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. Election/Restriction 2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, and 19) in the reply filed on 12 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is improper because the examiner has not adequately demonstrated distinctness or demonstrated a serious search burden. The examiner generally agrees that Group I, Group II, and Group III inventions are generally linked by the inventive concept of the vanadium oxide/metallic substrate electrode composition. Consequently, the examiner withdraws the previous restriction requirement . 3. In the present application, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are currently pending. Drawings 4 . The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3 lists VO 2 twice denoted by the symbol (*) and (#). The specification lists VO and VO 2 associated with (*) and (#), respectively. VO i s listed on pg. 26 lines 5-6 in the specification and VO 2 is listed on pg. 26 lines 6-9 in the specification . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 5 . Claim 5 is 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 5 recites a current density of 800 to 1200 mA/cm 2 at a potential of 1.7 V RHE , but does not indicate what electrochemical reaction is being catalyzed, thus rendering the claim unclear. According to ¶72 and ¶80 of the instant application ( cited as US Pub. No. 2024/0309522 A1 ) , the reaction pertinent to said current density of Claim 5 is oxygen evolution. The applicant should include OER in Claim 5 to remove the lack of clarity. 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. 6 . Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, and 1 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 02(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ming et al. Ming et al. (“3D Nanoporous Ni/V 2 O 3 hybrid nanoplate assembly for highly efficient electrochemical hydrogen evolution,” J. Mater. Chem A 2018 , 6 , 21452-21457 ) is directed toward a vanadium oxide catalyst (pg. 21452: title and abstract). Regarding Claim 1, Ming et al. discloses an electrode (“nanoplate assembly for electrochemical hydrogen evolution pg. 21452: title and abstract) comprising a metallic substrate (i.e.: Ni foam on pg. 21453: synthesis of Ni/V 2 O 3 ). Ming et al. further shows a layer of particles of a vanadium oxide composite (i.e.: vanadium in different oxidation states) at least partially covering a surface of the metallic substrate as depicted in micrographs of Fig. 1 . While the primary form of vanadium identified in the HER catalyst is V 3+ (as V 2 O 3 ), XPS analysis according to Fig. 2d shows V 4+ and V 5+ (oxides) present in the catalyst layer (pg. 21454); therefore, the limitation of vanadium oxide composite of Claim 1 is met. Ming et al. further indicates the nanoparticles are on the order of tens of nanometers on pg. 21453 (and depicted in the SEM of Fig. 1c ) which meets the size limitation of Claim 1, which states, ” the particles of the vanadium oxide composite are in the form of nanobeads having an average particle size of 50 to 400 nm .” It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses an example that is contained 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 2 , Ming et al. discloses the electrode of Claim 1, wherein the metallic substrate is a metal foam which is a nickel foam (pg. 21453: introduction and Synthesis of Ni/V 2 O 3 section and pg. 21456: conclusion). Regarding Claim 4, Ming et al. discloses the electrode of Claim 1, wherein the metallic substrate is nickel foam, and wherein a combination of the vanadium oxide composite and the nickel foam has a synergistic effect, resulting in improved electrocatalytic performance of the electrode as evidenced by the explanation on pg. 21455 and the electrochemical data in Fig. 3a , Fig. 3b , and Fig. 3c . The electrochemical data demonstrates that the Ni/V 2 O 3 has better performance than the Ni foam (which itself has HER activity), thus highlighting the synergistic effect as required by Claim 4. Regarding Claim 5, Ming et al. discloses the electrode as per Claim 1, but is silent on the electrochemical activity at 1.7 V RHE . In ¶17 and further in ¶72 of the instant application (cited as US Pub. No. 2024/0309522 A1), the electrode of the instant application and Claim 1 has a has a current density of 800 to 1200 mA/cm 2 at a potential of 1.7 V RHE . Therefore, the electrode of Claim 1 disclosed by Ming et