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 .
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last
Office action is persuasive and therefore the finality of that action is withdrawn.
The status of the 02/04/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 3-7, and 9 have been amended; Claims 2 and 8 have been canceled; and Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 requires “the first heating element and the second heating element are different materials”. Claim 9 requires “the first heating element is constructed of a first heating element material and the second heating element is constructed of a second heating element material, the second heating element material being different than the first heating element material.” In this case, claim 1 already recites the subject matter found in claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 20090320745)
Regarding Claim 1, D’Evelyn discloses a gas heater (heating elements; fig. 3. It is noted the heating elements are capable of heating gas that flows through the interior space of the tube) comprising:
a structure (tube) that defines a gas flow path having an upstream portion and a
downstream portion (annotated fig. 3. It is noted the tube is capable of allowing fluid to enter and exit that defines the upstream portion and the downstream portion respectively);
a first heating element (heating element is made of high electrical resistivity selected from a suitable material such as Kanthal A-1 by Kanthal AB, Sweden, a nickel-chromium alloy, an Fe-Cr-Al alloy, or a chromium alloy, and others) (para. 0046) having a first heating element maximum temperature capability (it is noted the first heating element has an operating temperature); and
a second heating element (the heating elements is made of low electrical resistivity from a suitable material including molybdenum or tungsten) (para. 0046);
characterized in that:
the first heating element (heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) and the second heating element (the other heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) are different materials (para. 0046);
the first heating element and the second heating element are joined serially to each other (para. 0049);
the first heating element (heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy, para. 0046) has a substantially constant resistivity with respect to temperature (according to para. 0018 of the published specification of the instant application, the resistive wire of the first element that is made of a ferritic iron-chromium-aluminum alloy exhibits substantially constant resistivity with respect to temperature. In this case, the prior art teaches all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the heating element of D’Evelyn made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy, which is the same alloy as the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (i.e. having the substantially constant resistivity with respect to temperature); and
the second heating element (the other heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten, para. 0046) has a resistivity that varies with temperature according to a second-heating-element-temperature-dependent resistivity rate (according to para. 0004 of the published specification of the instant application, the heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten, has resistivity that varies with temperature. The prior art teaches all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the heating wire 13 of JP’713 is made of molybdenum or tungsten, therefore it is expected to have claimed properties or functions (i.e. having the resistivity that varies with temperature according to a second-heating-element-temperature-dependent resistivity rate);
the second heating element (the other heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) has a higher temperature capability than the first heating element maximum temperature capability (operating temperature of the heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) (it is noted the feature is present because according to published specification of the claimed invention para. 0008, molybdenum has the heating element maximum temperature capability that is higher than that of the iron-chromium-aluminum alloy); and
the first heating element (heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) prevents current inrush to the second heating element (the other heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) (the heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy that exhibits the substantially constant resistance. According to para. 0032-0033 and 0018 of the published specification of the instant application, the substantially constant resistance of the first heating element prevents current inrush to the variably resistive second heating element because the first heating element is connected in series with the second heating element. The prior art teaches all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, MPEP 2112.01. In this case, the heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy exhibits the substantially constant resistance and is connected in series with the heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten, therefore the claimed functions are presumed to be inherent (i.e. to prevent current inrush to the variably resistive heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
D’Evelyn does not disclose:
the first heating element positioned at least partially in the upstream portion of the gas flow path; and
the second heating element positioned downstream of the first heating element in the downstream portion of the gas flow path.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the arrangement of the first heating element and the second heating element with respect to the heating structure/tube such that the first heating element (i.e. heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) positioned at least partially in the upstream portion of the gas flow path and the second heating element (i.e. heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) positioned downstream of the first heating element in the downstream portion of the gas flow path, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to achieve desired heating output from the two dissimilar heating elements having different resistivities (para. 0046 of D’Evelyn).
Regarding Claim 3, D’Evelyn discloses the first heating element (heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) comprises an iron-chromium-aluminum alloy (iron-chromium-aluminum alloy) (para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 4, D’Evelyn discloses the second heating element (heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) comprises molybdenum (para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 5, D’Evelyn discloses the second heating element (heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) comprises tungsten (para. 0046).
Regarding Claim 6, D’Evelyn discloses the first heating element maximum temperature capability (operating temperature of iron-chromium-aluminum alloy Fe-Cr-Al alloy) is 1200° C (it is noted D’Evelyn is silent with regards to the first heating element maximum temperature capability is approximately 1200° C, however provided as evidence, attached non-patent literature to Kanthal, “Kanthal A-1 Resistance Heating Wire and Resistance Wire”, (published on 04/21/2021) discloses the iron-chromium-aluminum alloy for use at temperature up to 1400° C).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Evelyn (US 20090320745) in view of JP’713 (JPH 0728713, hereinafter JP’713)
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses a method of operating the gas heater (heating elements 300 is capable of heating gas of D’Evelyn), comprising:
providing electric energy to the first heating element (heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) to heat gas on the gas flow path in the upstream portion (para. 0040 of D’Evelyn. It is noted the heating elements are connected to the power supply via electrical leads);
heating the second heating element (heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) to increase the resistivity of the second heating element (para. 0046 of D’Evelyn) (it is noted based on rejection to claim 1, the heating element made of tungsten and heating the tungsten would result in its resistivity increases as evidenced in attached non-patent literature to AIP Publishing, “Additive-manufactured single-piece thin multi-layer tungsten heater for an electrothermal thruster”, published on 11/09/2021) discloses tungsten-heater resistance linearly increased with an increase in temperature); and
providing electric energy to the second heating element (heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) to heat gas on the flow path in excess of the first heating element maximum temperature capability (operating temperature of the heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) (it is noted that based on rejection to claim 1, the second heating element is made of tungsten and the first heating element is made of iron-chromium-aluminum alloy. According to attached non-patent literature to Kanthal, “Kanthal A-1 Resistance Heating Wire and Resistance Wire”, published on 04/02/2021, the iron-chromium-aluminum alloy is for use at temperature up to 1400° C. According to attached non-patent literature to Wire Draht, “Tungsten heating elements ensure quality at up to 2,800° C”, published on 03/04/2019, tungsten is for use at temperature up to 2800° C, which is higher than 1400° C of iron-chromium-aluminum alloy).
The modification does not disclose providing a flow of gas along the upstream portion and downstream portion of the gas flow path.
However, JP’713 discloses a method of operating the gas heater (heating element; fig. 1) (para. 0004 of JP’713) comprising providing a flow of gas along the upstream portion and downstream portion of the gas flow path (para. 0003-0004 of JP’713).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method to provide the flow of gas along the upstream portion and downstream portion of the gas flow path as taught by JP’713, in order to utilize the heating element of D’Evelyn to heat gas flowing through the interior space of the heating tube/heating structure.
Regarding Claim 9, D’Evelyn discloses the first heating element (heating element made of Fe-Cr-Al alloy) is constructed of a first heating element material (Fe-Cr-Al alloy) and the second heating element (heating element made of molybdenum or tungsten) is constructed of a second heating element material (molybdenum or tungsten), the second heating element material (molybdenum or tungsten) being different than the first heating element material (Fe-Cr-Al alloy) (para. 0046).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of D’Evelyn (US 20090320745) and JP’713 (JPH0728713, hereinafter JP’713) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Ekstrom (US 20230213239)
Regarding Claim 10, the modification does not disclose providing the flow of gas includes providing a flow of hydrogen gas.
However, Ekstrom discloses a gas heater 2, wherein the gas to be heated is a non-oxidizing gas such as hydrogen (para. 0001 and 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gas of JP’713 with hydrogen gas as taught by Ekstrom because it involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to heat hydrogen gas using the heating element of D’Evelyn.
Regarding Claim 11, the modification does not disclose providing the flow of gas includes providing a flow of exclusively hydrogen gas.
However, Ekstrom discloses a gas heater 2, wherein the gas to be heated is a non-oxidizing gas such as hydrogen (para. 0001 and 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the gas of JP’713 with hydrogen gas as taught by Ekstrom, because it involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to heat hydrogen gas using the heating element of D’Evelyn.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of D’Evelyn (US 20090320745) and JP’713 (JPH0728713, hereinafter JP’713) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Rump (US 3474229)
Regarding Claim 12, the modification does not disclose providing the flow of gas includes providing a flow of exclusively hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas.
However, Rump discloses a gas heater, wherein the gas to heated is a mixture of hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas (col. 1, lines 30-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas of JP’713 to include the mixture of hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas as taught by Rump, in order to utilize the heating element of D’Evelyn to heat the mixture of hydrogen gas and nitrogen gas for the production of ammonia.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights