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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11 September 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objection. The Claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendments dated 11 September 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 4, 9-10, 26-27, 30, 36-37, and 39-41 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 26-28, and 30-42 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 26-28, and 30-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aasberg-Petersen et al. (WO-2019228798-A1) in view of Ploeg (WO-2020002326-A1) and Lee (US-11456463-B1, effective filing date of 31 May 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Aasberg-Petersen teaches an apparatus (fig. 1a), comprising:
a resistive heating reactor (reactor system 100, fig. 1a; “resistance heating,” page 1, line 6) comprising:
a three-dimensional resistive heating element (macroscopic structure 5, fig. 1a; “embedded resistor,” page 6, line 25) formed as a single structure (“single macroscopic structure,” page 4, line 15 and page 30, line 27) by additive manufacturing (“3D printed structures,” page 4, line 22) of a conductive material (“the macroscopic structures 5 are made of electrically conductive material,” page 29, line 13),
wherein the conductive ceramic-based material is configured to conduct electricity to generate heat to a predefined temperature (“the temperatures of the structured catalyst may reach up to about 1300° C,” page 10, line 29),
wherein the resistive heating element has at least one continuous channel (channels 70, fig. 6) that traverses through an interior of the resistive heating element (the channels 70 traverse up and down inside the macroscopic structure, fig. 6); and
wherein at least some of the catalytic component (“catalytically active material,” page 28, line 26) is present on an external surface of the resistive heating element (“The ceramic coat may be added to the surface of the electrically conductive material and subsequently the catalytically active material may be added,” page 16, lines 8-10) for direct contact with a reactant (“feed gas,” page 8, line 10; page 24, lines 10-26; Specification of the Instant Application discloses that gas can be a reactant).
Aasberg-Petersen, figs. 1a and 6
PNG
media_image1.png
1082
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
776
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose a conductive ceramic-based material mixed with a catalytic component (Aasberg teaches using materials such as graphite, kanthal, or an FeCr alloy, page 12, lines 13-19, but none of these materials are conductive ceramic materials in view of paragraph 0046 of the Specification).
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Ploeg teaches a conductive ceramic-based material (“A preferred embodiment of the electrical heating element in the reactor configuration of this disclosure comprises MoSi2 or FeCrAl based resistance heating elements.,” page 7, lines 21-24; construed as using MoSi2 which is an electrically conductive ceramic material, in view of paragraph 0047 of the Specification).
Ploeg, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
1222
1675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen, in view of the teachings of Ploeg, by using MoSi2, as taught by Ploeg, as the electrically conductive material, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, in order to use a material for an electrical radiative heating element that has the ability to withstand oxidation at high temperatures and where the resistivity of the material does not change due to aging, where the material molybdenum disilicide can facilitate high-temperature electrical resistance heating, which is near 100% efficient and permits uniform isothermal chemical reactions through conduction heating, which is more effective than other non-uniform modes of radiation heating, e.g., convection heating (Ploeg, page 3, lines 9-22; page 7 ,line 25-page 8, line 11).
Aasberg-Peterson / Ploeg do not explicitly disclose a conductive ceramic-based material mixed with a catalytic component (although Aasberg-Peterson teaches using catalytic materials, Aasberg-Peterson does not explicitly disclose mixing the catalytic materials during the additive manufacturing process.
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Lee teaches a conductive ceramic-based material mixed with a catalytic component (“a method of preparing an ink composition according to embodiments of the present disclosure includes a first act 10 of mixing a carbon source 12, a dopant source 14, and a metal-containing catalyst 16 to form a mixed powdered precursor 22 (also referred to herein as “a composite material”),” column 17, lines 55-61).