al. would inherently have a current density of 800 to 1200 mA/cm 2 at a potential of 1.7 V RHE , as evidenced by a t least, the Applicant’s own disclosure (¶17, ¶72, ¶80, and ¶101). Regarding Claim 6, Ming et al. discloses the electrode of Claim 1 has a Tafel slope of 79.7 mV per decade (mV/decade) as supported by Fig. 3b on pg. 21455. It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses an example that is contained 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 17, Ming et al. discloses an electrochemical cell comprising: the electrode of C laim 1 (i.e.: working electrode of Ni/V 2 O 3 ) ; a counter electrode (i.e.: graphite rod ; and an electrolyte (i.e.: 1 M KOH) in contact with both electrodes (pg. 21453: Electrochemical measurements). Regarding Claim 18, Ming et al. discloses the electrochemical cell of C laim 17, wherein the electrolyte comprises an aqueous solution of a base (e.g.: KOH) at a concentration of 1.0 M (pg. 21453: Electrochemical measurements). It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses an example that is contained 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 19, Ming et al. discloses the method of Claim 18 , wherein the base is KOH (pg. 21453: Electrochemical measurements and pg. 21454-5: Results and Discussion). 7. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. Yang et al. (CN110699701A) is directed toward a metal nickel and vanadium oxide composition on foamed nickel. Regarding Claim 1, Yang et al. discloses an electrode (“a catalytic electrode for electrocatalytic hydrogen evolution” in ¶2). Yang et al. further discloses the electrode comprises a metallic substrate (i.e.: nickel foam ¶2, 6, 8-14 and Example 1) and a layer of particles of a vanadium oxide composite (i.e.: vanadium oxide of multiple oxidation states as indicated in FIG. 5b and ¶46) at least partially covering a surface of the metallic substrate ( FIG. 2 a and ¶8, 12, and 43). Yang et al. further describes the Ni/V 2 O 3 particles as being small spherical cluster s in the 500-1000 nm range ( FIG. 2b and FIG. 2c ) comprised of 20-50 nm nanoparticles ( FIG. 3d ¶8 and ¶12) . Therefore, Yang et al. teaches the size limitation of Claim 1, which states, ” the particles of the vanadium oxide composite are in the form of nanobeads having an average particle size of 50 to 400 nm .” It has been held that a prima facie case of anticipation exists when the prior art discloses an example that is contained 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 3, Yang et al. discloses the electrode of Claim 1, wherein the vanadium oxide composite comprises vanadium monoxide (VO), vanadium trioxide (V 2 O 3 ), vanadium dioxide (VO 2 ), and vanadium pentoxide (V 2 O 5 ), and the metallic substrate is the nickel foam as evidenced by the XPS in FIG. 5 b and FIG. 5 c . In FIG. 5 b , the oxidation state of vanadium was determined to be a mixture of V 2+ , V 3+ , V 4+ , and V 5+ and in FIG. 5 c , oxygen was determined to be bound to metals such as vanadium (M-O). Taking FIG. 5 b and FIG. 5 c together, the vanadium oxide species of Yang et al. is a mixture of vanadium monoxide (VO), vanadium trioxide (V 2 O 3 ), vanadium dioxide (VO 2 ), and vanadium pentoxide (V 2 O 5 ) on nickel/nickel foam. 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 . 8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming et al. Ming et al. (“3D Nanoporous Ni/V 2 O 3 hybrid nanoplate assembly for highly efficient electrochemical hydrogen evolution,” J. Mater. Chem A 2018 , 6 , 21452-21457) is directed toward a vanadium oxide catalyst (pg. 21452: title and abstract). Regarding Claim 20, Ming et al. discloses a method for electrochemical water splitting: comprising applying a potential between the electrodes (i.e.: the vanadium oxide/nickel foam working electrode and the graphitic counter electrode) in the electrochemical cell of Claim 17 to form hydrogen and oxygen , but does not explicitly teach the collection of enriched-gas streams. However, separately collecting H 2 -enriched gas and O 2 -enriched gas would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art as hydrogen is generated at the vanadium oxide electrode and the oxygen is generated at graphitic counter electrode (pg. 21453: Electrochemical measurements). Separate collection mechanisms (i.e.: a vacuum pump or inert art sweep) of the emitted gas above each electrode (i.e.: the cathode and the anode) during the electrochemical reaction would