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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited prior art i.e., McElroy in view of Lacroix, does not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the requirement for restriction/election in the Office action mailed 04/22/2026 has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Abbreviations
OBOGS – On-Board Oxygen Generation System
RSOC – Reversible Solid Oxide Cell
SOC – Solid Oxide Cell
SOEC – Solid Oxide Electrolysis Cell
SOFC – Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 19, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 line 3 reads “temperature adjusted, moist flush gas stream”, but should read “temperature adjusted[[,]] moist flush gas stream” to match the spelling used in claim 1;
Claim 19 lines 1-2 read “outlet in addition”, but should read “outlet, in addition” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 31 line 2 reads “and zeolites; or”, but should read “[[and]] zeolites[[;]], [[or]] and” to be grammatically correct.
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.
Claims 9-11, 14-15, 18, 20, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the term “gradually ramping down” in claims 9 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually ramping down” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, the specification uses the term “gradually ramping down”, but does not define or provide any guidance as to what rate of temperature change would be considered “gradually ramping down”.
Claims 9 and 10 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the limitation "operating in cooling mode" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Specifically, neither claim 11 nor claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, recites “a cooling mode”. It is therefore unclear, in light of the specification, what specific steps would be necessary for the second section of the adsorbent to be considered operating in “cooling mode” as currently drafted.
Claim 11 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, claims 14 and 15 recite the limitations "operated in … regeneration mode", "operated in … cooling mode", and "operated in … standby mode" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims.
Specifically, neither claims 1, 13, 14, nor 15, recite “a regeneration mode”, “a cooling mode” or “a standby mode”.
It is therefore unclear, in light of the specification, what specific steps would be necessary for the section(s) of the adsorbent to be considered as operating in “regeneration mode”, “cooling mode”, or “standby mode” as currently drafted.
Claims 14 and 15 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites the limitations “temperature adjusted, moist flush gas stream” in lines 1-2, “the temperature adjusted, dried flush gas stream” in lines 3-4, “the temperature adjusted, spent flush gas stream” in lines 4-5, and “the spent regeneration gas” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claims.
Specifically, neither claim 18 nor claim 17, from which claim 18 depends, recites “a temperature adjusted, moist flush gas stream”, “a temperature adjusted, dried flush gas stream”, “a temperature adjusted, spent flush gas stream” or “a spent regeneration gas”. Furthermore, neither claim 18 nor claim 17 described any temperature adjustment components. It is therefore unclear to what these limitations refer.
Claim 18 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 17 or 18 to provide antecedent basis for these terms.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation “a product gas outlet of the solid oxide electrolysis cell unit” in lines 3-4, however claim 17, from which claim 20 depends, already recites “a product gas outlet” in line 10. A plain language reading of the claim therefore requires the SOEC to comprise two product gas outlets. However, the specification shows only one “product gas outlet” (e.g., Fig. 1). It is therefore unclear from the current claim language how many product gas outlets the SOEC is required to have.
Claim 20 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 20 to read “the product gas outlet …”.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites the limitation “at least one of the coolers and/or heaters is a heat exchanger” in lines 1-2, which indicates the presence of more than one cooler and/or heater. However, claim 23, from which claim 26 depends, recites “a cooler and/or a heater”.
It is therefore unclear whether claim 26 is intended to require a plurality of heaters and/or coolers, whether claim 26 was intended to read “the cooler and/or heater is a heat exchanger”, or whether claim 23 was intended to read “at least one cooler and/or heater”, and claim 26 was intended to read “at least one of the one or more coolers and/or heaters …”.
Claim 26 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 depends from claim 26, but recites “the cooler and/or heater” which, as with claim 26, introduces uncertainty into whether or not a plurality of coolers and/or heaters are required by the claims.
Furthermore, claim 27 depends from claim 26, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 26.
Claim 27 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 depends from claim 26, but recites “the cooler and/or heater” which, as with claim 26, introduces uncertainty into whether or not a plurality of coolers and/or heaters are required by the claims.
Furthermore, claim 28 recites the limitation “the spent regeneration gas stream” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, neither claim 28 nor any of the claims it depends from recite “a spent regeneration gas stream”. It is therefore unclear to what this limitation refers.
Furthermore, claim 28 depends from claim 26, and therefore incorporates the indefinite language of claim 26.
Claim 28 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites the limitations “adsorption mode”, “regeneration mode”, “cooling mode” and “standby mode” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Specifically, neither claim 30 nor any of the claims from which it depends recite “an adsorption mode”, “a regeneration mode”, “a cooling mode”, or “a standby mode”. It is therefore unclear to what these terms refer.
Furthermore, the claims do not define what is meant by these terms, and therefore their meanings are also unclear.
Claim 30 is therefore indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 12-13, 16-17, 19, 21-25, 29, and 31 are allowed.
Furthermore, claims 9-11, 14-15, 18, 20, 26-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), but would be allowable if amended to address the above ground(s) of rejection.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 17, with a particular emphasis on the limitations “wherein the drying unit is arranged to convey a spent flush gas stream from the regeneration gas inlet through the adsorbent bed to the regeneration gas outlet”, “wherein the solid oxide electrolysis cell unit is arranged to convey dried flush gas from the flush gas inlet, through the oxy side of the at least one solid oxide electrolysis cell, and to the flush gas outlet of the solid oxide electrolysis cell unit” and “wherein the flush gas outlet is in fluid communication with the regeneration gas inlet of the drying unit”.