Lee, fig. 1A
PNG
media_image4.png
619
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen/Ploeg, in view of the teachings of Lee, by using the process of Direct Ink Write (DIW) using layer-by-layer deposition of ink, as taught by Lee, as the 3D printing process for forming the macroscopic structure that includes catalyst materials within the channels of the macroscopic structure, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, in order to control the geometry of the macroscopic structure, because even when a structure is a highly efficient catalyst, the rates of mass transport for the resultant oxygen molecules will be limited based on the shape of the structure, but by using a controlled DIW process for forming the structure, the geometry can be precisely controlled to promote the flow of reactants and products through or past the structure (Lee, column 4, lines 14-44; Aasberg-Peterson teaches using a catalyst materials within the channels of the macroscopic structure, page 20, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 2, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the catalytic component is integrated into the resistive heating element (“The ceramic coating and thus the catalytically active material are present on every walls within the structured catalyst 10 over which the gas flow flows during operation and interacts with the heated surface of the structured catalyst and the catalytically active material,” page 33, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Aasberg-Peterson in view of Ploeg and Lee as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Lee teaches wherein an amount of the catalytic component is in a range of greater than 0.1 weight percent to less than 50 weight percent of total weight of the resistive heating element and the catalytic component (“1 wt % to about 45 wt %,” column 12, lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 4, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein a surface of the resistive heating element (internal surface of the macroscopic structure in fig. 6 where the channels 70 are located) is exposed to the at least one continuous channel (the internal surface is where the channel 70 are located, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the integrated catalytic component is present on an external surface of the resistive heating element (surface of the walls 75 in the macroscopic structure located within the slit 60 are construed as the claimed “external surface,” figs. 5-6; the walls 75 are coated, page 33, lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 7, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the catalytic component is selected from the group consisting of: a metal, a metal oxide (“Pt/Al2O3 or Pt-SN/ Al2O3” page 26, line 19), a reducible metal oxide, a metal carbide, a perovskite, a zeolite, a metal organic framework (MOF), and a combination thereof (Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the component is at least a metal oxide and therefore is selected from the claimed grouping).
Regarding claim 8, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the catalytic component is in nanoparticle form (“the catalytically active material comprises catalytically active particles having a size in the range from about 5 nm to about 250 nm,” page 5, lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Aasberg-Petersen in view of Ploeg and Lee as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Ploeg teaches wherein the melting point of the conductive ceramic material (“Molybdenum disilicide {MoSi2) elements,” page 7, line 25) is greater than 1800 degrees Celsius (“1850 °C,” page 8, line 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Aasberg-Petersen in view of Ploeg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Ploeg teaches wherein the conductive ceramic-based material includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of: a metal carbide, a metalloid carbide, a metal boride, a metalloid boride, a metal oxide, a metalloid oxide, a metal nitride, a metalloid nitride, a metal silicide (“Molybdenum disilicide {MoSi2) elements,” page 7, line 25; the “Mo” element is construed as a metal and the “Si” element is construed as a silicide), and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 26, Aasberg-Petersen teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the resistive heating element is formed from an ink comprising a mixture of the conductive ceramic-based material and the catalytic component.
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Lee teaches wherein the resistive heating element (electrode 34, fig. 1A) is formed from an ink comprising a mixture (fig. 1A) of the conductive ceramic-based material and the catalytic component(relying on the MoSi2 compound taught by Ploeg; “a method of preparing an ink composition according to embodiments of the present disclosure includes a first act 10 of mixing a carbon source 12, a dopant source 14, and a metal-containing catalyst 16 to form a mixed powdered precursor 22 (also referred to herein as “a composite material”),” column 17, lines 55-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen/Ploeg, in view of the teachings of Lee, by using the process of Direct Ink Write (DIW) using layer-by-layer deposition of ink, as taught by Lee, as the 3D printing process for forming the macroscopic structure, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, and by grinding or milling, as taught by Lee, the MoSi2 compound, as taught by Ploeg, in order to control the geometry of the electrode in the macroscopic structure, because even when an electrode is a highly efficient catalyst, the rates of mass transport for the resultant oxygen molecules will be limited based on the structure of the electrode, but by using a precisely controlled DIW process for forming the electrodes, the geometry of the electrode can be controlled to promote the flow of reactants and products through or past the electrode (Lee, column 4, lines 14-44).
Regarding claim 27, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the conductive ceramic-based material is configured to conduct electricity to generate heat to a temperature in a range of greater than 100 degrees Celsius to about 1500 degrees Celsius (“the temperatures of the structured catalyst may reach up to about 1300° C,” page 10, line 29).
Aasberg-Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein the resistive heating element includes therein a solid mixture formed from the conductive ceramic-based material and the catalytic component.
