CTFR 18/162,306 CTFR 95667 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 01/20/2026. Status of Rejections The rejection of claim(s) 4 and 20 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment. The previous rejections of claims 9-15 are maintained. All other previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. 12-256 AIA New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments . Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1 , line 6, “Zn, Cd” should read “Zn or Cd”. In claim 16 , line 8, “Zn, Cd” should read “Zn or Cd” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "when B is Sn" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “B is Zn, Cd” is introduced in line 6 of the claim. There is no basis for B being Sn. Claim 16 recites the limitation "when B is Sn" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “B is Zn, Cd” is introduced in line 8 of the claim. There is no basis for B being Sn. Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 9, 11, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler et al. (EP 3958360 A1) in view of Salam et al. (“Sol–gel synthesis of intrinsic and aluminum-doped zinc oxide thin films as transparent conducting oxides for thin film solar cells”, Thin Solid Films , 2013) . Regarding claims 1 and 3 , Schuler teaches an electrolyzer catalyst support (see e.g. Paragraph 0002, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11, support for active material of electrochemical cell such as electrolyzer) comprising: a material having one or more conducting oxide compositions of formula (I): A x B y Sb w O z , wherein A is Al, B is Zn, and w is 0, such that the material includes a binary oxide (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11, support comprising transparent conductive oxides such as aluminum doped zinc oxide). Schuler does not explicitly teach x being any number between about 0.0 and 0.2, y being any number between 0.9 and 2, and z being any number between 0.9 and 3, but does generally teach the material being a transparent conductive oxide comprising aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Salam teaches a transparent conductive aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Title and Abstract), wherein a minimum electrical resistivity, i.e. maximum conductivity, is achieved with a formula of Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O (see e.g. Page 243, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 19-20, Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, and Page 246, Col. 1, lines 5-7 1 at% Al substituted into ZnO), equivalent to A x B y Sb w O z , where A is Al, B is Zn, x is 0.01, y is 0.99, w is 0 and z is 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 the aluminum doped zinc oxide of Schuler to comprise Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O as taught by Salam as a maximum conductivity transparent conductive aluminum doped zinc oxide composition. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claim 2 , modified Schuler teaches the catalyst support being an anode electrocatalyst support (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0002, lines 6-9, Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11, support used for active material for e.g. anodic catalyst layer). Regarding claims 9 and 11 , Schuler teaches an electrochemical cell electrode (see e.g. Paragraph 0001, lines 1-5, porous transport electrode for electrochemical cell) comprising: an electrocatalyst including Ir, Ru or both (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrochemically active material comprising Pt group metals such as Ru and Ir and alloys thereof; Paragraph 0019, lines 4-7, and Paragraph 0003, lines 10-11); and an electrocatalyst support adhered to the electrocatalyst and including a material having one or more conducting oxide compositions of formula (I): A x B y Sb w O z , wherein A is Al, B is Zn, and w is 0 (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11, active material supported on transparent conductive oxides such as aluminum doped zinc oxide). Schuler does not explicitly teach x being any number between about 0.0 and 0.2, y being any number between 0.9 and 2, and z being any number between 0.9 and 3, but does generally teach the material being a transparent conductive oxide comprising aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Salam teaches a transparent conductive aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Title and Abstract), wherein a minimum electrical resistivity, i.e. maximum conductivity, is achieved with a formula of Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O (see e.g. Page 243, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 19-20, Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, and Page 246, Col. 1, lines 5-7 1 at% Al substituted into ZnO), equivalent to A x B y Sb w O z , where A is Al, B is Zn, x is 0.01, y is 0.99, w is 0 and z is 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 the aluminum doped zinc oxide of Schuler to comprise Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O as taught by Salam as a maximum conductivity transparent conductive aluminum doped zinc oxide composition. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claim 14 , modified Schuler teaches the electrochemical cell being an electrolyzer (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0002, lines 1-5). Regarding claims 16 and 19 , Schuler teaches an electrochemical cell component (see e.g. Paragraph 0001, lines 1-5, porous transport electrode for electrochemical cell) comprising: a bulk layer including metal (see e.g. Fig. 1, first layer 1 and second layer 2 comprising titanium, valve metal and/or stainless steel; Paragraph 0019, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0023, lines 1-9); and a surface layer including a material having one or more conducting oxide compositions of formula (I): A x B y Sb w O z , wherein A is Al, B is Zn, and w is 0 (see e.g. Fig. 1, support comprising transparent conductive oxides such as aluminum doped zinc oxide for active material in catalyst layer 3; Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11, and Paragraph 0023, lines 1-11). Schuler does not explicitly teach x being any number between about 0.0 and 0.2, y being any number between 0.9 and 2, and z being any number between 0.9 and 3, but does generally teach the material being a transparent conductive oxide comprising aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Salam teaches a transparent conductive aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Title and Abstract), wherein a minimum electrical resistivity, i.e. maximum conductivity, is achieved with a formula of Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O (see e.g. Page 243, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 19-20, Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, and Page 246, Col. 1, lines 5-7 1 at% Al substituted into ZnO), equivalent to A x B y Sb w O z , where A is Al, B is Zn, x is 0.01, y is 0.99, w is 0 and z is 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 the aluminum doped zinc oxide of Schuler to comprise Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O as taught by Salam as a maximum conductivity transparent conductive aluminum doped zinc oxide composition. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claim 17 , modified Schuler teaches the component being an anode electrocatalyst support (see e.g. Schuler Fig. 1, supported active material for e.g. anodic catalyst layer as catalyst layer 3 on layers 1 and 2, Paragraph 0002, lines 6-9, Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11, and Paragraph 0023, lines 1-11). Regarding claim 18 , modified Schuler teaches the component being a flow field plate (see e.g. Schuler Fig. 1, layers 1 and 2 forming porous layers for porous transport electrode, i.e. flow field plate, for permeability of gaseous and liquid substances; Paragraph 0009) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Salam , as applied to claim s 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Ueno et al. (“Synthesis of mesoporous ZnO, AZO, and BZO transparent conducting films using nonionic triblock copolymer as template”, Materials Letters , 2013) . Regarding claims 4 and 20 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the catalyst support of claim 1 and cell component of claim 16 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach A being F, Cl, Ta or boron, as in claim 4 , or A being Cl, Ta or boron, as in claim 20 , but does generally teach the support material comprising transparent conductive oxides such as aluminum zinc oxide (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Ueno teaches transparent conducting films comprising ZnO doped with Al or B (see e.g. Abstract), wherein the films may be provided with high electronic conductivity by doping an optimum amount of B or Al (see e.g. Abstract and Page 111, Col. 2, lines 3-7). 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 the conducting oxide material of modified Schuler to comprise the zinc oxide doped with boron instead of aluminum as taught by Ueno as an alternate suitable doped zinc transparent conductive oxide material that exhibits high electronic conductivity. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5, 7, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Salam , as applied to claim s 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Santos-Cruz et al. (“Optical and electrical characterization of fluorine doped cadmium oxide thin films prepared by the sol–gel method”, Thin Solid Films , 2007) . Regarding claim 5 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the catalyst support of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach B being Cd, but does generally teach the support material comprising transparent conductive oxides such as fluorine tin oxide (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Santos-Cruz teaches a transparent conductive fluorine doped cadmium oxide (see e.g. Abstract) having a formula of F 0.001-0.1 Cd 0.9-0.999 O (see e.g. Page 5382, Col. 1, 2 nd paragraph, lines 1-2 and 4-7, CdO doped with 0.1 to 10 at% F), equivalent to equivalent to A x B y Sb w O z , where A is the halogen F, B is Cd, x is 0.001-0.1, y is 0.9-0.999, w is 0 and z is 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 the support material of modified Schuler to further comprise F 0.001-0.1 Cd 0.9-0.999 O as taught by Santos-Cruz as an exemplary suitable transparent conductive oxide material. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claims 7 and 13 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the support of claim 1 and the electrode of claim 9 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach the material further including a conducting oxide having a formula (II): A x B y C 1-y O 2-δ , where A is a halogen, B is Sn or Zn, C is Ti or Cd, x is any number between 0.01 and 0.2, y is any number between 0 and 1, and δ is any number between 0 and 3 optionally including a fractional part denoting oxygen vacancies, but does generally teach the support material comprising transparent conductive oxides such as fluorine tin oxide (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Santos-Cruz teaches a transparent conductive fluorine doped cadmium oxide (see e.g. Abstract) having a formula of F 0.001-0.2 Cd 0.8-0.999 O (see e.g. Page 5382, Col. 1, 2 nd paragraph, lines 1-2 and 4-7, CdO doped with 0.1 to 20 at% F), equivalent to equivalent to A x B y C 1-y O 2-δ , where A is the halogen F, C is Cd, x is 0.001-0.2, y is 0.8-0.999, and δ is 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 the support material of modified Schuler to further comprise F 0.001-0.2 Cd 0.8-0.999 O as taught by Santos-Cruz as an exemplary suitable transparent conductive oxide material. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Regarding claim 10 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 9 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach A being a halogen, but does generally teach the support material comprising transparent conductive oxides such as fluorine tin oxide (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Santos-Cruz teaches a transparent conductive fluorine doped cadmium oxide (see e.g. Abstract) having a formula of F 0.001-0.1 Cd 0.9-0.999 O (see e.g. Page 5382, Col. 1, 2 nd paragraph, lines 1-2 and 4-7, CdO doped with 0.1 to 10 at% F), equivalent to equivalent to A x B y Sb w O z , where A is the halogen F, B is Cd, x is 0.001-0.1, y is 0.9-0.999, w is 0 and z is 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 the support material of modified Schuler to further comprise F 0.001-0.1 Cd 0.9-0.999 O as taught by Santos-Cruz as an exemplary suitable transparent conductive oxide material. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Salam , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tabassum et al. (“Electrical stability of Al-doped ZnO transparent electrode prepared by sol-gel method”, Applied Surface Science , 2016) . Regarding claim 6 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the catalyst support of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach at least one of the one or more conducting oxides of formula (I) having an oxygen vacancy. Salam does however teach oxygen vacancies effecting the electrical properties of Al-doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Salam Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-4). Tabassum teaches Al-doped zinc oxide thin films for transparent electrodes (see e.g. Title and Abstract), wherein a post-heat treatment increases the concentration of oxygen vacancy and thus the conductivity of the films (see e.g. Page 356, Col. 1, lines 1-2 and 15-17). 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 the Al-doped zinc oxide of modified Schuler to have oxygen vacancies as taught by Tabassum to increase the conductivity of the oxide composition . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Salam , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (U.S. 2015/0004734) . Regarding claim 8 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the catalyst support of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not teach the material including CdSb 2 O- 3 , but does generally teach the support material comprising transparent conductive oxides (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Chen teaches a device comprising a conductive oxide layer (see e.g. Fig. 1, solar cell 100 with front contact layer or transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer 150; Paragraph 0012) wherein the conductive oxide material can include CdSb 2 O 3 (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 1-8). 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 the support material of modified Schuler to further comprise CdSb 2 O- 3 as taught by Chen as an exemplary suitable transparent conductive oxide material. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Salam , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chen and Gillaspie et al. (U.S. 2012/0160663) . Regarding claim 12 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 9 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach the material including a ternary oxide and Sb being present, but does generally teach the support material comprising transparent conductive oxides (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 7-11). Chen teaches a device comprising a transparent conductive oxide layer (see e.g. Fig. 1, solar cell 100 with transparent conductive oxide (TCO) layer 150; Paragraph 0012) wherein the transparent conductive oxide material can include CdSb 2 O 3 doped with Y (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 1-8), thereby forming a ternary oxide with Sb present. Gillaspie teaches transparent conductive oxide films (see e.g. Abstract), wherein a dopant element is typically introduced in low to moderate concentrations of about 4% to 8% (see e.g. Paragraphs 0104-0105). In combination with Chen, the Y-doped CdSb 2 O 3 would therefore have a formula of Y 0.04-0.08 Cd 0.92-0.96 Sb 2 O 3, equivalent to equivalent to A x B y Sb w O z , where A is the transition metal Y, B is Cd, x is 0.04-0.08, y is 0.92-0.96, w is 2 and z is 3. 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 the support material of modified Schuler to comprise Y 0.04-0.08 Cd 0.92-0.96 Sb 2 O 3 as taught by Chen and Gillaspie as an exemplary suitable transparent conductive oxide material. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler in view of Salam , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (“High crystallinity design of Ir-based catalysts drives catalytic reversibility for water electrolysis and fuel cells”, Nat Commun , 2021) . Regarding claim 15 , modified Schuler teaches all the elements of the electrode of claim 9 as stated above. Modified Schuler does not explicitly teach the electrocatalyst having a formula Ir x Ni 1-x , where 0≤x≤1. Schuler does however teach the electrocatalyst being an electrochemically active material comprising alloys of platinum group metals such as Ir (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 4-7, and Paragraph 0003, lines 10-11), as well as the electrode being used for conversion of eater into oxygen and hydrogen in an electrolyzer (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0001, lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0002, lines 1-5). Lee teaches an electrocatalyst for use in the hydrogen evolution reactions (HER) and oxygen evolution reactions (OER) of water electrolyzers (see e.g. Abstract) having a formula Ir 0.66 Ni 0.34 (see e.g. Page 2, Col. 2, under “Results”, lines 1-3 and 17-19) which has high catalytic activity for both HER and OER (see e.g. Page 8, under “Discussion”, lines 7-16). 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 the electrocatalyst of modified Schuler to comprise Ir 0.66 Ni 0.34 as taught by Lee as a particular Ir alloy with high activity for both HER and OER. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1 and 16 under 35 USC 102 over Kozawa, particularly regarding B being Zn or Cd, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schuler and Salam. Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not all considered persuasive. On pages 13-14, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine Schuler and Salam, as they are in different technical fields, which Schuler using oxide layers as corrosion-resistant coatings, conductive interlayers and structural electrode components, and Salam using Al:ZnO as a transparent conductive oxide and functional layer in a solar cell optimized for optical transmission, not electrochemical stability, and there is therefore no basis for success in the combination. This is not considered persuasive. Schuler explicitly teaches the electrochemically active material, i.e. electrocatalyst, being supported on materials such as transparent conductive oxides, particularly exemplifying aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11). Salam then teaches aluminum-doped zinc oxide as a transparent conductive oxide (see e.g. Salam Title and Abstract), where maximum conductivity is provided with a composition of Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O (see e.g. Page 243, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 19-20, Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, and Page 246, Col. 1, lines 5-7 1 at% Al substituted into ZnO). Even though the Al-doped ZnO of Salam may be optimized for optical transmission, it still fulfills the requirements of an exemplary transparent conductive oxide, particularly an exemplary aluminum doped zinc oxide composition, desired by Schuler. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. On pages 14-15, Applicant argues that Salam does not address adhesion of noble-metal catalysts and one would not expect the sol-gel AZO on glass of Salam to reliably support Ir/Ru catalysts as required by the claim. This is not considered persuasive. Though teachings of the reference must be viewed as a whole, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Schuler teaches the electrochemically active material, i.e. electrocatalyst, being supported on materials such as transparent conductive oxides, particularly exemplifying aluminum doped zinc oxide (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11). Salam teaches aluminum-doped zinc oxide as a transparent conductive oxide (see e.g. Salam Title and Abstract), where maximum conductivity is provided with a composition of Al 0.01 Zn 0.99 O (see e.g. Page 243, Col. 1, under “2.1”, lines 19-20, Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, and Page 246, Col. 1, lines 5-7, 1 at% Al substituted into ZnO), providing basis for the specific doping content taught by Salam to be used in the aluminum doped zinc oxide already taught as a catalyst support by Schuler. On page 15, Applicant argues that Salam is a non-analogous reference because it is neither in the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the problem Applicant was solving. This is not considered persuasive. Salam is directed towards providing a conductive oxide composition by doping of a zinc oxide (see e.g. Salam Page 242, Col. 2, lines 2-9, and Page 245, Col. 2, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8), which is similarly described in paragraphs 0008 and 0061 of the instant specification, therefore being reasonably pertinent to a problem solved by the Applicant. It should be noted that paragraph 0045 of the instant specification stated that the oxide material of the invention may be a transparent conducting oxide, typically used in optoelectronic devices. On page 16, Applicant argues that Santos Cruz is, like Salam, directed towards transparent conducting oxides for thin-film devices, not electrochemical cell electrodes or electrocatalyst supports, and does not teach or suggest used of the fluorine -doped cadmium oxide as an electrocatalyst support adhered to Ir- or Ru- based catalysts, and there is this no motivation to combine it with the electrode architecture of Schuler. This is not considered persuasive. As stated above, Schuler explicitly the electrochemically active material, i.e. electrocatalyst, being supported on materials such as transparent conductive oxides (see e.g. Schuler Paragraph 0019, lines 4-11). Santos-Cruz then teaches an exemplary highly conductive transparent conductive oxide composition (see e.g. Santos-Cruz Abstract). MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. 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 would yield nothing more than predictable results. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 and 7-8 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Luan Van can be reached at (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. /M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795 /LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 2 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 3 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 4 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 5 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 6 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 7 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 8 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 9 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 10 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 11 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 12 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 13 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 14 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 15 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 16 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 17 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 18 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 19 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 20 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/162,306 Page 21 Art Unit: 1795
Prosecution Insights