It is noted that claim 17 is an apparatus claim, and therefore the functional limitations “a solid oxide electrolysis cell”, “wherein the drying unit is arranged to convey a spent flush gas stream from the regeneration gas inlet through the adsorbent bed to the regeneration gas outlet” and “the solid oxide electrolysis cell unit is arranged to convey dried flush gas from the flush gas inlet, through the oxy side of the at least one solid oxide electrolysis cell, and to the flush gas outlet of the solid oxide electrolysis cell unit” limit the system such that it is capable of performing the recited functions (MPEP § 2114 and 2115).
The closest prior art is considered to be Peschel (EP 3511441 A1), Peake (US Pat. No. 9289717 B2), McElroy (US Pat. Pub. 2007/0017367 A1), von Olshausen (US Pat. Pub. 2017/01758277 A1), and Khan et al. (“Air electrodes and related degradation mechanisms in solid oxide electrolysis and reversible solid oxide cells” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 143 (2021) 110918).
Peschel teaches a high-temperature solid oxide electrolysis system configured for converting a fuel stream into a product stream (e.g., abstract), the system comprising a SOEC unit comprising at least one SOEC (“high-temperature electrolysis cell 10” para. 81 and Fig. 1), and a drying unit (“dryer 24” para. 82 and Fig. 1), wherein
the drying unit is arranged to convey a moist flush gas stream from a drying unit inlet to a drying unit outlet (Id.),
wherein the drying unit outlet is in fluid communication with the flush gas inlet of the solid oxide electrolysis cell (Id.), and
the SOEC unit is arranged to convey dried flush gas from a flush gas inlet, through the oxy side of the at least one SOEC, and to a flush gas outlet of the SOEC (“An airflow 1 provided in this way rinses the anode side 11 of the electrolysis cell 10 and carries away products formed there, especially oxygen.” Id.).
While Peschel does not teach the drying unit comprises an adsorbent bed through which the moist flush gas stream is conveyed, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use and adsorbent bed as the means of effecting the drying in the drier, as this is a standard arrangement for drying air supplied to solid oxide cells (see e.g., McElroy paras. 37-41).
However, Peschel does not teach the flush gas outlet is in fluid communication with the regeneration gas inlet of the drying unit. Rather, Peschel teaches the flush gas outlet is in fluid communication with heat exchangers (“25 and 27” Fig. 1 and para. 82), and then discharges the flush gas (“The enriched airflow 2 can be discharged from system 100” Id.).
Peake teaches a method for removing water from the feed to an oxygen generation system (abstract and Fig. 2), wherein a flush gas outlet of the oxygen generation system (“OBOGS exhaust 247” Fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 26-51) is fluidly connected to a regeneration gas inlet of a drying unit (“purge valve 230 opens such that the OBOGS exhaust 247 pass through the dryer unit 220 in (preferably) countercurrent flow” Fig. 2 and col. 4 line 53 – col. 5 line 5).
However, the oxygen generation system in Peake is not an SOEC, but is rather an OBOGS (on-board oxygen gas system) for use in aircraft, which operates by concentrating atmospheric oxygen, rather than by producing it via electrolysis. Thus, the advantages taught by Peake (i.e., enabling efficient operation when external air pressure is low and oxygen demand is high) are not applicable to SOECs.
It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify the system of Peschel (or any other SOEC) based on the teachings of Peake.
McElroy teaches a system for drying a feed stream to a solid oxide fuel cell SOFC, however, as noted by Applicant (see Remarks filed 05/18/2026), the system of McElroy is attached to the fuel side of the SOFC. As the fuel side of the SOFC of McElroy comprises Ni-YSZ (para. 51), this side of the system is not necessarily capable of serving as the oxy side of an SOEC. Therefore, McElroy does not inherently teach the limitations of claim 17 (MPEP § 2112).
Von Olshausen teaches an SOEC wherein the flush gas outlet of the SOEC (“line 52” Fig. 1 and para. 114) is fluidly connected to a separator unit (“separation device 12” para. 103 and Fig. 1). However, the separator unit of von Olshausen is not a dryer, but rather separates oxygen from nitrogen (para. 74). Von Olshausen therefore cannot reasonably be considered to teach a drying unit.
Khan provides an overview of the state of the art in degradation of the oxy sides of SOECs and RSOCs close to the effective filing date of the instant application. Kahn does not describe any systems comprising a drying unit attached to the oxy side of an SOEC or RSOC, or otherwise indicate that moisture in the sweep gas supplied to the oxy side is detrimental to the operation of such systems.
Based on the prior art of record, it is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a motivation to apply a drying system to the oxy side of an SOEC as recited in claim 17. The cumulative limitations of claim 17 are therefore considered patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Regarding claims 18-31, claims 18-31 depend from claim 17, and therefore incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 17. Claims 18-31 are therefore patentably distinguished from the prior art for at least the reasons enumerated for claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is a method claim whose method steps necessarily require the structural features considered to patentably distinguish claim 17 over the prior art of record. Claim 1 is therefore considered patentably distinguished over the prior art of record for at least the same reasons enumerated above for claim 17, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 2-16, claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the allowable subject matter recited in claim 1. Claims 2-16 are therefore patentably distinguished over the prior art of record for at least the reasons enumerated for claim 1, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights