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. 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. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamiuchi et al. (“Nanoscopic Observation of Strong Chemical Interaction between Pt and Tin Oxide,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, Vol. 111, No. 44, pp. 16470-16476, 10/9/2007, hereinafter Kamiuchi). Re Claim 1. Kamiuchi teaches a Schottky junction-type electrochemical catalyst comprising: a support layer including a semiconductor material (Experimental Section, SnO 2 powder) ; and a catalyst layer including a metal (Experimental Section, Pt) formed on the support layer, wherein the support layer and the catalyst layer are formed in a Schottky junction state, and wherein the semiconductor material functions substantially as a reduction catalyst for when the semiconductor material is n-type. Kamiuchi does not expressly teach that the support layer and the catalyst layer are formed in a Schottky junction state, and the semiconductor material functions substantially as a reduction catalyst for when the semiconductor material is n-type. However, since Kamiuchi and the claimed catalyst employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties ( the support layer and the catalyst layer forming a Schottky junction state, and the semiconductor material function ing substantially as a reduction catalyst ) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Kamiuchi . See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) . MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02. Re Claim 2. Kamiuchi does not expressly teach that the semiconductor material included in the support layer has a work function value smaller than the work function value of the metal included in the catalyst layer if the semiconductor material included in the support layer is n-type. However, since Kamiuchi and the claimed catalyst employ substantially similar materials, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties ( the semiconductor material included in the support layer ha ving a work function value smaller than the work function value of the metal included in the catalyst layer ) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Kamiuchi . Re Claim 3. Kamiuchi teaches wherein the metal included in the catalyst layer is platinum (Experimental section) . Re Cla i m 4. Kamiuchi teaches wherein the platinum includes platinum particles having a size of 3 nm (P16472) . Re Claim 5. Kamiuchi teaches wherein the semiconductor material of the n-type is tin oxide (SnO 2 ) (Experimental section) . Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al. (US 2014/0349200 A1, hereinafter Kaneko). Re Claim 1. Kaneko teaches a Schottky junction-type electrochemical catalyst (Fig. 1) comprising: a support layer including a semiconductor material (Fig. 1, item 20, para. 85) ; and a catalyst layer including a metal (item 10, para. 85 & 94) formed on the support layer, wherein the support layer and the catalyst layer are formed in a Schottky junction state (para. 85) , and wherein the semiconductor material functions substantially as a reduction catalyst for when the semiconductor material is n-type (para. 86) . Re Claim 2. Kaneko teaches wherein the semiconductor material included in the support layer has a work function value smaller than the work function value of the metal included in the catalyst layer if the semiconductor material included in the support layer is n-type (Fig. 1) . Re Claim 3. Kaneko teaches wherein the metal included in the catalyst layer is platinum (para. 94) . Re Claim 5. Kaneko teaches wherein the semiconductor material of the n-type is tin oxide (SnO 2 ) (para. 93). 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. 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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko. Re Claim 6. Kaneko teaches wherein the thickness of the catalyst layer of the platinum is 0.1 nm to 1 mm (para. 102). Kaneko does not explicitly teaches the thickness of the semiconductor material of the p-type of the support layer, is 15 to 30nm . However, since Claim 1 is rejected on the basis of the semiconductor being n-type , thickness of the semiconductor material when the material is p-type does not further limit the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05. Re Claim 7. Kaneko teaches the thickness of the catalyst layer of the platinum is 0.1 nm to 1 mm (para. 102) and the thickness of the semiconductor material of the n-type of the support layer, is 1 0 nm to 1 mm (para. 101) , and wherein the Schottky junction-type electrochemical catalyst functions as a selective reduction catalyst (para. 86) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5932 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 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 Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3458 . 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. /KEVIN E YOON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 3/19/2026