CTFR 18/175,005 CTFR 95667 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendments This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 01/15/2026. Status of Rejections The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. 12-256 AIA New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments . Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar et al. (“Solid electrolyte oxygen regeneration system”, Life Systems Inc. , 1976) in view of Sawada et al. (JP H0747229 A, citations based on translation) . Regarding claim 1 , Shumar teaches a sequestration system (see e.g. Page 6, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5, system SX-1 in which CO 2 is collected, i.e. sequestered) comprising: an electrolysis part having an electrolysis cell comprising an anode, a cathode, an anode flow path facing on the anode, and a cathode flow path facing on the cathode (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 5, CO 2 electrolyzer comprising cells including anode and cathode facing respective flow paths for inlet and outlet of reactants/products; Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 8-11, and Page 23, lines 1-5); and a reaction part configured for a first operation comprising producing solid carbon using a catalyst from a first raw material containing a first fluid to be introduced from the cathode flow path (see e.g. Fig. 1, CO disproportionator in which CO from the cathodic reduction reaction in the CO 2 electrolyzer is converted to solid carbon with a catalyst; Page 7, lines 1-4, and Page 26, lines 1-3). Shumar further teaches a second fluid from the anode flow path, the second fluid containing carbon dioxide (see e.g. Fig. 1, O 2 from anodic oxidation reaction in CO 2 electrolyzer contains CO 2 impurities in an amount less than 1%; Page 3, under “Background”, lines 12-19, and Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8). Shumar does not teach the reaction part configured to switch from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation comprising performing a reaction of a second raw material and solid carbon to be deposited on the catalyst to remove at least a part of the deposited solid carbon from the catalyst, the second raw material containing the second fluid. Shumar does however teach the second fluid being formed of a vast majority of oxygen (see e.g. Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, O 2 produced with less than 1% impurities), as well as the system comprising an operation mode in which a carbon-filled catalyst cartridge of the reaction part is replaced with a new catalyst cartridge (see e.g. Page 15, under “Carbon Deposition Cartridge Change Mode”, lines 1-4, and Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 1-9). Sawada teaches a system comprising an electrolysis device in which O 2 is produced (see e.g. Fig. 1, water electrolysis device 4; Paragraph 0017, line 7) and a reactor in which solid carbon is deposited on a catalyst (see e.g. Fig. 1, second reactor 8; Paragraph 0018, lines 1-3), wherein the oxygen produced by the electrolysis device can be used to remove the attached carbon by conversion into carbon dioxide gas, allowing the catalyst to be economically regenerated and reused (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 6-8, and Paragraph 0018, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reaction part of Shumar to switch to a second operation in which the majority-oxygen fluid from the anode flow path is used to remove the deposited solid carbon from the catalyst as taught by Sawada to allow the catalyst to be economically regenerated and reused. Regarding claim 2 , Shumar teaches a sequestration system (see e.g. Page 6, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5, system SX-1 in which CO 2 is collected, i.e. sequestered) comprising: an electrolysis part having an electrolysis cell comprising an anode, a cathode, an anode flow path facing on the anode, and a cathode flow path facing on the cathode (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 5, CO 2 electrolyzer comprising cells including anode and cathode facing respective flow paths for inlet and outlet of reactants/products; Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 8-11, and Page 23, lines 1-5); and a carbon production part connected to an outlet of the cathode flow path, and comprising a first reactor to produce solid carbon from a raw material using a catalyst, the raw material including a first fluid to be introduced from the cathode flow path (see e.g. Fig. 1, CO disproportionator in which CO from the cathodic reduction reaction in the CO 2 electrolyzer is converted to solid carbon with a catalyst; Page 7, lines 1-4, and Page 26, lines 1-3). Shumar further teaches a second fluid from the anode flow path, the second fluid containing carbon dioxide (see e.g. Fig. 1, O 2 from anodic oxidation reaction in CO 2 electrolyzer contains CO 2 impurities in an amount less than 1%; Page 3, under “Background”, lines 12-19, and Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8). Shumar does not teach a catalyst regeneration part connected to an outlet of the anode flow path and connected to the carbon production part, and comprising a second reactor configured to perform a reaction of at least one substance contained in the second fluid and solid carbon to be deposited on the catalyst to be introduced from the carbon production part to remove at least a part of the deposited solid carbon from the catalyst. Shumar does however teach the second fluid being formed of a vast majority of oxygen (see e.g. Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, O 2 produced with less than 1% impurities), as well as the system comprising an operation mode in which a carbon-filled catalyst cartridge of the reaction part is replaced with a new catalyst cartridge (see e.g. Page 15, under “Carbon Deposition Cartridge Change Mode”, lines 1-4, and Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 1-9). Sawada teaches a system comprising an electrolysis device in which O 2 is produced (see e.g. Fig. 1, water electrolysis device 4; Paragraph 0017, line 7), a first reactor in which solid carbon is deposited on a catalyst (see e.g. Fig. 1, second reactor 8; Paragraph 0018, lines 1-3), and a second reactor to which the carbon-adhered catalyst is transported in which the oxygen produced by the electrolysis device can be used to remove the attached carbon by conversion into carbon dioxide gas, allowing the catalyst to be economically regenerated and reused (see e.g. Fig. 1, catalyst with carbon C introduced into carbon dioxide regeneration device 9 for regeneration; Paragraph 0016, lines 6-8, Paragraph 0017, lines 6-8, and Paragraph 0018, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Shumar to comprise a second reactor to which the carbon-filled catalyst is transported in which the majority-oxygen fluid from the anode flow path is used to remove deposited solid carbon from the catalyst as taught by Sawada to allow the catalyst to be economically regenerated and reused. Regarding claim 6 , modified Shumar teaches the first fluid containing a reduction product to be produced by reducing carbon dioxide flowing through the cathode flow path by the cathode (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1, CO from the cathodic reduction reaction of CO 2 in the CO 2 electrolyzer; Page 6, bottom paragraph and Eqn. 1, and Page 7, lines 1-4). Regarding claim 8 , modified Shumar teaches the electrolysis cell being a carbon dioxide electrolysis cell (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1, CO- 2 electrolyzer). Regarding claim 9 , modified Shumar teaches the electrolysis cell being a water electrolysis cell (see e.g. Shumar Page 7, 2 nd paragraph, lines 4-6, and Page 11, under Eqn. 6, lines 1-3, electrolysis of water in CO 2 electrolyzer). Regarding claim 11 , modified Shumar teaches a first flow path connecting the carbon production part and the electrolysis part, the first flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of a third fluid to be discharged from the carbon production part to the electrolysis part (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1, recycle loop in which CO 2 from the disproportionator is returned to the feed for the CO 2 electrolyzer; Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 12-14). Regarding claim 12 , Shumar as modified by Sawada teaches a second flow path connecting the carbon production part and the catalyst regeneration part, the second flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of a third fluid to be discharged from the carbon production part to the catalyst regeneration part (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, path for carbon-adhered catalyst to be sucked from second reactor 8 to carbon dioxide regeneration device 9; Paragraph 0018). Regarding claim 13 , Shumar as modified by Sawada teaches a fourth fluid to be discharged from the catalyst regeneration part (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, CO 2 supplied from carbon dioxide regeneration part). Shumar as modified by Sawada above does not explicitly teach a third flow path connecting the electrolysis part and the catalyst regeneration part, the third flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of the fourth fluid to the electrolysis part. Sawada does however teach the fourth fluid comprising carbon dioxide which is reincorporated into the system (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, CO 2 supplied from device 9 to plants 7; Paragraph 0017, lines 7-8). Shumar also teaches a recycle loop in which carbon dioxide is returned to a feed of the electrolysis part (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1, recycle loop in which CO 2 from the disproportionator is returned to the feed for the CO 2 electrolyzer; Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a flow path connecting the electrolysis part and the catalyst regeneration part, such that CO 2 in the fourth fluid can be introduced into the electrolysis part to enable the produced CO 2 to be reincorporated into the system as taught by Sawada via the recycle loop of Shumar. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Regarding claim 16 , modified Shumar teaches a gas concentration meter provided at an outlet of the first reactor (see e.g. Shumar Page 60, under “Gas Products Monitor”, lines 1-8, GPM monitoring and sampling exhaust, i.e. outlet, gases from CO disproportionator) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , and further in view of Okada et al. (JP 2009095722 A, citations based on translation) . Regarding claim 3 , Shumar teaches a sequestration system (see e.g. Page 6, bottom paragraph, lines 1-5, system SX-1 in which CO 2 is collected, i.e. sequestered) comprising: an electrolysis part having an electrolysis cell comprising an anode, a cathode, an anode flow path facing on the anode, and a cathode flow path facing on the cathode (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 5, CO 2 electrolyzer comprising cells including anode and cathode facing respective flow paths for inlet and outlet of reactants/products; Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 8-11, and Page 23, lines 1-5); and a reaction part configured for a first operation comprising producing solid carbon using a catalyst from a first raw material containing a first fluid to be introduced from the cathode flow path (see e.g. Fig. 1, CO disproportionator in which CO from the cathodic reduction reaction in the CO 2 electrolyzer is converted to solid carbon with a catalyst; Page 7, lines 1-4, and Page 26, lines 1-3). Shumar further teaches a second fluid from the anode flow path, the second fluid containing carbon dioxide (see e.g. Fig. 1, O 2 from anodic oxidation reaction in CO 2 electrolyzer contains CO 2 impurities in an amount less than 1%; Page 3, under “Background”, lines 12-19, and Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8). Shumar does not teach the reaction part configured to switch from the first operation to a second operation, the second operation comprising performing a reaction of a second raw material and solid carbon to be deposited on the catalyst to remove at least a part of the deposited solid carbon from the catalyst, the second raw material containing the second fluid. Shumar does however teach the second fluid being formed of a vast majority of oxygen (see e.g. Page 18, bottom paragraph, lines 1-8, O 2 produced with less than 1% impurities), as well as the system comprising an operation mode in which a carbon-filled catalyst cartridge of the reaction part is replaced with a new catalyst cartridge (see e.g. Page 15, under “Carbon Deposition Cartridge Change Mode”, lines 1-4, and Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 1-9). Sawada teaches a system comprising an electrolysis device in which O 2 is produced (see e.g. Fig. 1, water electrolysis device 4; Paragraph 0017, line 7) and a reactor in which solid carbon is deposited on a catalyst (see e.g. Fig. 1, second reactor 8; Paragraph 0018, lines 1-3), wherein the oxygen produced by the electrolysis device can be used to remove the attached carbon by conversion into carbon dioxide gas, allowing the catalyst to be economically regenerated and reused (see e.g. Paragraph 0016, lines 6-8, and Paragraph 0018, lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reaction part of Shumar to switch to a second operation in which the majority-oxygen fluid from the anode flow path is used to remove the deposited solid carbon from the catalyst as taught by Sawada to allow the catalyst to be economically regenerated and reused. Shumar, as modified by Sawada, does not teach a third reactor configured to perform the first and second operations, a first switching valve connecting an outlet of the cathode flow path and the third reactor, and a second switching valve connecting an outlet of the anode flow path and the third reactor, instead teaching the first and second operations being performed by separate reactors (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, carbon production in second reactor 8 and carbon removal in carbon dioxide regeneration device 9; Paragraph 0018, lines 1-3 and 6-10). Okada teaches a process comprising a first step in which a carbon precipitate is produced by decomposition of hydrocarbons in the presence of a catalyst and a second step in which the carbon precipitate is reacted and removed from the catalyst by reacting with air (see e.g. Paragraphs 0008-0010), the first and second steps being performed in a single reactor with respective first and second valves opening to provide the necessary components for each step (see e.g. Fig. 6, reactor 11 with valve V1 connected to hydrocarbon for the decomposition and carbon production and valve V2 connected to air for reaction with deposited carbon; Paragraphs 0042-0043), the sequential repetition of the first step in this reactor while the second step occurs in a second reactor and vice versa allowing for more continuous and efficient operation (see e.g. Paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to have the carbon production and removal operations performed in a single reactor with first and second valves connected to the respective first and second fluids from the cathode and anode flow paths as taught by Okada as an alternate suitable configuration for the carbon production and removal that enables more continuous and efficient operation when combining two such reactors sequentially repeating the operations. Regarding claim 15 , Shumar as modified by Okada teaches the system comprising a plurality of the reactors (see e.g. Okada Fig. 6, reactors 11 and 12 sequentially alternating