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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-24 and 26-28 are pending in this application, of which claims 1-14 are examined herein. Claims 15-24 and 26-28 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 5-6, and 10-11 are amended. Claims 25 and 29-36 are cancelled.
The objections to claims 2, 4, 6, and 10 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 2, 4, 6, and 10 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroop et al. (DE 102016122083 A1, original document and machine translation supplied with Office Action dated 08/11/2025) in view of Cave et al. (US 20200240023 A1, cited in IDS filed 06/26/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Kroop teaches a system for producing iron [0001], comprising a direct reduction of iron ore (DRI) reactor 1 configured to receive iron ore and a reducing gas and to produce iron ([0001, 0031], Fig. 2). Kroop teaches a carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer 5 configured to produce carbon monoxide ([0033-0034], Fig. 2). Kroop teaches wherein the system is configured to transport carbon dioxide produced by the DRI reactor 1 to a carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer 5 ([0034], Fig. 2), at a cathode side of the carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer [0014]. Kroop teaches transporting at least a portion of the carbon monoxide produced by the carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer to the DRI reactor 1 ([0034], Fig. 2).
Kroop does not teach wherein the carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer comprises a membrane electrode assembly.
Cave teaches an electrolyzer and method of use (Title), where carbon dioxide and water are reacted to form carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and oxygen (Fig. 1, [0056, 0163]), thus Cave and Kroop are analogous to the instant application as both comprise electrolyzers which convert CO2 and H2O to H2 and CO. Cave teaches the electrolyzer comprises a membrane electrode assembly [0006, 0017, 0135], which comprises one or more ion conductive polymer layers [0062, 0073, 0173] and a cathode catalyst for facilitating chemical reduction of carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide [0081, 0204] wherein the cathode catalyst contacts at least one of the one or more conductive polymer layers [0017-0019]. Cave teaches the electrolyzer comprises a connection between water and gas loops that returns water to the water loop, which improves the technical and commercial viability of the system [0144], metal catalyst may be provided as nanoparticles which improve contact with the reactants [0257-0259], and treatments may be performed on the MEA to improve lifetime and voltage of the MEA [0302].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a membrane electrode assembly as taught by Cave in the method of Kroop, as doing so would improve technical and commercial viability of the electrolyzer, improve contact with reactants, and allow for treatments which improve lifetime and voltage of the electrolyzer.
Regarding claim 2, Cave teaches wherein the cathode catalyst comprises a gold catalyst [0081, 0099].
Claims 10-11, and 13 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/11/2025. Claim 12 has not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claims 10-11 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroop in view of Cave as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Duarte.
Claims 3, 9, and 12 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/11/2025. Claims 3, 9, and 12 have not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claims 4-5 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroop in view of Cave as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Aaslepp et al. (DE 102016008915 A1, original document and machine translation supplied with Office Action dated 08/11/2025).
Regarding claim 5, Cave teaches wherein the second carbon dioxide electrolyzer comprises a cathode containing gold, silver, copper, or a combination thereof (i.e., a transition metal catalyst) [0007
Claims 4 and 6-7 remain rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/11/2025. Claim 7 has not been amended since that time, and the amendments to claims 4 and 6 are of an editorial nature and do not materially affect any statements made in the rejection in the prior Office Action. Therefore, the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroop in view of Cave and Aaslepp as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Duarte.
Claim 8 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/11/2025. Claim 8 has not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroop in view of Cave as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Duarte and Thekdi et al. (“Preliminary Results from Electric Arc Furnace Off-Gas Enthalpy Modeling”).
Claim 14 remains rejected as set forth in the Office Action dated 08/11/2025. Claim 14 has not been amended since that time, therefore the previously presented grounds of rejection set forth how the prior art teaches or suggests all of the limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Kroop does not teach or suggest an MEA-based electrolyzer, see pg. 7-8 of remarks with respect to the rejections of claims 1-14 as anticipated by or obvious over Kroop and/or Duarte alone or in view of others, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Cave et al as necessitated by amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to use an MEA-type carbon dioxide electrolyzer in Kroop or Duarte (see pg. 8-9 of remarks), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant alleges MEA-based carbon dioxide electrolyzer to require specific temperature and pressure conditions, however nothing in Cave explicitly requires or prohibits certain temperatures or pressures for use with the electrolyzer, therefore one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success with e.g., the CO2 stream to be electrolyzed of Kroop.
Further, Kroop teaches the CO2 leaves the direct reduction reactor at a temperature of about 450 °C (Kroop: [0021]), which is combined with water to be electrolyzed. Carbon dioxide gas would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a much smaller specific heat than liquid water which is used for the electrolyzer of Cave (e.g., Cave: [0104, 0168]), thus for liquid water at e.g., room temperature, the temperatures of the reagents entering an electrolyzer would equilibrate to a temperature much less than 450 °C and much closer to the temperature of the water.
Finally, even if the combination of CO2 with water in the electrolyzer were to be above e.g., 100 °C, Applicant’s position appears to assert that MEA-based carbon dioxide electrolyzers are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art to require certain temperatures of incoming reagents to function ideally or at all. In that case, one of ordinary skill in the art possessing such knowledge would be motivated to sufficiently cool the incoming CO2 stream so as to not damage or destroy the MEA-based electrolyzer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
