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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 18189369.4, filed on 08/16/2018.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16, 29-30, 32 are amended. Claims 17-28, 31, and 34 are as previously presented. Claims 1-15, 33, and 35 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 16-32 and 34 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on September 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-31 under U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 applicant’s amendment regarding limiting the system to steam cracking and newly found prior art.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“leakage detection device” in Claim 28
The generic placeholder is “leakage detection device” and the functional language attributed the “leakage detection device” includes: “being designed for monitoring a gas composition”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 02/16/2021.
Regarding the leakage detection device, Page 8, “The leakage detection device may be designed for monitoring a gas composition at an output of the gas space.”, where the device is assumed to include a sensor that is capable monitoring gas composition
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund).
Regarding claim 16, Mihailowitsch discloses an apparatus for heating a fluid (Abstract, line 1, “…a furnace for steam reforming of a hydrocarbon-containing feed stream…”),
the apparatus being configured to carry out at least one process selected from the group consisting of: steam cracking; steam reforming (Page 3, Para. 1, lines 1-3, “…it is provided that the at least one reactor tube or the several reactor tubes lead into a collector via which a crude product or crude synthesis gas stream of steam reforming taking place in the reactor tube…”); and alkane dehydrogenation,
the apparatus comprising: - at least one electrically conductive pipeline for receiving the fluid (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 2-4, “…upper pipe sections 20a and are configured to heat the pipe sections 20a inductively. The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”)
- at least one electrically conductive coil (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 3-4, “The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”),
- at least one AC voltage source, which is connected to the coil and is designed for an AC voltage to be applied to the coil (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 4-5, “…individual inductors or coils 23 being connected to a power source 2 which generates in the inductors 23 a current flow which generates an alternating magnetic field.”, where the energy source is alternating current, Page 3, Para. 9, lines 1-2, “…inductor is connected or connectable to an energy source which generates an alternating current in the inductor…”),
the coil being configured to generate at least one electromagnetic field by applying the AC voltage, the pipeline and the coil being arranged in such a way that the electromagnetic field of the coil induces in the pipeline an electrical current (Page 3, Para. 5 from end, lines 2-4, “…energy source which generates an alternating current in the inductor, so that the said alternating magnetic field is generated, which causes eddy currents in the said pipe section which are to be heated lead the pipe section.”),
which warms up the pipeline by Joulean heat, which is produced when the electrical current passes through conducting pipe material, for heating the fluid (Page 3, Para. 4 from end, last 3 lines, “Thus, e.g. the said coils respectively encompass the catalyst located in the respective pipe section, so that heat can be generated, in particular, directly in the catalyst material entrained in order to allow steam reforming there.”).
Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
the apparatus being part of an installation;
wherein the apparatus is suitable for being part of a steam cracker and the steam cracking comprises heating the fluid to a temperature in the range of 550°C to 1100°C; and
wherein the heating sources consists of said coil configured to generate at least one electromagnetic field.
However, Self discloses, in the similar field of steam reformation (Abstract, line 4, “…a steam reforming reactor…”), where a pipeline with an electrical coil (Para. 0037, lines 1-4, “…the kiln 20 is illustrated as comprising at least one susceptor tube 22, at least one auger 23 , and at least one induction coil 24 such that kiln 20 is inductively heated.”) is included in an apparatus system for steam reformation (Claim 1, “steam reforming system comprising: a) a kiln comprising a susceptor tube…b) a steam reforming reactor). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive pipeline in Mihailowitsch to be put within an installation for the purpose of steam reformation as taught by Self.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as Mihailowitsch does not specifically show where the conductive pipeline is connected with multiple other systems, however Self shows that the user gains the advantage of having multiple structures that aid in the steam reformation process which split the work up (such as the feedstock device, which is just an ambiguous stream in Mihailowitsch), as stated by Self, Abstract, lines 2-6, “The gasification system includes a kiln for receiving a feedstock; a means for heating the kiln; a steam reforming reactor; and means for inductively heating the steam reforming reactor to drive the gasification reactions.”.
Examiner brings back Saito which uses a heat source of dielectric coil to bring high temperatures. It is currently unclear from the applicant’s specification and figures whether catalysts are used and how the applicant’s coil would differ from that of Saito.
Saito discloses, in the similar field of steam reforming (Page 2, Para. 3 from end, “The reformer performs a steam reforming method using these components, and executes a reforming reaction that reforms a raw material gas containing methane into hydrogen.”), where an inductor can heat fluid to temperatures in in the range of 200°C to 1100°C (Page 7, Para. 2, “The high frequency power supply 8 applies a high frequency of 1 KHz and supplies a high frequency current to the dielectric coil 7 so as to adjust the temperature in the reforming section to 800 ° C. by electromagnetic induction.”, where catalyst particles within the container promote heat transfer, Page 3, Para. 4, “The reforming catalyst particles 4 are catalyst particles that promote reforming of the raw material gas introduced into the reforming container 1 by the gas inlet 2 and promote reforming to hydrogen.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the inductor in modified Mihailowitsch to include the temperature range through the dielectric coil as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to more uniformly heat the fluid within the system through the catalyst particles, meaning that just using electromagnetic induction can be more efficient at reaching the desired temperatures for steam reforming, as stated by Saito, Page 1, Par. 2 from end, “…steam reforming method…The raw material gas is reformed by reacting with the reforming catalyst at a high temperature (800 ° C. to 1000 ° C.).”, and Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “The 1 particle support part 6a and the 2nd particle support part 6b are also heated. Therefore, the temperature difference between the portion close to the dielectric coil 7 and the portion far from the dielectric coil 7 can be reduced inside the reforming vessel 1. With this configuration, it is possible to suppress heating temperature unevenness due to the skin effect peculiar to electromagnetic dielectric cheating.”.
Further, Freund discloses, in the similar field of heating a fluid (Claim 1, “a reactor (14) ) having a pyrolysis tube (19), through which the fluid circulates, said tube being heated by a high frequency induction coil (50)”), where the apparatus is for steam cracking specifically (Page 1, last Para., “pyrolysis in the presence of water vapor of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons. This operation, known as steam cracking, is generally carried out in tubular reactors heated in reverberatory furnaces by gas burners.”), where the apparatus includes a conductive pipeline that receives the fluid and a conductive coil using AC voltage to heat that pipeline (Abstract, “The whole may be mounted in a silica tube with flowing N2, surrounded by the coil for inductive heating.”, and Fig. 1, where the pipeline 19 is shown to be surrounded by the inductive coil 50, where induction coils use AC voltage to provide heating), where the temperature range of the fluid is between 550°C to 1100°C (Abstract, “Induction heating improves heat transfer, gives an even temp., up to 1000 deg.C, over the whole tube, and gives thermal equilibrium within 0.5 h.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the steam reforming apparatus in modified Mihailowitsch to have the similar configuration of an inductive coil with a fluid pipeline for steam cracking as taught by Freund.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use inductive heating to improve heat transfer, where the system can still be compact and save a user space, as stated by Freund, Abstract, “Induction heating improves heat transfer, gives an even temp., up to 1000 deg.C, over the whole tube…The reactor is compact.”.
Regarding claim 29, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above, discloses the installation being a steam cracker (Teaching from Freund, Page 1, last Para., “pyrolysis in the presence of water vapor of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons. This operation, known as steam cracking, is generally carried out in tubular reactors heated in reverberatory furnaces by gas burners.”).
Claims 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund).
Regarding claim 30, Mihailowitsch discloses a method for heating a fluid (Mihailowitsch, Abstract, line 1, “…a furnace for steam reforming of a hydrocarbon-containing feed stream…”) including:
providing at least one electrically conductive pipeline for receiving the fluid (Mihailowitsch, Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 2-4, “…upper pipe sections 20a and are configured to heat the pipe sections 20a inductively. The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”);
receiving the fluid in the pipeline (Mihailowitsch, Page 3, last Para., lines 1-3, “…a hydrocarbon-containing, in particular methane containing, as well as steam-containing feed stream is passed through at least one reactor tube (or more reactor tubes) of a furnace…”);
providing at least one electrically conductive coil (Mihailowitsch, Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 3-4, “The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”);
providing at least one AC voltage source, the coil being connected to the AC voltage source, and applying an AC voltage to the coil (Mihailowitsch, Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 4-5, “…individual inductors or coils 23 being connected to a power source 2 which generates in the inductors 23 a current flow which generates an alternating magnetic field.”, where the energy source is alternating current, Page 3, Para. 9, lines 1-2, “…inductor is connected or connectable to an energy source which generates an alternating current in the inductor…”);
generating at least one electromagnetic field by applying the AC voltage to the coil (Mihailowitsch, Page 3, Para. 5 from end, lines 2-4, “…energy source which generates an alternating current in the inductor, so that the said alternating magnetic field is generated, which causes eddy currents in the said pipe section which are to be heated lead the pipe section.”);
inducing an electrical current in the pipeline by the electromagnetic field of the coil, which warms up the pipeline by Joulean heat, which is produced when the electrical current passes through conducting pipe material, for heating the fluid (Mihailowitsch, Page 3, Para. 4 from end, last 3 lines, “Thus, e.g. the said coils respectively encompass the catalyst located in the respective pipe section, so that heat can be generated, in particular, directly in the catalyst material entrained in order to allow steam reforming there.”).
Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
heating fluid in a steam cracker, wherein the fluid is heated to a temperature in the range of 550°C to 1100°C.
Examiner brings back Saito which uses a heat source of dielectric coil to bring high temperatures. It is currently unclear from the applicant’s specification and figures whether catalysts are used and how the applicant’s coil would differ from that of Saito.
