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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered into the prosecution of the application.
Claim objection for claim 1 in office action 09/02/2025 remains.
Rejections for claims 1-11, 14-16, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in office action 09/02/2025 are withdrawn. The applicant has canceled claim 11.
Currently, claim(s) 1-10, 14-16, 22-24, 31-33, and 47-48 is/are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 47 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, ln. 9, the term “opposite the top wall’ should read “opposite to the top wall.”
As to claim 47, the term “induction enhancer” should read “the induction enhancer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 31-33, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Katayama of US 2006/0171867 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Katayama) and Tukasa Takeda of US 4,145,591 (hereinafter referred to as Takeda).
Katayama pertains to the instant invention because Katayama relates to a fine channel device which is used as a reactor for gas-phase reactions (Katayama, paragraph [0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 5 of Katayama
Katayama teaches to a chemical processor (a fine channel device 6; Katayama, Fig. 5), comprising:
a process layer (upper cover 16; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) having a top wall (upper cover 16 has a top wall; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5), a bottom wall opposite the top wall (upper cover 16 has a bottom wall that is opposite to the top wall of upper cover 16; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5), and side walls disposed between the top and bottom walls (upper cover 16 has side walls disposed between the top and bottom walls of upper cover 16; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5);
the process layer comprising a channel adapted for fluid flow (distribution channels 19; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) and an inlet and outlet adapted for fluid flow into and out of the process layer (inlet opening 1 and outlets; Katayama, Modified Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image2.png
378
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 1 of Katayama
a heat transfer layer (fine channel substrate 8; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) adjacent the bottom wall (Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) of the process layer;
the heat transfer layer having a top wall (fine channel substrate 8 has a top wall; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5), a bottom wall opposite the top wall (fine channel substrate 8 has a bottom wall; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5), and side walls disposed between the top and bottom walls (fine channel substrate 8 has side walls disposed between the top and bottom walls of the fine channel substrate 8; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5);
the heat transfer layer (the fine channel substrate 8; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) comprising a channel (inlet path 3; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) adapted for fluid flow and an inlet (chemical reactions are then conducted by introducing fluids into these fine channels; Katayama, paragraph [0002]) and an outlet (discharge opening; Katayama, paragraph [0008]) such that a fluid can flow into and out of the heat transfer layer;
wherein the outlet of the process layer is connected to the inlet of the heat transfer layer such that a fluid can flow out of the process layer and into the heat transfer layer (a fluid flows within the upper cover 16 from outlet 2, as shown in Fig. 1, wherein the upper cover 16 in Fig. 5 of Katayama is connected to inlet 1 of fine channel substrate 8 of Fig. 5, and wherein the flow continues within fine channel 3, as shown in Fig. 1, of fine channel substrate 8 shown in Fig. 5; Katayama, Figs. 1 and 5, paragraph [0040]);
wherein the bottom wall of the process layer is the top wall of the heat transfer layer or where the walls are in thermal contact (Katayama, Figs. 1 and 5, paragraph [0040]).
Katayama does not explicitly teach “a top wall (of upper cover 16 in Fig. 5 of Katayama) that is adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field” and an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field “in the top wall of the process layer.”
However, Katayama does teach at least one portion of metal 18 may be disposed along the walls of the fine channel (Katayama, Fig. 7A), wherein the metal may be heated using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal for increasing heating efficiency (Katayama, paragraph [0045]) to accelerate any chemical reactions within the fine channels for processing chemicals (a metal catalytic effect; Katayama, paragraph [0045]).
Katayama’s teaching is not exclusively limited to a top wall being adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field and is not exclusively limited to an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field in the top wall of the process layer. Instead, Katayama teaches that metal 18 may be embodied in fine channels (Katayama, Fig. 7A). Katayama teaches that fine channels are incorporated in upper cover 16, fine channel substrate 8, lower cover 17 in Fig. 5. As a whole, Katayama does teach to the recited claim elements of claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have combined the teachings shown in Fig. 7A of Katayama with the device shown in Fig. 5 of Katayama to arrive at the instant invention for providing a fine channel device to enable highly efficient chemical reactions (Katayama, paragraphs [0002] and [0007] – [0008]).
Katayama does not explicitly teach an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field.
Katayama does teach using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal, thereby causing heating; Katayama, paragraph [0045]). The metal is acting as an induction susceptor placed within the inlet path 3, such that, when heated by an inductor, the metal heats fluid within the channel. Using the electromagnetic induction necessarily uses an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field because induction heating cannot operate without an inductor. However, Takeda teaches an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field. Please see below.
Takeda pertains to the instant invention because Takeda relates to a chemical processor (a reactor in chemical factory; Takeda, col. 3, ln. 18).
Takeda teaches a toroidal induction coil (said wire being wound round said ring core in a coil manner; Takeda, col. 1, ln. 28-29, Fig. 7), or an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field, in an induction heating apparatus (Takeda, abstract).
Both Katayama and Takeda relate to chemical processor (a reactor in chemical factory; Takeda, col. 3, ln. 18), heating via induction coil. Katayama does not explicitly teach using a toroidal induction coil. Katayama does teach using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal, thereby causing heating (Katayama, paragraph [0045]). Takeda teaches a ring for generating magnetic flux disposed surrounding said heating element, the magnetic flux generating ring being composed of a ring core and an electric conductive wire wound round said ring core in a coil manner (Takeda, col. 3 , ln. 30-48) for ensuring efficient heating (Takeda, col. 3, ln. 65).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Takeda
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama with the toroidal induction coil of Takeda for accommodating the material-to-be-heated therein (Takeda, col. 1, ln. 8).
As to claim 2, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches to the chemical processor of claim 1, wherein the process layer comprises a plurality of microchannels (a term fine channel refers to a channel with an inner diameter of no more than approximately 500 μm; Katayama, paragraphs [0032], [0062]).
As to claim 3, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches to the chemical process of claim 1, wherein heat transfer layer comprises a plurality of microchannels (Katayama, Modified Fig. 5).
As to claim 4, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches to the chemical process of claim 1, wherein, during operation, flow in the heat transfer layer is counter to the direction of flow in the process layer (during operation, fluid flow in fine channel substrate 8 flows radially inwards, whereas the flow in upper cover 16 flows radially outwards, countering to the direction of flow in fine channel substrate 8; Katayama, Fig. 5).
As to claim 6, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches a toroidal induction coil (said wire being wound round said ring core in a coil manner; Takeda, col. 1, ln. 28-29, Fig. 7) in an induction heating apparatus (Takeda, abstract).
As to claim 8, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches an induction susceptor within the process channel (metal 18; Katayama, paragraph [0044], Fig. 7A).
As to claim 31, Katayama pertains to the instant invention because Katayama relates to a toroidal chemical processor (Katayama, Fig. 5). Katayama teaches to a toroidal chemical processor (Katayama, Fig. 5), comprising:
a toroidal-shaped processor (Katayama, Fig. 5) defined by toroidal-shaped reactor wall (upper cover 16; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5);
a chemical processing channel (inlet path 3; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5) disposed inside the toroidal-shaped reactor wall (inlet path 3 is inside upper cover 16; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5); and
the chemical processing channel comprising an inlet and an outlet (inlet opening 1 and outlet; Katayama, Modified Fig. 1);
Katayama does not explicitly teach a wall (of upper cover 16 in Fig. 5 of Katayama) that is “adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field.”
However, Katayama does teach at least one portion of metal 18 may be disposed along the walls of the fine channel (Katayama, Fig. 7A), wherein the metal may be heated using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal for increasing heating efficiency (Katayama, paragraph [0045]) to accelerate any chemical reactions within the fine channels for processing chemicals (a metal catalytic effect; Katayama, paragraph [0045]).
Katayama’s teaching is not exclusively limited to a top wall being adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field and is not exclusively limited to an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field in the top wall of the process layer. Instead, Katayama teaches that metal 18 may be embodied in fine channels (Katayama, Fig. 7A). Katayama teaches that fine channels are incorporated in upper cover 16, fine channel substrate 8, lower cover 17 in Fig. 5. As a whole, Katayama does teach to the recited claim elements of claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have combined the teachings shown in Fig. 7A of Katayama with the device shown in Fig. 5 of Katayama to arrive at the instant invention for providing a fine channel device to enable highly efficient chemical reactions (Katayama, paragraphs [0002] and [0007] – [0008]).
Katayama does not teach “an inductor coil disposed around the toroidal-shaped reactor wall.”
Takeda pertains to the instant invention because Takeda relates to a chemical processor (a reactor in chemical factory; Takeda, col. 3, ln. 18).
Takeda teaches a toroidal induction coil (said wire being wound round said ring core in a coil manner; Takeda, col. 1, ln. 28-29, Fig. 7) in an induction heating apparatus (Takeda, abstract) around the toroidal-shaped reactor wall.
