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. Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 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 : On line 12, it is claimed that the “manganese oxide having a formula of Mn x O y ”. Lines 16 and 18 both make claim to “particles of MnO ”. Therefore, the form of manganese oxide is unclear. For the purposes of examination, the MnO in claim 1 will be read as “ Mn x O y ”. The claims dependent on the above claim are rejected for their dependence. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 and 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter et al (“ Facile Formation of Nanostructured Manganese Oxide Films as High - Performance Catalysts for the Oxygen Evolution Reaction ”, ChemSusChem , Volume 11, Issue 15 , 2018 , p ages 2554-2561 ) in view of Zhang et al (“ lectrocatalytic Water OxidationPromoted by 3D Nanoarchitectured Turbostratic d- MnOx on Carbon Nanotubes ”, ChemSusChem , 2017, 10,4472–4478 ) and Singh et al (“ Water Oxidation Catalysis by Nanoparticulate Manganese Oxide Thin Films: Probing the Effect of the Manganese Precursors ”, Chem.Mater , 2013, 25, 1098−1108 ). Wang et al (“ The rise of manganese as catalysts for acidic water oxidation: A mini review ”, Electrochemistry Communications , 151 , May 2023 , 107505 ) cited as an evidentiary reference. Claim 1 : Walter discloses a method of generating oxygen (water splitting, see e.g. abstract) , comprising: applying a potential of greater than 0 to 2.0 V to an electrochemical cell (see e.g. page 2560, paragraph “Electrochemical OER measurements”) , wherein the electrochemical cell is at least partially submerged in an aqueous solution (see e.g. page 2560, paragraph “Electrochemical OER measurements”) , wherein on applying the potential the aqueous solution is oxidized thereby forming oxygen (see e.g. abstract) , wherein the electrochemical cell comprises: an electrocatalyst (see e.g. abstract) ; and a counter electrode (see e.g. page 2560, paragraph “Electrochemical OER measurements”) ; wherein the electrocatalyst comprises: a substrate (see e.g. page 1599, paragraph “Synthesis of the catalyst film”) ; and a layer of particles of manganese oxide having a formula of Mn x O y on a surface of the substrate (see e.g. page 1599, paragraph “Synthesis of the catalyst film”) , wherein x is 1 (see e.g. abstract) , wherein y is an integer from 1 to 4 (as evidenced by Wang, see e.g. page 1, col 1, “ Crystalline-phase MnO x can have the α-Mn 3 O 4 , α-Mn 2 O 3 , and MnO crystal structures ”) , wherein the particles of Mn x O y have an average diameter of 5-15 nanometers (nm) (see e.g. page 2556, col 1, “ TEM and HRTEM were used to reveal the porous structure of MnOx , which consists of very small crystalline particles in the range of 5–15 nm in diameter (Figure 2and Figures S8–S10) ”) , wherein the particles of Mn x O y are aggregated with an average aggregate size greater than 500 nm (see e.g. Fig S36a) in the shape of a cauliflower (see e.g. Fig S36a) . Walter does not explicitly teach a nickel foam substrate . Zhang teaches a manganese oxide water splitting catalyst (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The substrate used in Zhang is a nickel foam which has “t he advantage of high electron conductivity, high surface area , and low cost ” (see e.g. page 4473, col 1, paragraph starting with “On the”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Walter to use nickel foam as the substrate taught in Zhang because nickel foam has t he advantage of high electron conductivity, high surface area , and low cost . 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) ’. Walter does not explicitly teach that the Mn x O y particles have a spherical shape . However, Walter appears to show spherical shapes in Fig S36 a . Additionally , Singh teaches manganese oxide water splitting catalysts, making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The catalyst of Singh has a spherical shape with diameters overlapping with those taught in Walter (see e.g. page 1104, col 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Walter so that the particles are spherical as taught in Singh because this a recognized shape for manganese oxide water splitting catalysts in the size range taught in Walter. Claim 8 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that the particles of manganese oxide consist of Mn and O (see e.g. Walter - abstract). Claim 9 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that the particles of manganese oxide are homogeneously dispersed on the surface of the nickel foam substrate (see e.g. Walter – page 2559, col 2, paragraph starting with “A versatile”). Claim 10 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh teaches that the particles of manganese oxide cover an entire surface of the nickel foam substrate (see e.g. Zhang – page 4474, col 1, paragraph starting “The morphology”) . Claim 1 1 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh teaches that the particles of manganese oxide penetrate micropores of the nickel foam substrate (see e.g. Zhang – page 4474, col 1, paragraph starting “The morphology”) . Claim 1 2 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh teaches that the particles of manganese oxide form a continuous network on the surface of the nickel foam substrate (see e.g. Zhang – page 4474, col 2, Figure 3). Claim 1 3 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh teaches that the electrocatalyst has an overpotential of ~ 160 millivolts (mV) for a current density of 10 milliampere per square centimeter (mA cm- 2 ) (see e.g. “B-10” on Fig S34). Claim 1 4 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh does not explicitly teach that the overpotential does not vary by more than 5% after the potential is applied for 2-50 hours. However, Walter in view of Zhang and Singh renders all of the positively recited structure of claim 1 4 obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the structures of Walter in view of Zhang and Singh would have substantially similar characteristics, including an overpotential does not vary by more than 5% after the potential is applied for 2-50 hours . Claim 1 5 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh does not explicitly teach that the electrocatalyst has a current density of at least 1,000 mA cm -2 at 430 mV. However, Walter in view of Zhang and Singh renders all of the positively recited structure of claim 15 obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the structures of Walter in view of Zhang and Singh would have substantially similar characteristics, including a current density of at least 1,000 mA cm -2 at 430 mV . Claim 1 6 