Detailed Notice
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/24/2026 has been entered into the prosecution for the instant application. Claims 1-20 are pending prosecution.
Applicant’s amendment necessitate the new ground(s) for rejection presented in this application.
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.
Claims 1-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Dalton (US7714258B2), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Parsche (US 20130180889 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, and 20, Dalton teaches an electromagnetic susceptor device for chemical processing where a susceptor comprises a matrix material that surrounds a non-matrix material whereby the non-matrix material absorbs electromagnetic energy which generates heat in the matrix material [Col. 36, Lines 64-67 and Col. 37, Lines 1-20]. That is, the non-matrix material functions as an electromagnetic susceptor to absorb electromagnetic radiation and covert it to heat. The susceptor can have a coating that absorbs electromagnetic energy and produces heat [Col. 36, Lines 64-67 and Col. 37, Lines 1-20]. The frequency of the applied electromagnetic radiation can be radio frequency [Col. 39, Lines 1-4]. The coating can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34]. The coating can have the function of reforming a hydrocarbon in the presence of water [Col. 39, Lines 48-50].
However, Dalton does not teach that the electromagnetic heating is applied by a fringing field applicator which is wrapped around a reactor.
Parsche teaches a device for processing hydrocarbons using a radio frequency circuit wrapped around a reactor (abstract).
Parsche teaches that a first electrical conductor [0033 and Fig. 1, element 52] is related to the input of an RF amplifier which is an element of the RF circuit. Parsche further teaches a second electrical conductor that is also electrically coupled to a RF amplifier output [0035]. Both the first [0033 and Fig. 1, element 52] and second electrical conductors [0035 and Fig. 1, element 51] surround the container. It is understood that as Parsche that the first and second electrical conductors may be made of copper wire, and that the first and second electrical conductors are formed of two metal strips (wires) that wrap around the reactor in the shape of two rings. By this method, hydrocarbon processing apparatus will have increased efficiency and uniformity in the applied RF field [0011].
Prior to the filing of the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the known method of wrapping two metal wires, which are electrically coupled to an RF field applicator, in a ring shape around a reactor vessel, as per Parsche, could be incorporated into the chemical production device using electromagnetic susceptors, as per Dalton, with a reasonable expectation of success that the device of Dalton would operate with an improved efficiency owing to the generation of a more uniform RF field (see MPEP 2143 I D). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the incorporation of the method wrapping the metal wires around the vessel which are coupled to an RF field applicator, as per Pasche, into the method of chemical production using electromagnetic susceptors, as per Dalton, would produce the predictable result that the fringing field formed by the metal wires would penetrate into the reactor vessel and heat the electromagnetic susceptor material (see MPEP 2143 I A).
Specifically to claim 20, the coating on the susceptor can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34] which can be Pt [Col. 41, Line 53]. The non-matrix material, which functions as an electromagnetic susceptor to absorb radiation and covert it to heat, may be SiC [Col. 51, Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 3 the matrix material may be SiC [Col. 45, Lines 33-35] and the non-matrix material may be SiC [Col. 51, Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 4, the coating on the susceptor can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34] which can be Pt [Col. 41, Line 53]. The non-matrix material, which functions as an electromagnetic susceptor to absorb radiation and covert it to heat, may be SiC [Col. 51, Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claim 5, Dalton teaches that the coating may comprise more than one material [Col. 37, Line 20] and further that the coating can comprise SiC [Col. 38, Line 55] and Pt [Col. 41, Line 53]. Therefore, the coating Dalton teaches is an admixture.
Regarding Claim 6, Dalton teaches that the coating is constructed of SiC [Col. 38, Line 55] which is understood to act therein as a catalyst support.
Regarding Claims 7, Dalton teaches volumetric heating is produced by the electromagnetic energy [Col. 6, lines 13-15].
Regarding Claims 8, as shown above, Dalton teaches that the non-matrix material absorbs electromagnetic energy, including radio frequency [Col. 39, Lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 9 and 10, the coating on the susceptor can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34] which can be Pt [Col. 41, Line 53], which is a transition metal.
Regarding Claim 11 and 12, Dalton teaches that the coating can have the function of reforming a hydrocarbon in the presence of water [Col. 39, Lines 48-50], which would therefore produce hydrogen.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton (US7714258B2) in view of Parsche (US20130180889A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Dalton teaches an electromagnetic susceptor device for chemical processing where a susceptor comprises a matrix material that surrounds a non-matrix material (being of different material) whereby the non-matrix material absorbs electromagnetic energy which generates heat in the matrix material, and the susceptor can have a coating that absorbs electromagnetic energy and produces heat [Col. 36, Lines 64-67 and Col. 37, Lines 1-20]. That is, the non-matrix material functions as an electromagnetic susceptor to absorb electromagnetic radiation and covert it to heat. The susceptor can have a coating that absorbs electromagnetic energy and produces heat [Col. 36, Lines 64-67 and Col. 37, Lines 1-20]. The frequency of the applied electromagnetic radiation can be radio frequency [Col. 39, Lines 1-4]. The coating can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34]. The coating can have the function of reforming a hydrocarbon in the presence of water [Col. 39, Lines 48-50].
The electromagnetic susceptor device can have inlet for receiving react gases and an outlet for the products to exit the cavity (understood to be a vessel) from [Col. 21, Lines 30-42]. The applied electromagnetic energy (which can be radio frequency as described above) is generated by an electromagnetic source [Col. 39, Lines 1-4].
However, Dalton does not teach that the electromagnetic heating is applied by a fringing field applicator which is wrapped around a reactor.
Parsche teaches a device for processing hydrocarbons using a radio frequency circuit wrapped around a reactor (abstract).
Parsche teaches that a first electrical conductor [0033 and Fig. 1, element 52] is related to the input of an RF amplifier which is an element of the RF circuit. Parsche further teaches a second electrical conductor that is also coupled to RF amplifier output [0035]. Both the first [0033 and Fig. 1, element 52] and second electrical conductors [0035 and Fig. 1, element 51] surround the container. It is understood that as Parsche that the first and second electrical conductors may be made of copper wire, and that the first and second electrical conductors are formed of two metal strips (wires) that wrap around the reactor in the shape of two rings. By this method, hydrocarbon processing apparatus will have increased efficiency and uniformity in the applied RF field [0011].
Prior to the filing of the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the known method of wrapping two metal wires, which are electrically coupled to an RF field applicator, in a ring shape around a reactor vessel, as per Parsche, could be incorporated into the chemical production device using electromagnetic susceptors, as per Dalton, with a reasonable expectation of success that the device of Dalton would operate with an improved efficiency owing to the generation of a more uniform RF field (see MPEP 2143 I D). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the incorporation of the method wrapping the metal wires around the vessel which are coupled to an RF field applicator, as per Pasche, into the method of chemical production using electromagnetic susceptors, as per Dalton, would produce the predictable result that the fringing field formed by the metal wires would penetrate into the reactor vessel and heat the electromagnetic susceptor material (see MPEP 2143 I A).
Regarding Claim 14, Dalton teaches that the non-matrix material embedded in the matrix material is also a field concentrator [Col. 32, Lines 47-51]. Dalton teaches that field concentrators can be selected from the group comprising SiC [Col. 33, Line 49]. Dalton teaches that field concentrators have a size between one nanometer and one meter [Col. 33, Lines 18-19]. Therefore, Dalton teaches the use of SiC nanoparticles.
Regarding Claims 15, the coating on the susceptor can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34] which can be Pt [Col. 41, Line 53]. The non-matrix material, which functions as an electromagnetic susceptor to absorb radiation and covert it to heat, may be SiC [Col. 51, Lines 47-49].
Regarding Claims 16, Dalton teaches volumetric heating is produced by the electromagnetic energy [Col. 6, lines 13-15].
Regarding Claims 17, as shown above, Dalton teaches that the non-matrix material absorbs electromagnetic energy, including radio frequency [Col. 39, Lines 1-4].
Regarding Claim 18 and 19, the coating on the susceptor can contain a material with catalytic properties [Col. 40, Lines 33-34] which can be Pt [Col. 41, Line 53], which is a transition metal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the argument that the methods of RF heating in Parsche and Dalton operate on different principles. This is not compelling, as it would obvious to one of ordinary skill that the underlying premise of using an electromagnetic radiation to heat a material, as per both Dallton and Parsche, is analogous. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill that the method of heating in Parsche, as applied to Dalton, would predictably result in the heating of the electromagnetic susceptor material. Furthermore, as the fringing field of Parsche was shown to provide a uniform RF field within the reactor vessel, one of ordinary skill would indeed have a reasonable expectation of improving the reactor efficiency, owing to the lessening of hotspots in the vessel that would understandably localize RF heating to varying degrees within the vessel.
Further, applicant argues that the amended claim 1 incorporates limitations that the metal strips form separate rings around the exterior surface. This is not compelling as the claim language is not commensurate with this argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights