DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 were subjected to restriction requirement mailed on 07/24/2025 . Applicants filed a response, and elected Group I , species (b-i), claims 1, 4-6 and 11, and withdrew claim s 2-3, 7-10 and 12-20 , with traverse on 09/22/2025 . Claims 1-20 are pending, and claim s 2-3, 7-10 and 12-20 are withdrawn after consideration. Claims 1, 4-6 and 11 are rejected. 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. Election/Restrictions It is noted that in Remarks filed 09/22/2025, applicant respond s that “Claims 1, 4, 5, 6 and 11 encompass the elected species” and species (b-ii) are elected. However, claim 6 corresponds to species (b-i). Examiner interprets that species (b-i) is elected instead. Applicant’s election of FILLIN "Indicate the elected group or claims." \d "[ 1 ]" Group I, species (b-i), claims 1, 4-6 and 11 in the reply filed on FILLIN "Indicate the filing date of the reply." \d "[ 2 ]" 09/22/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 2-3, 7-10 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group and species , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/22/2025 . Information Disclosure Statement It is noted that the IDS filed 02/21/2023 contains a typo, wherein #9 of Non-patent literature documents, “CaCo 1-x Cu x O 3 ” appears to be referring to “La Co 1-x Cu x O 3 ”. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is noted that the Abstract filed 01/23/2023 has fewer than 50 words. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In order to provide consistency of the term “oxygen-depleted perovskite catalyst” recited in claim 1, line 5, it is suggested to amend “the oxygen-depleted particles” to “the oxygen-depleted perovskite catalyst” in claim 1, line 6. amend “the perovskite catalyst” to “the oxygen-depleted perovskite catalyst” in claim 1, line 7. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 6 and 11 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. Regarding claim 6, it is unclear how a method of producing hydrogen further comprises “using the hydrogen produced in a subsequent reactor to reduce CO 2 to CO and H 2 O”. The examiner interprets that claim 6 as an intended use of the hydrogen produced from claim 1. Interpretation is speculative. Clarification is requested. Regarding dependent claim 11, this claim does not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 6 noted above, and is rejected for the same rationale. 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, 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orfila et al., Perovskite materials for hydrogen production by thermochemical water splitting, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, published July, 2016 (Orfila) in view of Kirchnerova et al., EP 1118383A1, 2001 (Kirchnerova) ( provided in IDS received on 10/17/2023 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Orfila teaches perovskite as a promising material for hydrogen production by thermochemical water splitting (Orfila, Abstract, Conclusion); comprising a reduction step and a hydrolysis step (Orfila, page 19331, right column, 2 nd - 3 rd paragraphs; Fig. 2); to carry out the reduction step, the temperature was increased up to 1400 ˚C, and O 2 was released (i.e., from the perovskite , reading upon generate an oxygen-depleted perovskite) (Orfila, page 19331, 2 nd paragraph); for the hydrolysis step, water was fed into the furnace (i.e., to contact the oxygen-depleted perovskite) (Orfila, page 19331, 3 rd paragraph) and leads to hydrogen release (Orfila, page 19335, left column, 1 st paragraph) and regenerates the oxygen-depleted perovskite (Orfila, page 19333, left column, equation (5)). Further regarding claim 1 , Orfila further teaches there is an unstable behaviour of the material along the cycles (Orfila, page 19335, right column, bottom paragraph) and additional experimental work in order to determine the cyclability without causing decrease in the H 2 production (Orfila, page 19337). Orfila does not explicitly disclose that the perovskite catalyst having the formula CaCo 1-x Zr x O 3-δ wherein x is a number defined by 0.02≤x≤0.98; and δ is a number defined by 0≤δ≤1.0. Wi th respect to the difference, Kirchnerova teaches thermostable metal oxide catalyst having a perovskite crystal structure (Kirchnerova, Abstract). Kirchnerova specifically teaches i n a preferred embodiment, the catalyst comprises a catalytic metal M, providing a catalyst of formula AB 1-x M x O 3-δ (Kirchnerova, [0016]); A is for example Ca, B is for example Zr (Kirchnerova, [0018]); M is preferably for example cobalt (Kirchnerova, [0028]) ; t he estimated maximum level of doping in sites B, to maximize the catalytic properties while preserving the thermal stability, is about 30 percent in stoichiometric proportion , a minimum doping of about 1 percent is required, so, in the above formula, 0.01 < ≅ x< ≅ 0.30 (wherein x of Kirchnerova reads upon x of the present invention, and 0.01 to 0.30 is within the claimed range) (Kirchnerova, [0026]). As Kirchnerova expressly teaches, highly active catalytic materials of perovskite-type structure having high resistance to thermal aging (Kirchnerova, [0002]). Kirchnerova is analogous art as Kirchnerova is drawn to thermostable metal oxide catalyst having a perovskite crystal structure. In light of the motivation of using the thermostable catalytic perovskite material, as taught by Kirchnerova, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the thermostable metal oxide catalyst having a perovskite crystal structure of Kirchnerova, such as a catalyst of formula AB 1-x M x O 3-δ (Kirchnerova, [0016]); A is for example Ca, B is for example Zr (Kirchnerova, [0018]); M is preferably for example cobalt (Kirchnerova, [0028]), x is 0.01-0.30, in order to improve thermostability and/or catalytic property, thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Regarding claim 4 , as applied to claim 1, Orfila in view of Kirchnerova provides schematic representation of the high temperature tubular furnace set up for hydrolysis step (Orfila, page 19331, Fig. 2 ) , also inserted below), shows that a fixed bed reactor is used for both the reduction and hydrolysis steps. Fig. 2 of Orfila Regarding claim 5 , as applied to claim 1, Orfila in view of Kirchnerova further teaches the reduction proceeded in a wide range of temperatures, from 250 to 1400˚C ( Orfila, page 19335, left column, 2 nd paragraph ), which encompasses the range of the presently claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05 , in the case where the claimed range “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 r e Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Alternatively, Orfila in view of Kirchnerova further teaches the starting temperature for the reduction temperature varies based on the type of perovskite material ( Orfila, page 19335, Table 4). Therefore, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate temperature for the reduction of the thermostable perovskite of Orfila in view of Kirchnerova. Given that Orfila in view of Kirchnerova teaches a perovskite that has a composite within claimed, therefore it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a temperature that is within the claimed range of the presently claimed, in order to achieve desire reduction. Regarding claims 6 and 11 , as applied to claim 1, the recitation in the claims that the “ using the hydrogen produced in a subsequent reactor to reduce CO 2 to CO and H 2 O” and “ wherein the CO 2 is produced in a chemical looping combustion fuel reactor ” are merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Orfila in view of Kirchnerova disclose s the method of producing hydrogen as presently claimed, it is clear that the method of Orfila in view of Kirchnerova would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. used in a subsequent reactor to reduce CO 2 to CO and H 2 O , and wherein the CO2 is produced in a chemical looping combustion fuel reactor , presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8043 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5713 . 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 /KELING ZHANG/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1732