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that t he electrocatalyst has an electrochemical surface area of 47.8-184.5 cm 2 , with a specific value of 131.0 cm 2 (see e.g. page 2557, col 1), overlapping with the claimed range of 120-160 cm 2 . MPEP § 2144.05 states that ‘ 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) ’. Claim 1 7 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that electrocatalyst consists of the particles of manganese oxide on the surface of the substrate (see e.g. page 2555, Fig 1). Claim 1 8 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that the aqueous solution comprises KOH (see e.g. page 2560, col 2, paragraph starting with “E lectrochemical OER measurements ”). Claim 1 9 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that the base is potassium hydroxide (see e.g. page 2560, col 2, paragraph starting with “E lectrochemical OER measurements ”). Claim 20 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh discloses that the counter electrode is made from platinum (see e.g. page 2560, col 2, paragraph starting with “E lectrochemical OER measurements ”). Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Zhang and Singh as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Manafi et al (“ Aerosol Assisted Chemical Vapor Deposition of Mn( acac )2 for MnOx /(Clay-Bonded SiC ) Catalyst Synthesis for Propane-SCR of NOx A , Russian Journal of Inorganic Chemistry , 2021, Vol. 66, No. 5, pp. 684–695. ) . Claim 2 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh teaches forming the electrocatalyst by mixing a manganese salt (Mn(Ac) 2 ) in a solvent to form a homogeneous solution (see e.g. pages 2559, “Synthesis of the catalyst film” paragraph) ; and depositing the homogeneous solution on the substrate using airbrush deposition process (see e.g. pages 2559, “Synthesis of the catalyst film” paragraph). Manafi teaches a method of forming a manganese oxide catalyst (see e.g. abstract, making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I) wherein a manganese salt (Mn(Ac) 2 ) is mixed with a solvent to form a homogeneous solution (see e.g. page 685, col 2, paragraph starting with “M anganese acetylacetonat ”) ; and depositing the homogeneous solution on the substrate using aerosol- assisted chemical vapor deposition (AACVD) (see e.g. connecting paragraph of pages 685 and 686) at a temperature of 300-420 °C (see e.g. abstract) to form the electrocatalyst. The AACVD process of Manafi has the advantage of allowing Mn(Ac) 2 to be used with CVD (see e.g. page 685, col 1, paragraph starting with “’The present”), which is a si n gle-step synthesis method wherein the active phase is deposited on the catalyst support from a gaseous metal pre cursor without using unnecessary time-consuming conditioning steps such as calcination, filtration or drying and offers the possibility of producing higher dispersions and more uni f orm size distributions of the active phase on the catalyst support (see e.g. page 684, col 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Walter so that AACVD process taught in Manafi is used as the deposition method because CVD has a benefit of being a si n gle-step synthesis method wherein the active phase is deposited on the catalyst support from a gaseous metal pre cursor without using unnecessary time-consuming conditioning step with higher dispersions and more uniform size distributions. Claim 3 : Walter in view of Zhang, Singh, and Manafi teaches that the depositing is carried out for 30 minutes (see e.g. page 686, col 1, connecting paragraph from page 685). Claim 4 : Walter in view of Zhang, Singh, and Manafi teaches that the depositing is carried out at atmospheric pressure (the pressure is not specified for the deposition process and is assumed to be carried out at atmospheric). Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Zhang and Singh as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Jin et al (“ Partially Oxidized Sub-10 nm MnO Nanocrystals with High Activity for Water Oxidation Catalysis ”, Scientific Reports , 2015, pages 1-11) . Materials Project (“ MnO ”, 2014) cited as an evidentiary reference. Claim 5 : Walter in view of Zhang and Singh does not explicitly teach that the particles of manganese oxide have a formula of MnO . Rather, Walter teaches the catalyst has a formula of MnO x (see e.g. abstract). As evidenced by Wang “ Crystalline-phase MnO x can have the α-Mn 3 O 4 , α-Mn 2 O 3 , and MnO crystal structures ” (see e.g. page 1, col 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention that the disclosure of Walter includes the species of MnO . I t would have been obvious to select MnO because KSR rationale E states that it is obvious to choose “ from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success ” and 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) ’. Additionally, Jin teaches a manganese oxide catalyst for water electrolysis (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Jin’s catalyst is in the form of MnO and has “ superior water oxidation catalytic activity under near neutral pH ” (see e.g. page 8, “Conclusion” paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the MnO of Jin because of its superior catalytic activity. Claim 6 : Walter in view of Zhang, Singh, and Jin teaches using MnO (see e.g. Jin – abstract), which has a cubic structure having a space group of Fm3m (as evidenced by Materials Project). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walter in view of Zhang, Singh, and Jin as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Hu et al (“ Recent Advances in Manganese-Based Materials for Electrolytic Water Splitting ”, Int. J. Mol. Sci . April 2023, 24, 6861 ). Claim 7 : Walter in view of Zhang, Singh, and Jin does not explicitly teach that the MnO is polycrystalline . Hu teaches a manganese catalyst for water splitting (see e.g. abstract), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). According to Hu “ the polycrystalline structure and fully exposed active sites of Mn … has excellent electrocatalytic activity for the oxygen evolution reaction during water electrolysis ” (see e.g. page 3, paragraph starting with “At present”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the method of Walter so that catalyst has a polycrystalline structure as taught in Hu because of its excellent electrocatalytic activity for the oxygen evolution reaction during water electrolysis . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9961 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Luan Van can be reached at 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. /ALEXANDER W KEELING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795