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Lee teaches wherein the resistive heating element (electrode 34, fig. 1A) includes therein a solid mixture (mixed powder precursor 22, fig. 1A) formed from the conductive ceramic-based material (relying on the MoSi2 compound taught by Ploeg) and the catalytic component (metal-containing catalyst 16, fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen/Ploeg, in view of the teachings of Lee, by forming a mixed powder that includes a metal-containing catalyst, as taught by Lee, that also includes the MoSi2 compound, as taught by Ploeg, in order to enhance the electrocatalytic activity of the oxygen reduction reactions caused by the electrodes for the advantage of higher current density at a lower overpotential, i.e., a higher reaction efficiency because of the presence of the catalyst (Lee, column 6, lines 45-63 and column 8, line 63-column 9, line 4).
Regarding claim 28, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the catalytic component is present on an external surface of the inside of the at least one continuous channel (the catalytically active material is located on the inner walls 75 that are inside the structure catalyst, page 33, lines 7-14 and fig. 6).
Regarding claim 30, Aasberg-Petersen teaches a method of forming the product as recited in claim 1, the method comprising: fabricating the resistive heating reactor using, at least in part, an additive manufacturing technique (“the macroscopic structure is 3D printed a metal additive manufacturing melting process,” page 5, lines 18-19), wherein the resistive heating reactor comprises the conductive material (the macroscopic structures 5 are made of electrically conductive material,” page 29, line 13) and the catalytic component (“catalytically active material,” page 28, line 26), wherein the resistive heating reactor has an operating temperature in a range of greater than about 100 ° C to 1500 ° C (“the temperatures of the structured catalyst may reach up to about 1300° C,” page 10, line 29).
Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose the conductive ceramic-based material (Aasberg teaches using materials such as graphite, kanthal, or an FeCr alloy, page 12, lines 13-19, but none of these materials are conductive ceramic materials in view of paragraph 0046 of the Specification).
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Ploeg teaches the electrically conductive ceramic-based material (“A preferred embodiment of the electrical heating element in the reactor configuration of this disclosure comprises MoSi2 or FeCrAl based resistance heating elements.,” page 7, lines 21-24; construed as using MoSi2 which is a conductive ceramic material, in view of paragraph 0047 of the Specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen to include the electrically conductive ceramic-based material, by using MoSi2, as taught by Ploeg, as the electrically conductive material, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, in order to use a material for an electrical radiative heating element that has the ability to withstand oxidation at high temperatures and where the resistivity of the material does not change due to aging, where the material molybdenum disilicide can facilitate high-temperature electrical resistance heating, which is near 100% efficient and permits uniform isothermal chemical reactions through conduction heating, which is more effective than other non-uniform modes of radiation heating, e.g., convection heating (Ploeg, page 3, lines 9-22; page 7 ,line 25-page 8, line 11).
Regarding claim 31, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein fabricating the resistive heating reactor (reactor system 100, fig. 1a) comprises, forming the resistive heating element (“the macroscopic structure is 3D printed a metal additive manufacturing melting process,” page 5, lines 17-18); and coating the resistive heating element with the catalytic component (“A ceramic coating, which may contain the catalytically active material, is provided onto the macroscopic structure,” page 5, lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 32, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the coating forms a layer of the catalytic component directly on a surface of the resistive heating element (“The coating is a ceramic material with pores in the structure, which allows for supporting catalytically active material on and inside the coating,” page 5, lines 8-10). Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the layer is in a range of greater than 0 nanometers to less than 50 microns.
However, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein a thickness of the layer is in a range of greater than 10 microns (“between 10 μm and 500 μm,” page 19, lines 11-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the ceramic coating that supports the catalytically active material, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, from between 10 and 500 microns to between 0 and 50 microns, because the thickness of the coating will act as walls for the macroscopic structure and should be of sufficient thickness to ensure that the walls provide sufficient electrical insulation to the macroscopic structure, which will in turn depend on the resistivity, where if the resistivity of the conductive material is small, then thickness of the coating should decrease accordingly (Aasberg-Petersen, page 16, lines 15-16 and page 19, lines 1-14; page 10, lines 17-22 teach different resistivities depending on the conductive material that is used). Additionally, the Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (multiple alternative embodiments are disclosed for the thickness in paragraph 0096 of the Specification, where the disclosed ranges are not disclosed as being critical) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 33, Aasberg-Petersen teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein fabricating the resistive heating reactor comprises, printing a resistive heating element using one or more inks.
