DETAILED ACTION S tatus of Application 1. The claims 1-20 are pending and presented for the examination. Priority 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2023 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is drawn to an article formed by the method of claim 1. While claim 16 is dependent from claim 1, it is still drawn to a statutorily separate subject matter, and the preamble should therefore begin “A titanium-oxide based support […]” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5 . 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. 6 . Claim 14 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. The claim states that the “final product” has a diameter of 0.01-2 µm. However, it is unclear if this diameter range refers to that of a single support, or if this is mean to be a mean diameter value for all particulate, or if it is a maximum diameter. Because of this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and it is indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 7. 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 s 1 , 3, 5, and 7 - 8, 1 1 , 14 , and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Salim et al (WO 02/06159 A) in view of Chang et al (Controlled synthesis of porous particles via aerosol processing and their applications). Regarding claim 1 , Al-Salim et al teaches a method of producing a porous titania-based material and composite of titanium and an additional metal, the method comprising the formation of a solution of titanium ions from a titania precursor along with a precursor to a metal that can be transition metal Cu, followed by gelling of said solution, and thereafter heat treatment to form the desired anatase titania phase. Al-Salim teaches that the solution can further contain i.e. tetraalkylammonium hydroxide . This tetraalkylammonium hydroxide is an ammonium-based compound and necessarily functions as a pore control agent when used in a solution to thereby produce porous articles. Al-Salim further teaches that the inventive porous material prepared by the inventive method is useable for supports for catalysts. The instant claim limitation that the titanium oxide-based support is for a fuel cell is an intended use; an equivalent porous titanium oxide-based support taught to be able to used to support catalyst material would meet the patentably weighted limitations of the instant claim because the intended use in a fuel cell does not necessarily impart any particular structural or compositional limitations on the claimed support. Such is the case with the support taught by Al-Salim; because this support is compositionally and structurally equivalent and able to be a catalyst support, it meets the preamble limitations of the instant claim. Claim 1 differs from Al-Salim because Al-Salim does not teach that an ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method is used to react and form the pre-calcined article. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim in view of Chang et al in order to use ultrasonic spray pyrolysis for the shaping of the sol-gel solution into the support article, because Chang et al teaches a method of using aerosol processes like spray pyrolysis to synthesize porous particles. Chang et al teaches that ultrasonic spray pyrolysis is advantageously used to control pore size and nanoparticle shape, as well as aggregation properties (see page 32) in TiO 2 catalyst supports used in fuel cells (see pages 32 and 41). This teaching would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that ultrasonic spray pyrolysis was an advantageous method for more precisely controlling parameters important to catalytic supports, such as those taught by Al-Salim, when producing porous particles from TTIP precursor of the type also taught by Al-Salim. As such, one would have had motivation to use the Chang et al ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method to react and shape the sol taught by Al-Salim. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Chang et al teaches its ultrasonic spray process for use with the types of solutions taught by Al-Salim. Each limitation of instant claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 3 , Al-Salim et al teaches titanium tetrapropoxide as titania precursor. Titanium tetrapropoxide is synonymous with titanium isopropoxide . Regarding claim 5 , Al-Salim et al teaches an embodiment wherein 14.2 g TTIP is added to 150 mL water to form the sol (see example 3). This is equivalent to 0.05 mol TTIP and titanium, and thus the concentration is 0.33 M titanium in the sol. Regarding claim s 7 -8 , Al-Salim teaches that the dopant that can be copper is present in an amount of preferably between 0.2 to 0.5 wt %. Regarding claim 11 , Chang et al teaches that the ultrasonic spray pyrolysis involves transporting the droplets to a reactor using nitrogen carrier gas. Regarding claim 14 , Al-Salim et al shows in Fig. 6 that the diameters of the TiO 2 particles produced through spray pyrolysis have a diameter of less than 2 µm. From the scale bars in said Fig., one of ordinary skill would understand that the particle diameters are also greater than 0.01 µm. The further limitations of instant claim 14 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 16 , as discussed above, Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al teaches a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 1. The titanium oxide-based support prepared by said method would therefore meet each limitation of the product claim 16, and said claim is therefore not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. 9. Claim s 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Salim et al (WO 02/06159 A) in view of Chang et al (Controlled synthesis of porous particles via aerosol processing and their applications) and in further view of Moon et al (KR 20070043291 A). Regarding claim 2 , Al-Salim et al teaches that acetic acid may be mixed with the precursor in the inventive solution, however claim 2 differs from Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al as applied above because Al-Salim does not teach that the sol-gel solution is prepared with distilled water and isopropanol along with the ammonium-based component and the precursors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim et al in further view of Moon et al in order to use the sol-gel mixing steps taught therein because Moon teaches that their inventive sol-gel process has superior physical properties compared to the sol-gel process in which acetic acid is used alone in the titanium precursor . Moon et al teaches that isopropyl alcohol is used in the precursor mixture with 0.1-1 mol of acetic acid (see claim 1). Because of the superiority in resultant sol-gel processing taught by Moon, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use this method with the Al-Salim sol-gel processing. This would lead to a method wherein acetic acid is used with the titania precursor as taught by Al-Salim, and wherein also the ammonium-based component is used with isopropanol as taught by Moon. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Al-Salim and Moon teach sol-gel processing methods for producing porous titanium catalyst supports. Each limitation of claim 2 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 6 , Moon et al teaches a concentration range for the template component (ionic liquid) that is the equivalent component to the ammonium-containing component of Al-Salim. The Moon range for this component is 0.03-0.3 mol to 1 mol titanium oxide precursor. In a TTIP precursor such as is used by Moon and Salim, this is equivalent to ratio of Ti to pore control agent of 1:0.03-0.3, and thus the range overlaps and renders obvious that of the instant claim. 10. Claim s 4 , 9-10 , and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Salim et al (WO 02/06159 A) in view of Chang et al (Controlled synthesis of porous particles via aerosol processing and their applications) and in further view of Kim et al ( Characterization of mesoporous alumina particles prepared by spray pyrolysis of Al(NO 3 ) 2 ·9H 2 O precursor: Effect of CTAB and urea ). Regarding claim 4 , the claim differs from Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al because Al-Salim teaches that the ammonium-based component is tetraalkylammonium hydroxide rather than CTAB. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim et al in further view of Kim et al in order to use additional ammonium-based templating agents taught therein because Kim et al provides a more full teaching as to how these components can be selected so as to optimize the resultant pore properties of materials produced through spray pyrolysis. Kim et al teaches a method of producing mesoporous alumina through ultrasonic spray pyrolysis, and teaches that the use of CTAB as templating agent greatly increases the nitrogen adsorption of forming particulate, and further that the spray pyrolysis could effectively use the CTAB template to make mesopores of alumina particles compared with the liquid-phase route. These advantageous results would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CTAB template taught by Kim et al in the ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method of producing doped titania taught by Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Kim et al teaches the use of CTAB as an ammonium-based pore control component in the same type of spray pyrolysis method taught by Al-Salim in view of Chang. Each limitation of claim 4 is thus met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 9 , Al-Salim in view of Chang does not specify the number of vibrators used in ultrasonic generation. However, Kim et al teaches that 7 vibrators are used (see page 86), and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use the parameters of Kim et al because Al-Salim and Chang do not provide specific teachings in this regard. Regarding claim 10 , Al-Salim in view of Chang does not specify the vibration frequency used in ultrasonic generation. However, Kim et al teaches that the vibration occurs at 1.7 MHz (see page 86), and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use the parameters of Kim et al because Al-Salim and Chang do not provide specific teachings in this regard. 1 1 . Claim s 12 -13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Salim et al (WO 02/06159 A) in view of Chang et al (Controlled synthesis of porous particles via aerosol processing and their applications) and in further view of Kim et al (KR 20180051263 A). Regarding claim 12 , the claim differs from Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al as applied above because a residence time in the reactor for the spray droplets is not specified. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim et al in further view of Kim et al in order to use the residence time and reactor temperature taught therein, because Kim et al teaches a similar ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method for use in forming catalyst support materials, and specifies values for these processing parameters. Kim et al teaches that spray pyrolysis process uses a residence time of about 2 seconds for the liquid droplets, and that such a time is controlled by carrier gas flow rate so as to enhance productivity. From this teaching one would have had enablement to achieve the residence time through use of the aforementioned carrier gas flow rate, and one would have had motivation to use the Kim et al residence time because of the lack of teaching in this regard in Al-Salim or Chang, and because of the productivity gains taught by Kim. Kim et al further teaches a reactor temperature of 500-1000 °C. Each limitation of instant claim 12 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 13 , Kim et al teaches calcination of the product produced by pyrolysis for 3 hours at a temperature of 800 °C. Regarding claim 15 , Kim et al teaches that the pore size of the resultant particulate can be adjusted by changing the amount of templating agent used. Values of 2.9-6.8 nm are specified (see Table 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have arrived at a pore size that also fell within the range of 4-8 nm through routine optimization and experimentation with this overlapping range. 