the carbon deposition and gas generation/carbon removal operations; Paragraph 0045) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim s 1-2 above, and further in view of Green et al. (“Development Status for a Combined Solid Oxide Co-Electrolyzer and Carbon Formation Reactor System for Oxygen Regeneration”, AIAA SPACE 2016 ) . Regarding claim 4 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Shumar does not teach the first fluid containing carbon dioxide. Shumar does however teach both CO 2 and water electrolysis taking place in the electrolysis cell to produce the CO and H 2 (see e.g. Shumar Page 11, 2 nd paragraph, lines 10-11, Eqns. 5-6, and under Eqn. 6, lines 1-3). Green teaches a system for removal of carbon dioxide from an atmosphere to recover oxygen (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a solid oxide co-electrolyzer (SOCE) cell in which CO 2 and H -2 O are fed to a cathode side to produce CO and H 2 (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Page 2, Section A, lines 1-4) and a carbon formation reactor (CFR) that uses a catalyst with a cathodic exhaust feed from the electrolyzer to produce solid carbon from both CO as well as CO 2 +H 2 (see e.g. Fig. 10, Page 3, Section B, lines 1-14, and Eqns. 5 and 6), wherein the CO 2 and H 2 O are only partially, e.g. 80%, reduced in the SOCE, resulting in unreacted CO 2 being present in the feed to the CFR and the CFR subsequently having a high conversion efficiency and single-pass oxygen recovery (see e.g. connecting paragraph of Pages 3-4, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to have the electrolysis part perform partial, e.g. 80%, reduction of introduced carbon dioxide, resulting in unreacted carbon dioxide being present in the first fluid from the cathode flow path, as taught by Shumar as an operation method of a carbon dioxide and water electrolyzer connected to a solid carbon formation reactor that provides the carbon formation reactor with high conversion efficiency and single-pass oxygen recovery. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Regarding claim 7 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements for the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar further teaches a carbon supply source configured to introduce a gas containing carbon dioxide to the system (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1 and Page 4, bottom paragraph, lines 4-6, feed containing CO 2 from CO 2 collection systems). Modified Shumar does not teach the gas containing carbon dioxide being introduced to the carbon production part. Shumar does however teach both CO 2 and water electrolysis taking place in the electrolysis cell to produce the CO and H 2 (see e.g. Shumar Page 11, 2 nd paragraph, lines 10-11, Eqns. 5-6, and under Eqn. 6, lines 1-3). Green teaches a system for removal of carbon dioxide from an atmosphere to recover oxygen (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a solid oxide co-electrolyzer (SOCE) cell in which CO 2 and H -2 O are fed to a cathode side to produce CO and H 2 (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Page 2, Section A, lines 1-4) and a carbon formation reactor (CFR) that uses a catalyst with a cathodic exhaust feed from the electrolyzer to produce solid carbon from both CO as well as CO 2 +H 2 (see e.g. Fig. 10, Page 3, Section B, lines 1-14, and Eqns. 5 and 6), wherein the CO 2 and H 2 O are only partially, e.g. 80%, reduced in the SOCE, resulting in unreacted CO 2 being present in the feed to the CFR and the CFR subsequently having a high conversion efficiency and single-pass oxygen recovery (see e.g. connecting paragraph of Pages 3-4, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to have the electrolysis part perform partial, e.g. 80%, reduction of introduced carbon dioxide, resulting in unreacted carbon dioxide being present in the raw material to the carbon production part, as taught by Shumar as an operation method of a carbon dioxide and water electrolyzer connected to a solid carbon formation reactor that provides the carbon formation reactor with high conversion efficiency and single-pass oxygen recovery. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Green and Brunot et al. (U.S. 2019/0194816) . Regarding claim 5 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar does not teach the raw material containing carbon dioxide, wherein at lease a part of the carbon dioxide is derived from the atmosphere and derived from biomass. Shumar does however teach both CO 2 and water electrolysis taking place in the electrolysis cell to produce the CO and H 2 (see e.g. Shumar Page 11, 2 nd paragraph, lines 10-11, Eqns. 5-6, and under Eqn. 6, lines 1-3), as well as the carbon dioxide introduced into the electrolysis cell being derived from the atmosphere (see e.g. Shumar Page 6, bottom paragraph lines 1-5, collection of metabolic CO 2 produced by man, i.e. released into the atmosphere, for electrolysis). Green teaches a system for removal of carbon dioxide from an atmosphere to recover oxygen (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a solid oxide co-electrolyzer (SOCE) cell in which CO 2 and H -2 O are fed to a cathode side to produce CO and H 2 (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Page 2, Section A, lines 1-4) and a carbon formation reactor (CFR) that uses a catalyst with a cathodic exhaust feed from the electrolyzer to produce solid carbon from both CO as well as CO 2 +H 2 (see e.g. Fig. 10, Page 3, Section B, lines 1-14, and Eqns. 5 and 6), wherein the CO 2 and H 2 O are only partially, e.g. 80%, reduced in the SOCE, resulting in unreacted CO 2 being present in the feed to the CFR and the CFR subsequently having a high conversion efficiency and single-pass oxygen recovery (see e.g. connecting paragraph of Pages 3-4, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to have the electrolysis part perform partial, e.g. 80%, reduction of introduced carbon dioxide, resulting in unreacted carbon dioxide being present in the raw material to the carbon production part, as taught by Shumar as an operation method of a carbon dioxide and water electrolyzer connected to a solid carbon formation reactor that provides the carbon formation reactor with high conversion efficiency and single-pass oxygen recovery. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Modified Sawada does not teach at least a part of the carbon dioxide also being derived from biomass. Brunot teaches an electrolyzer which may carry out electrolysis of steam H 2 O and/or co-electrolysis of H 2 O+CO 2 to produce a syngas mixture of H 2 , CO and CO 2 at the cathode (see e.g. Paragraphs 0015, 0017 and 0035-0036), wherein the CO 2 for the co-electrolysis may be derived from production sites such as biomass methanization (see e.g. Brunot 0040, lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carbon dioxide supplied to the electrolysis part of modified Shumar to also be derived from sources such as biomass methanization as taught by Brunot as an additional suitable source of CO 2 to be electrolyzed in a device for co-electrolysis of H 2 O and CO 2 . MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Echigo et al. (U.S. 2023/0111972) . Regarding claim 10 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar does not teach a gas conversion part provided between the electrolysis part and the carbon production part, the gas conversion part being configured to perform a reverse shift reaction of carbon dioxide and hydrogen to produce carbon monoxide and water. Shumar does however teach both CO 2 and water electrolysis taking place in the electrolysis cell to produce the CO and H 2 to be introduced to the carbon production part (see e.g. Shumar Page 7, lines 1-3, and Page 11, 2 nd paragraph, lines 10-11, Eqns. 5-6, and under Eqn. 6, lines 1-3), the CO being the core reactant for the carbon production (see e.g. Shumar Page 7, lines 1-5). Echigo teaches system including an electrolytic reaction unit in which water and carbon dioxide are first converted into hydrogen, carbon monoxide and oxygen via electrolysis (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolytic reaction unit 10 electrolyzing H 2 O and CO 2 ; Paragraphs 0077-0079), the hydrogen and carbon dioxide then react in a reverse water-gas shift reactor to form carbon monoxide and water (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 10, reverse water-gas shift reaction unit 20; Paragraph 0080), and the carbon monoxide then being converted into a carbon compound in a further reactor (see e.g. Fig. 1, hydrocarbon synthesis reaction unit 30 producing CH 4 ; Paragraph 0083), wherein the reverse gas-shift reactor provided in a discharge path of the electrolyzer can increase a composition ratio of CO to H 2 generated by electrolysis (see e.g. Paragraph 0048 and Paragraph 0184, lines 10-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a reverse gas shift reactor between the electrolysis part and the carbon production part for converting carbon dioxide and hydrogen into carbon monoxide and water as taught by Echigo to increase the compositional ratio of the CO reactant in the feed discharged from the CO 2 +H 2 O electrolysis part to the carbon production part . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bravo et al. (WO 2021243199 A1) . Regarding claim 14 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar does not explicitly teach a fourth flow path connecting the carbon production part and the catalyst regeneration part, the fourth flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of a fourth fluid to be discharged from the catalyst regeneration part to the carbon production part. Sawada does however teach the catalyst from which carbon has been removed being returned to carbon production part to be reused (see e.g. Sawada Paragraph 0018, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0019). Bravo teaches a system for conversion of hydrocarbons to products (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 1-2) comprising a reaction system and a catalyst recovery and recycle section (see e.g. Fig. 1, reaction system 104 and catalyst recovery/recycle section 106; Paragraph 0037, lines 4-6), wherein a flow path connects the two system components so the recycled catalyst may be added back into the reaction system (see e.g. Fig. 1, recycled catalyst in stream 132 added to reactor in reaction system 104; Paragraph 0038, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a flow path for introducing regenerated catalyst from the catalyst regeneration part to the carbon production part as taught by Bravo as a suitable configuration for enabling return and reuse of the catalyst. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Regarding claim 20 , Shumar as modified by Sawada teaches a first flow path connecting the carbon production part and the electrolysis part, the first flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of a third fluid to be discharged from the carbon production part to the electrolysis part (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1, recycle loop in which CO 2 from the disproportionator is returned to the feed for the CO 2 electrolyzer; Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 12-14); a second flow path connecting the carbon production part and the catalyst regeneration part, the second flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of a third fluid to be discharged from the carbon production part to the catalyst regeneration part (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, path for carbon-adhered catalyst to be sucked from second reactor 8 to carbon dioxide regeneration device 9; Paragraph 0018); and a fourth fluid to be discharged from the catalyst regeneration part (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, CO 2 supplied from carbon dioxide regeneration part). Shumar as modified by Sawada above does not explicitly teach a third flow path connecting the electrolysis part and the catalyst regeneration part, the third flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of the fourth fluid to the electrolysis part. Sawada does however teach the fourth fluid comprising carbon dioxide which is reincorporated into the system (see e.g. Sawada Fig. 1, CO 2 supplied from device 9 to plants 7; Paragraph 0017, lines 7-8). Shumar also teaches a recycle loop in which carbon dioxide is returned to a feed of the electrolysis part (see e.g. Shumar Fig. 1, recycle loop in which CO 2 from the disproportionator is returned to the feed for the CO 2 electrolyzer; Page 26, under Eqn. 8, lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a flow path connecting the electrolysis part and the catalyst regeneration part, such that CO 2 in the fourth fluid can be introduced into the electrolysis part to enable the produced CO 2 to be reincorporated into the system as taught by Sawada via the recycle loop of Shumar. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results. Modified Shumar does not explicitly teach a fourth flow path connecting the carbon production part and the catalyst regeneration part, the fourth flow path being configured to introduce at least a part of a fourth fluid to be discharged from the catalyst regeneration part to the carbon production part. Sawada does however teach the catalyst from which carbon has been removed being returned to carbon production part to be reused (see e.g. Sawada Paragraph 0018, lines 9-10, and Paragraph 0019). Bravo teaches a system for conversion of hydrocarbons to products (see e.g. Paragraph 0033, lines 1-2) comprising a reaction system and a catalyst recovery and recycle section (see e.g. Fig. 1, reaction system 104 and catalyst recovery/recycle section 106; Paragraph 0037, lines 4-6), wherein a flow path connects the two system components so the recycled catalyst may be added back into the reaction system (see e.g. Fig. 1, recycled catalyst in stream 132 added to reactor in reaction system 104; Paragraph 0038, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a flow path for introducing regenerated catalyst from the catalyst regeneration part to the carbon production part as taught by Bravo as a suitable configuration for enabling return and reuse of the catalyst. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109060584 A, citations based on translation) . Regarding claim 17 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar does not teach a weight meter configured to measure a weight of the first reactor or the second reactor. Sawada does however teach the deposited carbon being removed to regenerate the catalyst for reuse (see e.g. Sawada Paragraph 0016, lines 6-8). Zhang teaches a method for detecting coke, i.e. carbon deposit, content in a catalyst that affects the activity of the catalyst (see e.g. Paragraphs 0002 and 0007), wherein coke content is calculated based on a measured change in total weight of the reaction container containing the catalyst (see e.g. Paragraphs 0034 and 0048), this method having a low cost and not requiring manual supervision (see e.g. Paragraph 0025, lines 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a meter measuring the weight of the first reactor in which carbon is deposited as taught by Zhang as a low cost method without manual supervision for detecting carbon deposition on the catalyst and thereby when it may need to be regenerated . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brunot . Regarding claim 18 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar does not teach at least one heat exchanger selected from the group consisting of a first heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the carbon production part and the catalyst regeneration part, a second heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the electrolysis part and the carbon production part, and a third heat exchanger configured to exchange heat between the electrolysis part and the catalyst regeneration part. Shumar does however teach the electrolysis part requiring heating to an operating temperature of 1123 K (see e.g. Shumar Table 4 and Page 18, under “Electrolyzer Furnace”, lines 1-5), and the carbon production part being heated to 823 K (see e.g. Shumar Table 6 and Page 26, lines 1-3). Brunot teaches a system including an electrolyzer which may carry out electrolysis of steam H 2 O and/or co-electrolysis of H 2 O+CO 2 to producing reagents for methanation (see e.g. Paragraphs 0015 and 0035), the co-electrolysis producing a syngas mixture of H 2 , CO and CO 2 at the cathode to be injected into a catalytic methanation reactor to produce methane (see e.g. Paragraphs 0017 and 0035-0036), wherein using heat from the methanation reactor for high temperature electrolysis via heat exchange makes it possible to achieve particularly high electrical yield (see e.g. Brunot 0016 and 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a heat exchanger for exchanging heat between a catalytic reactor of the carbon production part and the electrolysis part as taught by Brunot to achieve a particularly high electrical yield form the electrolysis . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumar in view of Sawada , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ren et al. (U.S. 2016/0362800) . Regarding claim 19 , modified Shumar teaches all the elements of the system of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Shumar further teaches a measuring instrument configured to measure an amount of a substance and an amount of energy to be introduced to the sequestration system (see e.g. Shumar Table 11, #19-30, Table 12 and Page 60, lines 1-6, flowmeter for supplied CO 2 and voltage level monitor for electrolyzer voltages, i.e. supplied energy). Modified Shumar does not teach an arithmetic unit configured to calculate carbon dioxide emissions of the overall sequestration system from a measured value of the measuring instrument. Ren teaches a system for capturing carbon (see e.g. Abstract) wherein a CO 2 balance, i.e. overall CO 2 emissions, can be calculated by a determined, i.e. measured, amount of CO 2 introduced and captured in the process as well an amount of CO 2 releasing electricity consumed by the process (see e.g. Paragraphs 0094-0096), this balance allowing quantifiable evaluation of CO 2 mitigation benefits of the system (see e.g. Paragraph 0039, last two lines). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of modified Shumar to comprise a unit for calculating the overall carbon balance, i.e. CO 2 emissions, of the system based on the measured amounts of CO 2 and electricity, i.e. energy, introduced into the system as taught by Ren to allow for quantifiable evaluation of CO 2 mitigation benefits of the system. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1-2 under 35 USC over Sawada in view of Brunot, particularly regarding the newly added limitation of the second fluid comprising carbon dioxide, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shumar and Sawada. Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 3 under 35 USC 103 over Sawada in view of Brunot and Okada, particularly regarding the newly added limitation of the second fluid comprising carbon dioxide, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shumar, Sawada and Okada. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm. 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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. /M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795 /LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 2 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 3 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 4 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 5 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 6 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 7 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 8 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 9 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 10 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 11 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 12 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 13 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 14 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 15 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 16 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 17 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 18 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 19 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 20 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 21 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 22 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 23 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 24 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 25 Art Unit: 1795 Application/Control Number: 18/175,005 Page 26 Art Unit: 1795
Prosecution Insights