Saito discloses, in the similar field of steam reforming (Page 2, Para. 3 from end, “The reformer performs a steam reforming method using these components, and executes a reforming reaction that reforms a raw material gas containing methane into hydrogen.”), where an inductor can heat fluid to temperatures in in the range of 200°C to 1100°C (Page 7, Para. 2, “The high frequency power supply 8 applies a high frequency of 1 KHz and supplies a high frequency current to the dielectric coil 7 so as to adjust the temperature in the reforming section to 800 ° C. by electromagnetic induction.”, where catalyst particles within the container promote heat transfer, Page 3, Para. 4, “The reforming catalyst particles 4 are catalyst particles that promote reforming of the raw material gas introduced into the reforming container 1 by the gas inlet 2 and promote reforming to hydrogen.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the inductor in Mihailowitsch to include the temperature range through the dielectric coil as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to more uniformly heat the fluid within the system through the catalyst particles, meaning that just using electromagnetic induction can be more efficient at reaching the desired temperatures for steam reforming, as stated by Saito, Page 1, Par. 2 from end, “…steam reforming method…The raw material gas is reformed by reacting with the reforming catalyst at a high temperature (800 ° C. to 1000 ° C.).”, and Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “The 1 particle support part 6a and the 2nd particle support part 6b are also heated. Therefore, the temperature difference between the portion close to the dielectric coil 7 and the portion far from the dielectric coil 7 can be reduced inside the reforming vessel 1. With this configuration, it is possible to suppress heating temperature unevenness due to the skin effect peculiar to electromagnetic dielectric cheating.”.
Further, Freund discloses, in the similar field of heating a fluid (Claim 1, “a reactor (14) ) having a pyrolysis tube (19), through which the fluid circulates, said tube being heated by a high frequency induction coil (50)”), where the apparatus is for steam cracking specifically (Page 1, last Para., “pyrolysis in the presence of water vapor of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons. This operation, known as steam cracking, is generally carried out in tubular reactors heated in reverberatory furnaces by gas burners.”), where the apparatus includes a conductive pipeline that receives the fluid and a conductive coil using AC voltage to heat that pipeline (Abstract, “The whole may be mounted in a silica tube with flowing N2, surrounded by the coil for inductive heating.”, and Fig. 1, where the pipeline 19 is shown to be surrounded by the inductive coil 50, where induction coils use AC voltage to provide heating), where the temperature range of the fluid is between 550°C to 1100°C (Abstract, “Induction heating improves heat transfer, gives an even temp., up to 1000 deg.C, over the whole tube, and gives thermal equilibrium within 0.5 h.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the steam reforming apparatus in modified Mihailowitsch to have the similar configuration of an inductive coil with a fluid pipeline for steam cracking as taught by Freund.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use inductive heating to improve heat transfer, where the system can still be compact and save a user space, as stated by Freund, Abstract, “Induction heating improves heat transfer, gives an even temp., up to 1000 deg.C, over the whole tube…The reactor is compact.”.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in further view of Konesev et al. (RU 2417563 C2, hereinafter Konesev) and Ueda et al. (WO 2017033859 A1, hereinafter Ueda).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above, discloses where there are a plurality of coils (Mihailowitsch, Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 3-4, “The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”).
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of coils, the coils forming a substantially planar coil array.
However, Konesev discloses, in the similar field of heating of pipelines (Abstract, line 2, “…induction heating of pipelines…”), where the pipeline includes linear coils that are spaced apart (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, lines 2-3, “…an alternating sinusoidal voltage is supplied to the coil of the induction wire 2, which forms a heating circuit of complex geometry.”, specifically Figure 3a where the series connection creates an array of coils). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the circular spaced wire configuration in modified Mihailowitsch to use the planar configuration as taught by Konesev.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of increased control over the heat transfer process by having the heating wires be connected in series, as stated by Konesev, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”.
Regarding the specific arrangement of heating wires, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Both Mihailowitsch and Konesev are able to achieve heating of pipelines through wires and the major difference is only in the shape of the coils. Thus, since the end results are similar, using the planar configuration of Konesev would be a mere matter of design choice.
Further, Ueda discloses, in the similar field of conductive wires (Abstract, lines 1-2, “A coil device according to one aspect of the present disclosure comprises a coil part including: a
conductive wire…”), where the plurality of coils are substantially planar (Page 5, Para. 2, line 1, “…the coil device 1 includes a flat coil portion 2…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the linearly spaced coils in modified Mihailowitsch to be able to have multiple coils of wire that are located in a planar arrangement as taught by Ueda.
Regarding the specific arrangement of heating wires, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Both Mihailowitsch and Ueda are able to achieve heating through wires and the major difference is only in the shape of the coils. Thus, since the end results are similar, using the multiple coil planar configuration of Ueda would be a mere matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 18, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, as set forth above, discloses where there are coils that follow multiple pipelines (Mihailowitsch, Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 3-4, “The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”).
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the coil array is adapted to a path followed by the pipeline.
However, Konesev discloses where the pipeline includes linear coils that are spaced apart and follow a winding pipeline (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, lines 2-3, “…an alternating sinusoidal voltage is supplied to the coil of the induction wire 2, which forms a heating circuit of complex geometry.”, specifically Figure 3a where the series connection creates an array of coils that follow the winding pipeline 3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the circular spaced wire configuration in modified Mihailowitsch to use the planar configuration wires that follow a winding pipeline as taught by Konesev.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of increased control over the heat transfer process by having the heating wires be connected in series, as stated by Konesev, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”.
Regarding claim 19, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of AC voltage sources, each coil of the coil array being assigned an AC voltage source, the AC voltage sources being electrically controllable independently of one another.
However, Konesev discloses where the wires are independently controlled by their own power sources and control devices (Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-4, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series, and for each heat exchanger there are independent from each other conversion and control devices 1 and induction wires 2.”, where each heat exchanger would have an AC voltage source connected to them in order to be independent from each other). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating coils in modified Mihailowitsch to be independent as taught by Konesev.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of increased control over the heat transfer process by having the heating wires be connected in series, as stated by Konesev, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in further view of Konesev et al. (RU 2417563 C2, hereinafter Konesev).
Regarding claim 20, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above, discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of pipelines (Mihailowitsch, Page 4, Para. 3 from end, line 2, “…upper pipe sections 20a and are configured to heat the pipe sections 20a inductively.”).
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
the pipelines being through-connected and thus forming a substantially planar pipe system for receiving the fluid.
However, Konesev discloses a winding planar pipeline with planar coils (Figure 3a, where the pipeline is 3 and the multiple planar coils are 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the multiple pipelines, specifically 23 of Mihailowitsch in modified Mihailowitsch to include a planar pipe system arrangement as taught by Konesev, where this would mean that multiple planar pipes are connected to each other.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a planar arrangement of heating coils along a planar piping system that allow for independent control over heating wires, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”.
Regarding configurations of the pipeline, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. Both Mihailowitsch and Konesev are able to achieve moving fluid through pipelines and the major difference is only in the shape of the pipeline. Thus, since the end results are similar, using the planar configuration of Konesev would be a mere matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 21, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus comprises one or more of a plurality of coil arrays and pipe systems, the coil arrays and the pipe systems being arranged alternating in a horizontal direction in at least one stack.
However, Konesev discloses where the pipeline and heating coils are planar, where the coils and pipelines alternate in the horizontal direction (Modified Figure 3a, where the heating coils 2 and the pipeline 3 alternate, where pipeline 3 is construed as being “a plurality of pipe systems” as there are turns that require multiple piping and would create a pipe system. However, Mihailowitsch also discloses where there are multiple pipe systems as there are multiple pipes 23, where the combination with Konesev would achieve a similar alternating arrangement). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline and heating coils in modified Mihailowitsch to include the arrangement as taught by Konesev.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a planar arrangement of heating coils along a planar piping system that allow for independent control over heating wires, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Konesev, Modified Figure 3a
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in further view of Ueda et al. (WO 2017033859 A1, hereinafter Ueda) and Hyukjae (KR 20160003595 U).
Regarding claim 22, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus comprises at least one heat insulator, configured to decouple the at least one coil from the temperature of the pipeline, the heat insulator comprising at least one element selected from the group consisting of ceramic fiber mats, a ceramic foam, refractory bricks, refractory concrete.
However, Ueda discloses where a heat insulator surrounds a heating coil to decouple the coil (Page 17, Para. 3, lines 3-4 from end, “When the cooling fluid 131 is a substance that conducts electricity, such as water, the conducting wire 121 is coated with an insulator, for example.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating coil in modified Mihailowitsch to include the insulator as taught by Ueda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of preventing coolant from conducting electricity through the heating coil, as stated by Ueda, Page 17, Para. 3, lines 3-4 from end, “When the cooling fluid 131 is a substance that conducts electricity, such as water, the conducting wire 121 is coated with an insulator, for example.”.
Further, Hyukjae discloses, in the similar field of heat insulators (Page 2, line 2 from end, “…channel 115 may be sealed with a heat insulator…”), where the insulator is ceramic fiber (Page 2, last 2 lines, “…the end of the channel 115 may be sealed with a heat insulator such as a ceramic fiber to minimize loss of heat through the end of the channel 115.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulator in modified Mihailowitsch to be ceramic fiber as taught by Hyukjae.
Regarding the material of the insulator, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try. Both Ueda and Hyukjae disclose heat insulators that serve the same purpose of minimizing heat transfer. Thus, the use of ceramic fiber or any other material that acts as a heat insulator would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in further view of Ueda et al. (WO 2017033859 A1, hereinafter Ueda).
Regarding claim 23, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the coil comprises at least one conductor pipe, the apparatus being designed for conducting at least one coolant through the conductor pipe.
However, Ueda discloses where the heating coil includes a conductor pipe that carries coolant (Page 20, last 5 lines, “The conducting wire 121 and the insulating pipe 181 are in contact with each other and accommodated in the groove 123a so as to be adjacent to each other in the depth direction of the groove 123a. A coolant 130 is accommodated in the pipe 181. Thereby, the heat generated in the conducting wire 121 is quickly transmitted to the coolant 130 via the pipe 181.”, the conductor pipe being insulating pipe 181, where the pipe can also not have an insulator if the conductive wire has one, Page 21, lines 1-2, “Note that the pipe 181 may not have insulating properties as long as the conductive wire 121 is coated with an insulator.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating wire in modified Mihailowitsch to include a coolant wire as taught by Ueda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of improving the cooling efficiency of the conductive/heating wire as they are located next to each other, as stated by Ueda, Page 20, last 4 lines, “A coolant 130 is accommodated in the pipe 181. Thereby, the heat generated in the conducting wire 121 is quickly transmitted to the coolant 130 via the pipe 181. Therefore, the cooling efficiency of the coil part 120 can be further improved.”.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in further view of Ueda et al. (WO 2017033859 A1, hereinafter Ueda) and Okazaki et al. (RU 2569841 C2, hereinafter Okazaki).
Regarding claim 24, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 23, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the conductor pipe is of a pressure- resistant configuration.
However, Okazaki discloses, in the similar field of coolant circulation (Page 4, Para. 2, line 5 from end, “…flow channel is also made in which the coolant circulates.”), where coolant when heated has high pressure which requires a rigid connection (Page 4, Para. 3, “More specifically, it is believed that when the coolant is heated, the pressure inside the flow channel rises to approximately 25 MPa (250 atm) at 600 C, when the coolant is, for example, water (steam)… withstand such pressure, however, if the heating section is fixed and does not rotate, a rotating connection is not necessary, and a sufficiently rigid connection can be made…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductor pipe in modified Mihailowitsch to be able to withstand high pressures as taught by Okazaki.
Regarding the feature of a pressure-resistant pipe for carrying coolant, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try. Okazaki discloses where coolant when heated increases in pressure, which one of ordinary skill in the art would know to be a situation that occurs. Thus, it would be obvious to use a pressure resistant material or a “sufficiently rigid connection” as stated by Okazaki in order to prevent coolant leakage. It is the Examiner’s position that this would be a mere matter of a user trying through experimentation different pipes before realizing coolant leakage was caused by weak piping material.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in further view of van Hoften et al. (US 20120305543 A1, hereinafter van Hoften) and Konesev et al. (RU 2417563 C2, hereinafter Konesev) and Hirochi et al. (US 20110210118 A1, hereinafter Hirochi).
Regarding claim 25, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the pipeline is arranged in a gas space, the pipeline being arranged freely suspended in the gas space.
However, van Hoften discloses, in the similar field of pipelines (Abstract, line 1, “A heating a pipe section…”), where piping that is not supported is considered suspended (Para. 0056, lines 1-3, “The pipe section 14 comprises a collar16 and a weld zone 18 where the pipe 20 has previously been welded to the suspended pipeline 22.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline in modified Mihailowitsch to be suspended as taught by van Hoften.
Regarding the feature of suspended pipelines, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try as the next prior art reference Konesev shows an example of a suspended pipeline. Thus, pipelines that are not fully supported all the way are known in the prior art and would be a mere matter of user design choice.
Konesev discloses where such a suspended pipeline exists where a heating coil supplies heat for the pipeline, where the pipeline turns are not supported and are construed to be suspended (Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…installation of induction heating of the pipeline, which, in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline in modified Mihailowitsch to include a planar suspended pipeline arrangement as taught by Konesev.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of increased control over the heat transfer process by having the heating wires be connected in series, as stated by Konesev, Page 2, Para. 3 from end, lines 1-3, “…in order to increase power and heating area, as well as increase the controllability of the heat transfer process, contains several independent heat exchangers 3 connected in series…”.
Regarding the specific arrangement of heating wires, it has been held that the mere change in shape is an obvious modification to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Both Mihailowitsch and Konesev are able to achieve heating of pipelines through wires and the major difference is only in the shape of the coils. Thus, since the end results are similar, using the planar configuration of Konesev would be a mere matter of design choice.
Further, Hirochi discloses, in the field of processing materials (Para. 0002, line 2, “…processing a substrate…”), where there is an enclosure with a gas space for holding apparatuses (Para. 0172, lines 1-4, “…an atmospheric ( oxygen) concentration in the surrounding spaceA214 is reduced as the surrounding space A214 including a space surrounded by the scavenger 202 is filled with an inert gas (N2 ) atmosphere.”, where the scavenger is the apparatus and is located within a gas space), where the apparatus includes a substrate to be heated (Para. 0046, lines 1-4, “The processing furnace 40 includes an object 48 to be heated which is heated by induction heating and an induction coil 50 serving as an induction heating unit (a magnetic field generation unit).”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the suspended pipeline system with induction heating in modified Mihailowitsch to be placed within a gas space enclosure as taught by Hirochi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to detect leakages within the apparatus, as stated by Hirochi, Para. 0175, “The gas sensor A218 is electrically connected to the gas flow rate controller 78, and when the gas sensor A218 detects H2 , for example, the gas flow rate controller 78 controls the valves 261c, 262c, 271c and 272c and the MFCs 261b, 262b, 271b and 272b to stop the supply of the reactive gas such as H2 . As a result, leakage of a predetermined gas may be detected, and the supply of the reactive gas to the reaction chamber 44 may also be stopped.”;
where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize being able to detect H2 leakage in a steam reforming process from outside of the apparatus, where H2 is a product of the reaction, would be beneficial for the user, as stated by Hirochi, Para. 0175, “…alarm or a sign… leaks from the processing chamber 44 (the surrounding space A214), the leakage ofH2 may be observed from the outside (by an operator, etc.).”.
Regarding claim 26, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein a length and/or width and/or height of the gas space is configured in such a way as to allow changes in the position and length due to warming up.
However, Self discloses where a pipeline with a heating coil is made with thermal expansion in mind, where such an expansion would be accommodated (Para. 0040, lines 1-5, “The susceptor tube material preferably has a relatively low mean coefficient of thermal expansion which is useful for preventing the tube from expanding too much during operation where it could not be accommodated by mechanical supports which are employed to support tube 22.”.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the pipeline in modified Mihailowitsch to include the specific thermal expansion material as taught by Self.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of preventing the pipeline from expanding too much, as stated by Self, Para. 0040, lines 3-4, “…preventing the tube from expanding too much during operation…”.
Further, Hirochi discloses where there is an enclosure with a gas space for holding apparatuses (Para. 0172, lines 1-4, “…an atmospheric ( oxygen) concentration in the surrounding spaceA214 is reduced as the surrounding space A214 including a space surrounded by the scavenger 202 is filled with an inert gas (N2 ) atmosphere.”, where the scavenger is the apparatus and is located within a gas space, where the gas space is not directly contact the apparatus and leaves spacing). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the enclosure in modified Mihailowitsch to include extra spacing as taught by Hirochi.
Regarding the extra spacing for thermal expansion, it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try as Self discloses that it is known in the prior art for heated pipelines to expand and a specific material is used to prevent the pipeline from exceeding constraints. Thus, a user would recognize the need for a gas enclosure that detects leakages, such as that of Hirochi, to be sufficiently large enough to accommodate for thermal expansion of the pipeline in a similar way to how the constraints in Self are large enough for thermal expansion.
Regarding claim 27, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus is designed for the gas space to be flowed through by a chemically inert and oxygen-free inert gas.
However, Hirochi discloses where there is an enclosure with a gas space for holding apparatuses (Para. 0172, lines 1-4, “…an atmospheric ( oxygen) concentration in the surrounding spaceA214 is reduced as the surrounding space A214 including a space surrounded by the scavenger 202 is filled with an inert gas (N2 ) atmosphere.”, where the scavenger is the apparatus and is located within a gas space), where the apparatus includes a substrate to be heated (Para. 0046, lines 1-4, “The processing furnace 40 includes an object 48 to be heated which is heated by induction heating and an induction coil 50 serving as an induction heating unit (a magnetic field generation unit).”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the suspended pipeline system with induction heating in modified Mihailowitsch to be placed within a gas space enclosure and for that enclosure to be filled with inert gas as taught by Hirochi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to prevent leakages of H2 from causing explosions by reacting with O2, as stated by Hirochi, Para. 0172, “…an atmospheric ( oxygen) concentration in the surrounding spaceA214 is reduced as the surrounding space A214 including a space surrounded by the scavenger 202 is filled with an inert gas (N2 ) atmosphere. Therefore, even when H2 leaks from the processing chamber 44 due to a damage of the outer tube 42, the processing furnace 40 prevents reaction of the leaked H2 with oxygen (02 ) , and cope with an explosion.”, where a user would recognize that such a reaction would occur during a steam reforming process in modified Mihailowitsch.
Regarding claim 28, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 25, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus comprises at least one leakage detection device, the leakage detection device being designed for monitoring a gas composition at an output of the gas space.
However, Hirochi discloses where a gas sensor can monitor the inert gas within the gas space to detect leakages (Para. 0175, “The gas sensor A218 is electrically connected to the gas flow rate controller 78, and when the gas sensor A218 detects H2 , for example, the gas flow rate controller 78 controls the valves 261c, 262c, 271c and 272c and the MFCs 261b, 262b, 271b and 272b to stop the supply of the reactive gas such as H2 . As a result, leakage of a predetermined gas may be detected, and the supply of the reactive gas to the reaction chamber 44 may also be stopped.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas space in modified Mihailowitsch to include the gas sensor as taught by Hirochi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing the user to know when a leakage occurs in the apparatus from the outside, as stated by Hirochi, Para. 0175, “…alarm or a sign… leaks from the processing chamber 44 (the surrounding space A214), the leakage ofH2 may be observed from the outside (by an operator, etc.).”.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund) in view of Konesev et al. (RU 2417563 C2, hereinafter Konesev) and Ueda et al. (WO 2017033859 A1, hereinafter Ueda) and in further view of Luo et al. (WO 2009020659 A1, hereinafter Luo).
Regarding claim 31, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 19, as set forth above.
Modified Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
wherein the AC voltage sources are configured to implement closed-loop control for adaptation of a level and/or frequency of the AC voltage.
However, Luo discloses, in the similar field of heating material in a pipe through an electrical wire (Abstract, lines 1-3, “…at least one coil around the pipe, at least one heating element located within the pipe and responsive to an electromagnetic field generated by the coil, and a controller to apply an alternating current (AC) signal to the at least one coil…”), where the voltage source has a closed loop control for adjusting a level of AC voltage (Para. 0056, lines 2-end, “…through a unique closed-loop design, power to the inductor coils and therefore heating of the water may be automatically adjusted when water flow changes within a certain range thereby ensuring output water temperature to stay constant.”, where the AC voltage can be adjusted, Para. 0054, last 3 lines, “…overheating is sensed, the control circuits of die heater may alternatively adjust die oscillation frequency and/or magnitude of die AC current into die inductor coils as a way of reducing die temperature of die water.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the AC voltage control in modified Mihailowitsch to include the closed loop control as taught by Luo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing to automatic adjustment of the heating so that different water flows result in a similar water temperature being output, as stated by Luo, Para. 0056, lines 2-end, “…a unique closed-loop design, power to the inductor coils and therefore heating of the water may be automatically adjusted when water flow changes within a certain range thereby ensuring output water temperature to stay constant.”.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihailowitsch (EP 3153466 A1) in view of Self et al. (US 20070204512 A1, hereinafter Self) and Saito et al. (JP 2017149625 A, hereinafter Saito) and Wu (CN 201513871 U) and Freund et al. (FR 2525122 A1, hereinafter Freund).
Regarding claim 32, Mihailowitsch discloses an apparatus for heating a fluid (Abstract, line 1, “…a furnace for steam reforming of a hydrocarbon-containing feed stream…”),
the apparatus being configured to carry out steam reforming (Page 3, Para. 1, lines 1-3, “…it is provided that the at least one reactor tube or the several reactor tubes lead into a collector via which a crude product or crude synthesis gas stream of steam reforming taking place in the reactor tube…”);
the apparatus comprising:- at least one electrically conductive pipeline for receiving the fluid (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 2-4, “…upper pipe sections 20a and are configured to heat the pipe sections 20a inductively. The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”)
- at least one electrically conductive coil (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 3-4, “The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”),
- at least one AC voltage source, which is connected to the coil and is designed for an AC voltage to be applied to the coil (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 4-5, “…individual inductors or coils 23 being connected to a power source 2 which generates in the inductors 23 a current flow which generates an alternating magnetic field.”, where the energy source is alternating current, Page 3, Para. 9, lines 1-2, “…inductor is connected or connectable to an energy source which generates an alternating current in the inductor…”),
the coil being configured to generate at least one electromagnetic field by applying the AC voltage, the pipeline and the coil being arranged in such a way that the electromagnetic field of the coil induces in the pipeline an electrical current (Page 3, Para. 5 from end, lines 2-4, “…energy source which generates an alternating current in the inductor, so that the said alternating magnetic field is generated, which causes eddy currents in the said pipe section which are to be heated lead the pipe section.”),
which warms up the pipeline by Joulean heat, which is produced when the electrical current passes through conducting pipe material, for heating the fluid (Page 3, Para. 4 from end, last 3 lines, “Thus, e.g. the said coils respectively encompass the catalyst located in the respective pipe section, so that heat can be generated, in particular, directly in the catalyst material entrained in order to allow steam reforming there.”);
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of coils (Page 4, Para. 3 from end, lines 3-4, “The inductors may for this purpose have electrically conductive coils 23 which are each wound around an associated pipe section 20a…”).
Mihailowitsch does not disclose:
the apparatus being part of an installation;
wherein the apparatus carries out steam cracking and wherein the fluid is heated to a temperature in the range of 550°C to 1100°C; and
wherein the heating sources consists of said coil configured to generate at least one electromagnetic field;
wherein the apparatus comprises a plurality of coils, the coils forming a substantially planar coil array; and wherein the apparatus comprises one or more pipe systems, the coil array and the pipe systems being arranged alternating in a horizontal direction in at least one stack.
However, Self discloses, in the similar field of steam reformation (Abstract, line 4, “…a steam reforming reactor…”), where a pipeline with an electrical coil (Para. 0037, lines 1-4, “…the kiln 20 is illustrated as comprising at least one susceptor tube 22, at least one auger 23 , and at least one induction coil 24 such that kiln 20 is inductively heated.”) is included in an apparatus system for steam reformation (Claim 1, “steam reforming system comprising: a) a kiln comprising a susceptor tube…b) a steam reforming reactor). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive pipeline in Mihailowitsch to be put within an installation for the purpose of steam reformation as taught by Self.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as Mihailowitsch does not specifically show where the conductive pipeline is connected with multiple other systems, however Self shows that the user gains the advantage of having multiple structures that aid in the steam reformation process which split the work up (such as the feedstock device, which is just an ambiguous stream in Mihailowitsch), as stated by Self, Abstract, lines 2-6, “The gasification system includes a kiln for receiving a feedstock; a means for heating the kiln; a steam reforming reactor; and means for inductively heating the steam reforming reactor to drive the gasification reactions.”.
