein the preparing the cobalt boride nanoparticles comprises: injecting a plasma-forming gas into a triple torch-type plasma jet device to generate a plasma jet (Fig. 1: argon and nitrogen are mixed plasma forming gas, which are injected into the triple torch-type plasma jet device) ; injecting a cobalt/boron mixture into the plasma jet using a carrier gas ( Fig. 1; p. 1, col. 1, para. 2: injection of raw material into the high temperature region of thermal plasma jet; Fig. 1: indicating the three carrier gases injected into the triple torch-type plasma jet device) , followed by vaporization (p. 1, col. 1, para. 2: improved vaporization) . Masa and Oh do not disclose cooling the vaporized cobalt/boron mixture to recover the cobalt boride nanoparticles. However, Kim teaches metal boride nanoparticles, e.g., titanium, nickel, and tungsten, were synthesized in the triple thermal plasma jet system (Fig. 1; [Abstract]). The individual thermal plasma jet was generated by Ar and N2 mixed gases, and three kinds of starting material were respectively injected with argon carrier gas ( Fig. 1; Table 1; p. 6257, col. 2, para. 2) before the synthesized nanoparticles were collected in separated position of reaction (Fig. 1, p. 6258, col. 1, para. 1). For example, after vaporization, the titanium and boron vapors are co-condensed to the titanium boride nanoparticles (p. 6266, col. 2, para. 2). Thus, Kim teaches cooling the vaporized mixture to recover the nanoparticles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masa and Oh by incorporating a cooling step for recovering the desired nanoparticles from the high temperature plasma jet device as taught by Kim. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). Regarding claim 9, Masa , Oh , and Kim disclose all limitations of claim 8. Masa and Kim do not disclose wherein the cobalt and the boron in the cobalt/boron mixture are mixed in a molar ratio of 1:0.5 to 1:4. However, Oh teaches the cobalt and boron were mixed at 1 to 3 molar ratio to provide the sufficient boron vapor (p. 1, col. 1, para. 3), which overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masa, Oh, and Kim by adjusting the molar ratio of cobalt and boron within the claimed range because it is a suitable molar ratio to provide sufficient boron vapor. I n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner , 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . MPEP 2144.05(I). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6788 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm . 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 Luan Van can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /C. SUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795