12. Claim s 17 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Salim et al (WO 02/06159 A) in view of Chang et al (Controlled synthesis of porous particles via aerosol processing and their applications), Moon et al (KR 20070043291 A), and Kim et al ( Characterization of mesoporous alumina particles prepared by spray pyrolysis of Al(NO 3 ) 2 ·9H 2 O precursor: Effect of CTAB and urea ). Regarding claim 17 , Al-Salim et al teaches a method of producing a porous titania-based material and composite of titanium and an additional metal, the method comprising the formation of a solution of titanium ions from a titania precursor along with a precursor to a metal that can be transition metal Cu, followed by gelling of said solution, and thereafter heat treatment to form the desired anatase titania phase. Al-Salim teaches that the solution can further contain i.e. tetraalkylammonium hydroxide . This tetraalkylammonium hydroxide is an ammonium-based compound and necessarily functions as a pore control agent when used in a solution to thereby produce porous articles. Al-Salim further teaches that the inventive porous material prepared by the inventive method is useable for supports for catalysts. The instant claim limitation that the titanium oxide-based support is for a fuel cell is an intended use; an equivalent porous titanium oxide-based support taught to be able to used to support catalyst material would meet the patentably weighted limitations of the instant claim because the intended use in a fuel cell does not necessarily impart any particular structural or compositional limitations on the claimed support. Such is the case with the support taught by Al-Salim; because this support is compositionally and structurally equivalent and able to be a catalyst support, it meets the preamble limitations of the instant claim. Claim 17 differs from Al-Salim because Al-Salim does not teach that an ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method is used to react and form the pre-calcined article. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim in view of Chang et al in order to use ultrasonic spray pyrolysis for the shaping of the sol-gel solution into the support article, because Chang et al teaches a method of using aerosol processes like spray pyrolysis to synthesize porous particles. Chang et al teaches that ultrasonic spray pyrolysis is advantageously used to control pore size and nanoparticle shape, as well as aggregation properties (see page 32) in TiO 2 catalyst supports used in fuel cells (see pages 32 and 41). This teaching would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that ultrasonic spray pyrolysis was an advantageous method for more precisely controlling parameters important to catalytic supports, such as those taught by Al-Salim, when producing porous particles from TTIP precursor of the type also taught by Al-Salim. As such, one would have had motivation to use the Chang et al ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method to react and shape the sol taught by Al-Salim. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Chang et al teaches its ultrasonic spray process for use with the types of solutions taught by Al-Salim. Al-Salim et al teaches that acetic acid may be mixed with the precursor in the inventive solution, however claim 17 further differs from Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al as applied above because Al-Salim does not teach that the sol-gel solution is prepared with distilled water and isopropanol along with the ammonium-based component and the precursors. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim et al in further view of Moon et al in order to use the sol-gel mixing steps taught therein because Moon teaches that their inventive sol-gel process has superior physical properties compared to the sol-gel process in which acetic acid is used alone in the titanium precursor . Moon et al teaches that isopropyl alcohol is used in the precursor mixture with 0.1-1 mol of acetic acid (see claim 1). Because of the superiority in resultant sol-gel processing taught by Moon, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to use this method with the Al-Salim sol-gel processing. This would lead to a method wherein acetic acid is used with the titania precursor as taught by Al-Salim, and wherein also the ammonium-based component is used with isopropanol as taught by Moon. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Al-Salim and Moon teach sol-gel processing methods for producing porous titanium catalyst supports. Claim 17 further differs from Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al because Al-Salim teaches that the ammonium-based component is tetraalkylammonium hydroxide rather than CTAB. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Al-Salim et al in further view of Kim et al in order to use additional ammonium-based templating agents taught therein because Kim et al provides a more full teaching as to how these components can be selected so as to optimize the resultant pore properties of materials produced through spray pyrolysis. Kim et al teaches a method of producing mesoporous alumina through ultrasonic spray pyrolysis, and teaches that the use of CTAB as templating agent greatly increases the nitrogen adsorption of forming particulate, and further that the spray pyrolysis could effectively use the CTAB template to make mesopores of alumina particles compared with the liquid-phase route. These advantageous results would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CTAB template taught by Kim et al in the ultrasonic spray pyrolysis method of producing doped titania taught by Al-Salim et al in view of Chang et al. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because Kim et al teaches the use of CTAB as an ammonium-based pore control component in the same type of spray pyrolysis method taught by Al-Salim in view of Chang. Each limitation of instant claim 17 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 18 , Al-Salim et al teaches an embodiment wherein 14.2 g TTIP is added to 150 mL water to form the sol (see example 3). This is equivalent to 0.05 mol TTIP and titanium, and thus the concentration is 0.33 M titanium in the sol. Regarding claim 19 , Moon et al teaches a concentration range for the template component (ionic liquid) that is the equivalent component to the ammonium-containing component of Al-Salim. The Moon range for this component is 0.03-0.3 mol to 1 mol titanium oxide precursor. In a TTIP precursor such as is used by Moon and Salim, this is equivalent to ratio of Ti to pore control agent of 1:0.03-0.3, and thus the range overlaps and renders obvious that of the instant claim. Regarding claim 20 , Al-Salim teaches that the dopant that can be copper is present in an amount of preferably between 0.2 to 0.5 wt %. Conclusion 1 3 . No claim is allowed. 1 4 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 5 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3596 . The exam iner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NOAH S WIESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW 20 November 2025