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 § 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. Claim s 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN-114570386-A) . Regarding claim s 1 -2 , 9 Yao discloses a method of making a catalyst comprising dripping a non-noble metal solution onto a substrate and heating to obtain a non-noble metal high-entropy alloy, then soaking this material in a solution of a noble metal salt with a concentration of 0.01 to 1 mol/l, then using laser heating to a temperature of 800-3,000 C for a time of 1 ms to 2 s (claims 1, 3 and 6). Yao discloses that the substrate (i.e., base body) can be carbon paper (claim 9) . Yao discloses that the noble metal salt can be H 2 PtCl 6 (i.e., chloroplatinic acid) (Embodiments 1 and 3). Yao discloses that after dripping the noble metal salt solution onto the substrate (i.e., non-noble metal high-entropy alloy) the composition is then dried to obtain a precursor before heating with the laser method (approximately para 0015). With respect to the limitations on moving the laser to vaporize the carbon materials and redeposit them as nanosized carbon particle and the reduction of the Pt salt particles to Pt(0), the reference teaches an identical method, and is this is a property or function of the composition and method of the reference would be expected to also do this upon laser heating. 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 Further it is noted that the instant specification discloses that Pt 4+ converts to Pt(0) between 375 to 510 C, which is below the heating temperature of the reference. Regarding claim 3 Yao discloses soaking the substrate in the noble metal salt solution (claim 6). Regarding claim 4 As the concentration range of the noble metal salt solution of the reference overlaps the claimed range, t he subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari , 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. As the reference simply describes the noble metal salt solutions as solutions and does not state the solvent, it is expected and obvious that the solvent would be deionized water. Regarding claim 5 Yao discloses drying, but does not provide the details of drying. However, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the drying time is controlled by temperature and pressure, and would find it obvious to reduce the pressure (i.e., vacuum) while drying to increase the drying speed absent any evidence of new or unexpected results. Regarding claims 10-11 These are intended/desired uses of the formed article, and the intended use must result in a structural difference between claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Regarding claims 12 Yao discloses that the noble metal salt solution can ne dripped onto the substrate (Embodiment 2), which is seen as equivalent to spraying. Yao discloses drying but does not describe the method of drying. However, allowing to airdry overnight would have been obvious absent evidence of new or unexpected results. Yao discloses laser heating the resultant material, but does not teach the linear heat density, however, with the temperature achieved ion the reference it would be expect to meet the claimed linear heat density. Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN-114570386-A), as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-12 above, in view of El-Shall et al. (USP 9,768,355). Regarding claims 6-7 Although Yao does not disclose the wavelength of the laser, Yao does disclose the use of a laser. However, El-Shall discloses similar methods of making catalyst on carbon supports and discloses that the wavelength of the lasers employed is between about 100 to about 800 nm (column 7, lines 41-42). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Yao by using a laser with a wavelength between 100 and 800 nm, with a reasonable expectation of success, as suggested by El-Shall. As the wavelength range of the reference overlaps the claimed wavelength, t he subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari , 182 U.S.P.Q. 549. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN-114570386-A) , as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-12 above, in view of Atanassova et al. (US 2008/02066 16 ). Regarding claim 13 Although Yao does not disclose the use of PtCl 4 , Yao does disclose the use of H 2 PtCl 6 . However, Atanassova discloses similar catalyst and teaches that PtCl 4 and H 2 PtCl 6 are functional equivalents (para 0121). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add to the teachings of Yao by using PtCl 4 instead of H 2 PtCl 6 with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a useful catalyst, as suggested by Atanassova. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art fairly teaches or suggest the limitations of this claim in combination with the limitations of the base claim(s) from which it depends.. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6398 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 10-10 . 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 Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721177 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES E. MCDONOUGH Examiner Art Unit 1734 /JAMES E MCDONOUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734