Examiner brings back Saito which uses a heat source of dielectric coil to bring high temperatures. It is currently unclear from the applicant’s specification and figures whether catalysts are used and how the applicant’s coil would differ from that of Saito.
Saito discloses, in the similar field of steam reforming (Page 2, Para. 3 from end, “The reformer performs a steam reforming method using these components, and executes a reforming reaction that reforms a raw material gas containing methane into hydrogen.”), where an inductor can heat fluid to temperatures in in the range of 200°C to 1100°C (Page 7, Para. 2, “The high frequency power supply 8 applies a high frequency of 1 KHz and supplies a high frequency current to the dielectric coil 7 so as to adjust the temperature in the reforming section to 800 ° C. by electromagnetic induction.”, where catalyst particles within the container promote heat transfer, Page 3, Para. 4, “The reforming catalyst particles 4 are catalyst particles that promote reforming of the raw material gas introduced into the reforming container 1 by the gas inlet 2 and promote reforming to hydrogen.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the inductor in modified Mihailowitsch to include the temperature range through the dielectric coil as taught by Saito.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to more uniformly heat the fluid within the system through the catalyst particles, meaning that just using electromagnetic induction can be more efficient at reaching the desired temperatures for steam reforming, as stated by Saito, Page 1, Par. 2 from end, “…steam reforming method…The raw material gas is reformed by reacting with the reforming catalyst at a high temperature (800 ° C. to 1000 ° C.).”, and Page 6, Para. 4 from end, “The 1 particle support part 6a and the 2nd particle support part 6b are also heated. Therefore, the temperature difference between the portion close to the dielectric coil 7 and the portion far from the dielectric coil 7 can be reduced inside the reforming vessel 1. With this configuration, it is possible to suppress heating temperature unevenness due to the skin effect peculiar to electromagnetic dielectric cheating.”.
Further, Wu discloses, in the similar field of heating fluids (Abstract, “heater structure”), where the heaters can form a planar array (Para. 0023, “metal plate pieces 20 stack and forming, the metal plate 20 is provided with a plurality of heating elements 21 and continuous bending around the metal tube 22.”, and Para. 0024, “the heating element 21 is disposed in the first
passage, (0027) the continuous bending of the metal pipe 22. The metal pipe 22 is disposed in the second passage.”), where the apparatus has one or more pipe systems with the coil and pipe systems being arranged alternating in a horizontal direction in at least one stack (Modified Fig. 2, where the heating elements 21 are shown to be in a planar array, where they alternate with the pipes in a horizontal direction). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating structure with multiple coils in modified Mihailowitsch to be the configuration as taught by Wu, where coils are placed at the location of the heaters 21.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for an improved ability to determine the temperature of the heating element, which can shorten the heating time, as stated by Wu, Para. 0016, “with the protection of the metal plate is measured by the temperature sensing element of the temperature to control the heating element of heating temperature output, and effectively shortens the heating time”.
PNG
media_image2.png
333
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Wu
Additionally, Freund discloses, in the similar field of heating a fluid (Claim 1, “a reactor (14) ) having a pyrolysis tube (19), through which the fluid circulates, said tube being heated by a high frequency induction coil (50)”), where the apparatus is for steam cracking specifically (Page 1, last Para., “pyrolysis in the presence of water vapor of gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons. This operation, known as steam cracking, is generally carried out in tubular reactors heated in reverberatory furnaces by gas burners.”), where the apparatus includes a conductive pipeline that receives the fluid and a conductive coil using AC voltage to heat that pipeline (Abstract, “The whole may be mounted in a silica tube with flowing N2, surrounded by the coil for inductive heating.”, and Fig. 1, where the pipeline 19 is shown to be surrounded by the inductive coil 50, where induction coils use AC voltage to provide heating), where the temperature range of the fluid is between 550°C to 1100°C (Abstract, “Induction heating improves heat transfer, gives an even temp., up to 1000 deg.C, over the whole tube, and gives thermal equilibrium within 0.5 h.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the steam reforming apparatus in modified Mihailowitsch to have the similar configuration of an inductive coil with a fluid pipeline for steam cracking as taught by Freund.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use inductive heating to improve heat transfer, where the system can still be compact and save a user space, as stated by Freund, Abstract, “Induction heating improves heat transfer, gives an even temp., up to 1000 deg.C, over the whole tube…The reactor is compact.”.
Regarding claim 34, modified Mihailowitsch teaches the apparatus according to claim 32, as set forth above, discloses wherein the coil arrays do not come in direct contact with the pipe systems (Teaching from Wu, Para. 0024, “the heating element 21 is disposed in the first passage, (0027) the continuous bending of the metal pipe 22. The metal pipe 22 is disposed in the second passage.”, where the first and second passages are separated from each other and do not come in direct contact, they are instead indirectly contacted through the metal plate).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
01/12/2026