result in the separate collecting of enriched-H 2 gas and enriched O 2 gas. 9. Claim s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ming et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Piccirillo et al. Ming et al. (“3D Nanoporous Ni/V 2 O 3 hybrid nanoplate assembly for highly efficient electrochemical hydrogen evolution,” J. Mater. Chem A 2018 , 6 , 21452-21457 and supporting information ) is directed toward a vanadium oxide catalyst (pg. 21452: title and abstract). Piccirillo et al. (“Synthesis and Functional Properties of Vanadium Oxides: V 2 O 3 , VO 2 , and V 2 O 5 Deposited on Glass by Aerosol-Assisted CVD” Chem. Vap . Deposition 2007 , 13 , 145-151) is directed toward a synthesis of oxides of vanadium by AACVD (pg. 146: title) Regarding Claim 7 , Ming et al. discloses the electrode of Claim 1, which is prepared using solution methods as opposed to chemical vapor deposition methods. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize CVD methods to apply vanadium oxide films to metallic substrates since these methods are known to have precise control of film thickness allowing for tuning the catalytic properties of the film. Piccirillo et al. discloses the deposition of oxides of vanadium using AACVD (pg. 146: title) and indicates that vanadium oxides can be used as catalysts in industrial process. Piccirillo et al. further teaches that the film thickness can be controlled indicating the growth rate is 0.6 microns per hour (from a precursor solution of 0.05 mol/L vanadium oxide precursor) on pg. 146. Piccirillo et al. teaches a method of depositing vanadium oxides by AACVD with the following steps (aligned with the limitations of Claim 7): mixing and dissolving a vanadium oxide precursor in a solvent to form a solution (i.e.: mixing VO( acac ) 2 with alcoholic solvent on pg. 146: Table 1 and pg. 151: 4. Experimental Section) ; aerosolizing the solution to form an aerosol containing the vanadium oxide precursor (pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus and 1 and pg. 151: 4. Experimental Section) ; placing the ( metallic ) substrate in a heating chamber, and passing the aerosol through the heating chamber with the aid of a carrier gas that is nitrogen (PG. 146: Table 1; pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus and pg. 151: 4. Experimental Section); wherein the metallic substrate is in direct contact with the aerosol (pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus and pg. 151: 4. Experimental Section); and heating the ( metallic ) substrate in the heating chamber to form the electrode having the layer of the vanadium oxide composite at least partially covered on the surface of the metallic substrate (pg. 148: Fig. 3a, Fig. 3b, and Fig. 3c; pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus and pg. 151: 4. Experimental Section) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the AACVD deposition method of Piccirillo et al. to form Vox layers on the nickel foam substrate of Ming et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming an active catalyst with precise control over the thickness and composition (i.e.: V 2 O 3 , VO 2 , V 2 O 5 , or V x O y ) of said catalyst layer. Regarding Claim 8, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al. discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the vanadium precursor is vanadium oxyacetylacetonate ( i . e.: V O( acac ) 2 ) , as evidenced by Table 1 on pg. 1 46 of Piccirillo et al. Regarding claim 9, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al discloses the method of C laim 7, wherein the vanadium oxide precursor is present in the concentration of 0.01 to 0.1 mol /dm³ (which is the same as molar or M) according to p g. 146 of Piccirillo et al. It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding Claim 10, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al. discloses the method of C laim 7, where in the solvent is methanol or ethanol (i.e.: an alcohol solvent ) as per Table 1 on pg. 146 Piccirillo et al. Regarding Clai m 11, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al. discloses the method of C laim 10, where in the alcohol solvent is either ethanol or methanol (pg. 146: Table 1 of Piccirillo et al.) Regarding Claim 12, Ming in view of Piccirillo et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the aerosol is passed through the heating chamber with the aid of the carrier gas (i.e.: nitrogen on pg. 146 in Table 1 of Piccirillo et al). Piccirill o et al. explicitly teaches a carrier gas flow rate of 1500 to 3000 cm 3 /min (pg. 146: Table 1). Piccirill o et al. further discloses that the inert gas flow rate changes the oxidation state of the deposited vanadium oxide (pg. 148-149: 2.3. Variation in Deposition Conditions). Lower flow rate resulted in lower oxidations states in vanadium and higher flow rates resulted in higher oxidation states for vanadium (pg. 146: Table 1 and pg. 148-149: 2.3. Variation in Deposition Conditions). Given the precise control that inert gas flow rate gas over the resultant stoichiometry of the vanadium oxide, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize the inert gas flow rate as way to produce a specific vanadium oxide stoichiometry leading to specific catalytic activity , including the flow rates of Claim 12 (i.e.: 80 to 120 cm 3 /min) . See MPEP 2144.05(II) - ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION Regarding Claim 13, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the aerosolizing is performed on an aerosol generator as indicated in Piccirillo et al. on pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus and pg. 151: 4. Experimental Section . Piccirillo et al. teaches the method of aerosolizing with the following steps (aligned with the limitations of Claim 13): a fluid chamber having a housing inlet, a housing outlet, and a vent ( Piccirillo et al. on pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus ) ; a vibrating element (i.e.: ultrasonic humidifier) operably coupled to the support plate for generating the a erosol Piccirillo et al. on pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus ; wherein the solution is introduced into the fluid chamber via the housing inlet (i.e.: flask inlet valve) ; wherein the fluid chamber is in fluid communication with the heating chamber via the housing outlet vent ( Piccirillo et al. on pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus ) ; and wherein the carrier gas is introduced into the fluid chamber via the vent, thereby carrying the aerosol into the heating chamber vent ( Piccirillo et al. on pg. 151 : Fig. 7 – Schematic representation of AACVD deposition apparatus ) . Regarding Claim 14, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the heating is performed at a temperature of 500-600 °C as supported by pg. 146 in section 2.1. Synthesis and Characterization of Piccirillo et al . It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the prior art discloses a range that overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Regarding Claim 15, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al . discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein at least a portion of the vanadium oxide precursor is decomposed to generate vanadium oxide composite during the heating as described in section 4. Experimental on pg. 151 a nd Table 1 on pg. 146 (of Piccirillo et al .). Regarding Claim 16, Ming et al. in view of Piccirillo et al . discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein the metallic substrate is nickel foam having a porous structure as supported by Fig. S3 a and Fig. 3b (Ming et al. in the supplementary information on pg. S3). Fig. 3 from Ming et al. on pg. S3 showing porous structure of nickel foam Fig. 3 from Ming et al. on pg. S3 showing porous structure of nickel foam C onclusion 10 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hassan et al. (“Vanadium oxide (V 2 O 3 ) for energy storage applications through hydrothermal route,” J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron. 2018 , 29 , 16021-16026) is directed toward energy storage applications (pg. 16021: title). Hu et al. ( “In situ synthesis of V 2 O 3 @Ni as an efficient hybrid catalyst for the hydrogen evolution reaction in alkaline and neutral media,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021 , 46 , 9101-9109) is directed toward a vanadium oxide catalyst (pg. 9101: title). Choi (“VO 2 as a Highly Efficient Electrocatalyst for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction,” Nanomaterials 2022 , 12 , article 939, pg. 1-14) is directed toward VO 2 as an OER catalyst (pg. 1: title). 11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5536 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Lin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8902 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 12. 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