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Lee teaches wherein fabricating the resistive heating reactor (fuel cell 100, fig. 2) comprises, printing a resistive heating element (electrode 34, fig. 1A) using one or more inks (“a method of preparing an ink composition according to embodiments of the present disclosure includes a first act 10 of mixing a carbon source 12, a dopant source 14, and a metal-containing catalyst 16 to form a mixed powdered precursor 22 (also referred to herein as “a composite material”),” column 17, lines 55-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen/Ploeg, in view of the teachings of Lee, by using the process of Direct Ink Write (DIW) using layer-by-layer deposition of ink, as taught by Lee, as the 3D printing process for forming the macroscopic structure, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, and by grinding or milling, as taught by Lee, the MoSi2 compound, as taught by Ploeg, in order to control the geometry of the electrode in the macroscopic structure, because even when an electrode is a highly efficient catalyst, the rates of mass transport for the resultant oxygen molecules will be limited based on the structure of the electrode, but by using a precisely controlled DIW process for forming the electrodes, the geometry of the electrode can be controlled to promote the flow of reactants and products through or past the electrode (Lee, column 4, lines 14-44).
Regarding claim 34, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein fabricating the resistive heating reactor comprises, obtaining an already manufactured resistive heating element, (“the macroscopic structure is 3D printed a metal additive manufacturing melting process,” page 5, lines 17-18), the catalytic component onto a surface of the already manufactured resistive heating element (“A ceramic coating, which may contain the catalytically active material, is provided onto the macroscopic structure,” page 5, lines 27-28; similarly, the Specification discloses in paragraph 00100 that the “second ink” forms a “coating” after being printed). Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose printing the catalytic component onto a surface of the already manufactured resistive heating element (although Aasberg-Petersen teaches coating the catalytic component, Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose that the catalytic component is printed).
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Lee teaches printing the catalytic component (metal-containing catalyst 16, fig. 1A) onto a surface of the already manufactured resistive heating element (the diamonds are shown on the surface of the electrode 34, fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen, in view of the teachings of Lee, by forming a mixed powder that includes a metal-containing catalyst, as taught by Lee, and that also includes the MoSi2 compound, as taught by Ploeg, in order to enhance the electrocatalytic activity of the oxygen reduction reactions caused by the electrodes for the advantage of higher current density at a lower overpotential, i.e., a higher reaction efficiency because of the presence of the catalyst (Lee, column 6, lines 45-63 and column 8, line 63-column 9, line 4).
Regarding claim 35, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the catalytic component is selected from the group consisting of: a metal, a metal oxide (“Pt/Al2O3 or Pt-SN/ Al2O3” page 26, line 19), a reducible metal oxide, a metal carbide, a perovskite, a zeolite, a metal organic framework (MOF), and a combination thereof (Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the component is at least a metal oxide and therefore is selected from the claimed grouping).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Aasberg-Petersen in view of Ploeg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 36. Specifically, Ploeg teaches wherein the melting point of the conductive ceramic material (“Molybdenum disilicide {MoSi2) elements,” page 7, line 25) is greater than 1800 degrees Celsius (“1850 °C,” page 8, line 2).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Aasberg-Petersen in view of Ploeg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 37. Specifically, Ploeg teaches wherein the conductive ceramic-based material includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of: a metal carbide, a metalloid carbide, a metal boride, a metalloid boride, a metal oxide, a metalloid oxide, a metal nitride, a metalloid nitride, a metal silicide (“Molybdenum disilicide {MoSi2) elements,” page 7, line 25; the “Mo” element is construed as a metal and the “Si” element is construed as a silicide), and a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 38, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the additive manufacturing technique includes a technique selected from the group consisting of: an extrusion-based technique (“extruding and sinter,” page 16, line 18; page 20, lines 1-14), a powder bed-based technique (“powder bed fusion,” page 5, lines 18-19), a material jetting technique (“biner-based additive manufacturing process,” page 5, line 23), a sheet lamination technique, an electrostatic deposition technique, a laser fusion technique (“direct energy deposition processes…laser beam,” page 5, lines 18-22), and use of a mold (Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein the additive manufacturing melting process is at least powder bed based technique, a material jetting technique, or a laser fusion technique and is therefore is selected from the claimed grouping).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aasberg-Petersen et al. (WO-2019228798-A1) in view of Shirman et al. (US-20200254432-A1).
Aasberg-Petersen teaches an apparatus (fig. 1a), comprising:
a resistive heating reactor (reactor system 100, fig. 1a; “resistance heating,” page 1, line 6) comprising:
a three-dimensional resistive heating element (macroscopic structure 5, fig. 1a; “embedded resistor,” page 6, line 25) formed by additive manufacturing (“3D printed structures,” page 4, line 22) of a conductive material (“the macroscopic structures 5 are made of electrically conductive material,” page 29, line 13), and
wherein the conductive ceramic-based material is configured to conduct electricity to generate heat to a predefined temperature (“the temperatures of the structured catalyst may reach up to about 1300° C,” page 10, line 29),
wherein the catalytic component (“catalytically active material,” page 28, line 26) is present on an external surface of the resistive heating element (“The ceramic coat may be added to the surface of the electrically conductive material and subsequently the catalytically active material may be added,” page 16, lines 8-10) for direct contact with a reactant (“feed gas,” page 8, line 10; page 24, lines 10-26; Specification of the Instant Application discloses that gas can be a reactant).
Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose a conductive ceramic-based material mixed with a catalytic component (Aasberg teaches using materials such as graphite, kanthal, or an FeCr alloy, page 12, lines 13-19, but none of these materials are conductive ceramic materials in view of paragraph 0046 of the Specification; although Aasberg-Peterson teaches using catalytic materials, Aasberg-Peterson does not explicitly disclose mixing the catalytic materials during the additive manufacturing process), wherein the resistive heating element is a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structure.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of improved heat transfer for catalytic conversion systems, Shirman teaches a conductive (para 0077) ceramic-based material (para 0076), wherein the resistive heating element (fig. 31 shows several metal oxides; para 0046 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “metal oxides” are conduct ceramic materials) is a triply periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structure (“gyroid architecture,” para 0143; using a gyroid matrix is construed as a TPMS structure; paras 0077-0078).
Shirman, fig. 31
PNG
media_image5.png
880
795
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen, in view of the teachings of Shirman, by using a metal-oxide gyroid matrix with embedded catalytic nanoparticles, as taught by Shirman, for the macroscopic structure, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, in order to use nanoparticle catalytic materials that embedded into the matrix material with improved mechanical, thermal, and chemical stability in a gyroid matrix that provides high order and disorder, creating a well-defined, ordered network with regular pathways for diffusion combined with a disordered structure that increases the tortuosity, resulting in higher residence times of reactants within the catalytic material, and for the advantage of using metal oxides, which are versatile materials, providing composite architectures capable of performing multiple catalytic functions (Shirman, paras 0004, 0081, 0143, 0240, and 0249).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aasberg-Petersen et al. (WO-2019228798-A1) in view of Ploeg (WO-2020002326-A1).
Regarding claim 40, Aasberg-Petersen teaches an apparatus (fig. 1a), comprising:
a resistive heating reactor (reactor system 100, fig. 1a; “resistance heating,” page 1, line 6) comprising:
a three-dimensional resistive heating element (macroscopic structure 5, fig. 1a; “embedded resistor,” page 6, line 25) formed as a single structure (“single macroscopic structure,” page 4, line 15 and page 30, line 27) by additive manufacturing (“3D printed structures,” page 4, line 22) of a conductive material (“the macroscopic structures 5 are made of electrically conductive material,” page 29, line 13) having catalytic properties (“The ceramic coat may be added to the surface of the electrically conductive material and subsequently the catalytically active material may be added,” page 16, lines 8-10; Aasberg-Peterson teaches using a catalyst materials within the channels of the macroscopic structure, page 20, lines 1-7), wherein the resistive heating element has a pre-defined geometric arrangement of features (fig. 4),
wherein the conductive ceramic-based material is configured to conduct electricity to generate heat to a predefined temperature (“the temperatures of the structured catalyst may reach up to about 1300° C,” page 10, line 29),
wherein the resistive heating element is configured for direct contact with a reactant (“feed gas,” page 8, line 10; page 24, lines 10-26; Specification of the Instant Application discloses that gas can be a reactant).
Aasberg-Petersen does not explicitly disclose a conductive ceramic-based material (Aasberg teaches using materials such as graphite, kanthal, or an FeCr alloy, page 12, lines 13-19, but none of these materials are conductive ceramic materials in view of paragraph 0046 of the Specification).
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Ploeg teaches a conductive ceramic-based material (“A preferred embodiment of the electrical heating element in the reactor configuration of this disclosure comprises MoSi2 or FeCrAl based resistance heating elements.,” page 7, lines 21-24; construed as using MoSi2 which is an electrically conductive ceramic material, in view of paragraph 0047 of the Specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen, in view of the teachings of Ploeg, by using MoSi2, as taught by Ploeg, as the electrically conductive material, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, in order to use a material for an electrical radiative heating element that has the ability to withstand oxidation at high temperatures and where the resistivity of the material does not change due to aging, where the material molybdenum disilicide can facilitate high-temperature electrical resistance heating, which is near 100% efficient and permits uniform isothermal chemical reactions through conduction heating, which is more effective than other non-uniform modes of radiation heating, e.g., convection heating (Ploeg, page 3, lines 9-22; page 7 ,line 25-page 8, line 11).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aasberg-Petersen et al. (WO-2019228798-A1) in view of Ploeg (WO-2020002326-A1) as applied to claim 40 above and further in view of Lee (US-11456463-B1, effective filing date of 31 May 2018).
Regarding claim 41, Aasberg-Petersen teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive ceramic-based material is intermixed with a catalytic component.
However, in the same fields of endeavor of electrical heating and using catalysts to convert fuel gases, Lee teaches wherein the conductive ceramic-based material is intermixed with a catalytic component (“a method of preparing an ink composition according to embodiments of the present disclosure includes a first act 10 of mixing a carbon source 12, a dopant source 14, and a metal-containing catalyst 16 to form a mixed powdered precursor 22 (also referred to herein as “a composite material”),” column 17, lines 55-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Aasberg-Petersen/Ploeg, in view of the teachings of Lee, by using the process of Direct Ink Write (DIW) using layer-by-layer deposition of ink, as taught by Lee, as the 3D printing process for forming the macroscopic structure that includes catalyst materials within the channels of the macroscopic structure, as taught by Aasberg-Petersen, in order to control the geometry of the macroscopic structure, because even when a structure is a highly efficient catalyst, the rates of mass transport for the resultant oxygen molecules will be limited based on the shape of the structure, but by using a controlled DIW process for forming the structure, the geometry can be precisely controlled to promote the flow of reactants and products through or past the structure (Lee, column 4, lines 14-44; Aasberg-Peterson teaches using a catalyst materials within the channels of the macroscopic structure, page 20, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 42, Aasberg-Petersen teaches wherein a concentration of the catalytic component is such that the catalytic component is at least present at an external surface of the resistive heating element (“The ceramic coat may be added to the surface of the electrically conductive material and subsequently the catalytically active material may be added,” Aasberg-Petersen, page 16, lines 8-10; Abu also teaches that “catalyst materials which may cover a surface of the TPMS-based substrate,” para 0084).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 11 September 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
35 USC 103
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 30-32, and 35-38
Applicant' s arguments regarding these claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Aasberg-Peterson and Ploeg combined with Lee.
Claims 26-27 and 33-34
Page 11 of the arguments states that one of ordinary skill would determine from Lee (US-11456463-B1) that there is insufficient current to generate the required heat for a resistive element.
However, Lee actually teaches that because of the catalyst material that is present, there is actually a “higher current density” (column 6, lines 63-65). Lee makes no mention of a “low current.”
The motivation statement on page 16 of the Office action filed 25 July 2025 describes the advantage that Lee achieves in providing a higher current density as a result of using an ink-write process that includes a catalyst material (please see also Lee, column 6, lines 45-63).
Claim 39
The bottom of page 12 of the arguments states that “Shirman [US20200254432A1] is silent regarding whether the enhanced catalytic material is configured to conduct electricity to generate heat required for a resistive heating element.” However, in paragraph 0037, Shirman teaches that the catalytic material can be used on the surface of “indoor air heater.” In paragraph 0140, Shirman teaches that the materials can be integrated into sites where there is “conduction or dissipation of heat or light.”
Claims 40-42
Applicant' s arguments regarding these claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Aasberg-Peterson combined with Ploeg.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roy et al. (US-11389765-B2) teach a triply periodic minimal surface heat exchanger and reactor.
Zugic (US-12157104-B2) teaches a catalytic resistance heating element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/8/2026