Both Katayama and Takeda relate to chemical processor (a reactor in chemical factory; Takeda, col. 3, ln. 18), heating via induction coil. Katayama does not explicitly teach using a toroidal induction coil. Katayama does teach using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal, thereby causing heating (Katayama, paragraph [0045]). Takeda teaches a ring for generating magnetic flux disposed surrounding said heating element, the magnetic flux generating ring being composed of a ring core and an electric conductive wire wound round said ring core in a coil manner (Takeda, col. 3 , ln. 30-48) for ensuring efficient heating (Takeda, col. 3, ln. 65).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Takeda
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama with the toroidal induction coil of Takeda for accommodating the material-to-be-heated therein (Takeda, col. 1, ln. 8).
As to claim 32, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches to the toroidal chemical processor of claim 31, wherein the chemical processing channel (inlet path 3 of upper cover 16; Katayama, Fig. 5) comprises a plurality of channels that extend radially from near the central axis to near the periphery of the toroid (Katayama, Fig. 5).
As to claim 33, Katayama teaches to the toroidal chemical processor of claim 31, further comprising a heat transfer channel adjacent to the chemical processing channel (fine channels 4 of the fine channel substrate 8; Katayama, Modified Fig. 5).
As to claim 48, Katayama in view of Takeda teaches to the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the inductor coil comprises multiple turns of a wire coil that pass around the toroidal-shaped processor and through a hole disposed in the center of the toroidal chemical processor (Takeda, Fig. 7, teaches to wherein the inductor coil comprises multiple turns of a wire coil that pass around the toroidal-shaped processor and through a hole disposed in the center of the toroidal chemical processor, as Takeda teaches to an electric conductive wire 4 wound round in a coil manner comprising multiple turns of a wire coil that pass around the heating element 1 and through a hole disposed in the ; please see Figs. 3 and 7).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Katayama of US 2006/0171867 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Katayama) and Tukasa Takeda of US 4,145,591 (hereinafter referred to as Takeda) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Anna Tonkovich of US 2003/0072699 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tonkovich).
As to claim 5, Katayama in view of Takeda does not explicitly teach cross flow.
Tonkovich pertains to the instant invention because Tonkovich relates to a chemical processor (an integrated microchannel reactor; Tonkovich, paragraph [0141]).
Tonkovich teaches a reaction chamber (Tonkovich, Fig. 1, paragraph [0046]) having the shape of parallel pipes. Tonkovich teaches alternating layers of exothermic and endothermic reaction layers (Tonkovich, Figure 5, paragraph [0050]), wherein Tonkovich teaches that flow could be cross or counter-flow and that multiple alternating layers could be used (Tonkovich, paragraph [0052]).
Both Katayama in view of Takeda and Tonkovich relate to the instant invention because both teach chemical reactors comprising multiple channels (Tonkovich, paragraph [0005]). Katayama does not explicitly teach cross flow. Katayama in view of Takeda does teach the plurality of inlet paths 3 in the fine channel substrate 8 overlapping with the plurality of inlet paths 3 in the upper cover 16 so that flow is counter-flow. Tonkovich teaches that flow could be cross or counter-flow, resulting in high rates of thermal transfer (Tonkovich, paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama in view of Takeda based on the teachings of Tonkovich for providing high rates of thermal transfer (Tonkovich, paragraph [0054]) to increase reaction efficiency of chemical reactors (Tonkovich, paragraph [0004]).
As to claim 11, Katayama in view of Takeda does not explicitly teach a recuperative heat exchanger.
Tonkovich teaches a microchannel heat exchanger (Tonkovich, paragraph [0054]).
Both Katayama in view of Takeda and Tonkovich relate to the instant invention because both teach chemical reactors comprising multiple channels (Tonkovich, paragraph [0005]). Katayama does not explicitly teach a recuperative heat exchanger. Katayama does teach the plurality of fine channels (Katayama, Fig. 5). Tonkovich teaches that a reaction chamber can be in thermal contact with a microchannel heat exchanger, resulting in high rates of thermal transfer (Tonkovich, paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama in view of Takeda based on the teachings of Tonkovich for providing high rates of thermal transfer (Tonkovich, paragraph [0054]) to increase reaction efficiency of chemical reactors (Tonkovich, paragraph [0004]).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Katayama of US 2006/0171867 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Katayama) and Tukasa Takeda of US 4,145,591 (hereinafter referred to as Takeda) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Robin Crawford of US 2017/0014764 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Crawford).
As to claim 7, Katayama in view of Takeda does not explicitly teach an induction enhancer.
Crawford pertains to the instant invention because Crawford relates to a chemical processor because Crawford teaches the interiors of the tubular cells 10 which comprise entrained particulate catalyst material for promoting specific pollution-reducing chemical reactions (Crawford, paragraph [0048]). Crawford teaches to induction heating (Crawford, paragraph [0055], Fig. 1).
Crawford teaches a layer 24 of electromagnetic field shieling material located immediately outside the coil 20 (Crawford, paragraph [0058], Fig. 1). Crawford teaches that the magnetic shield 24 can be made from a ferrite or other high-permeability, low-power-loss materials that can be arranged to surround some of the coil 20 (Crawford, paragraph [0058]). In particular, Crawford teaches that the magnetic shield 24 operates as a magnetic flux concentrator, directing the magnetic field to the substrate body 10 providing enhanced heating of a desired region by redirecting magnetic flux that would otherwise travel away from that desired region (Crawford, paragraph [0058]).
Both Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford relate to induction heating (Crawford, paragraph [0055]). Katayama does not explicitly teach using an induction enhancer. Katayama in view of Takeda does teach using electromagnetic induction for heating fluids flowing fine channels (Katayama, paragraph [0045]). Crawford teaches using magnetic shield 24 as magnetic flux concentrator for providing enhanced heating of a desire region without undesirable loss of flux (Crawford, paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama in view of Takeda to incorporate the induction enhancer of Crawford to mitigate loss of magnetic flux by preventing spread of magnetic flux around the inductor (Crawford, paragraph [0058]), thereby increasing efficiency of induction heating.
As to claim 9, Katayama in view of Takeda does not explicitly teach a top wall that is ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic at room temperature.
Crawford teaches a ferromagnetic metal body (Crawford, paragraph [0055]) used for heat induction.
On the other hand, Crawford teaches a layer 24 of electromagnetic shield material (Crawford, paragraph [0058]), wherein the magnetic shield 24 comprises a ferrite or other high-permeability, low-power-loss materials (Crawford, paragraph [0058]). Crawford teaches that the magnetic shield 24 is located immediately outside the coil 20 to provide induction shielding and to reduce induction loss (Crawford, paragraph [0058]).
Both Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford relate to induction heating (Crawford, paragraph [0055]). Katayama does not explicitly teach a top wall that is ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic at room temperature. Katayama does teach metal 18 in path inlet 3 of the upper cover 16 (Katayama, paragraph [0045], Figs. 5 and 7A). Crawford teaches that the metal used (i.e., induction susceptor) for induction heating can be a ferromagnetic metal body (Crawford, paragraph [0055]). Further, Crawford teaches that an induction enhancer located proximity to an inductor coli 20 may be ferrite.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama in view of Takeda, which contains an induction susceptor within a microchannel of a top wall, with the ferromagnetic induction susceptor of Crawford for providing induction heating with high magnetic permeability and corrosion resistance (Crawford, paragraph [0063]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Katayama of US 2006/0171867 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Katayama) and Tukasa Takeda of US 4,145,591 (hereinafter referred to as Takeda) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Robin Crawford of US 2017/0014764 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Crawford), relying on evidentiary reference of Greenwood Magnetics (from February 2016, https://www.greenwoodmagnetics.com/resource/what-is-the-difference-between-304-and-316-stainless-steel/, accessed on 08/20/2025).
As to claim 10, Katayama in view of Takeda does not explicitly teach to a limitation “wherein the top wall is paramagnetic at room temperature.”
Crawford teaches a suitable metal for the inserted wire, which not only may be a ferromagnetic material but also a lower permeability alloys such as 300 or 400 series stainless steels (Crawford, paragraph [0063]). The 300 series stainless steels of Crawford comprise 304 and 316 stainless steels. Relying on Greenwood Magnetics as an evidentiary evidence, 304 and 316 stainless steels possess paramagnetic characteristics (Greenwood Magnetics, pg. 3), when modified to be disposed as induction susceptors in fine channels of Katayama.
Both Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford relate to induction heating (Crawford, paragraph [0055]). Katayama does not explicitly teach a paramagnetic material at room temperature. Katayama does teach metal 18 in path inlet 3 of the upper cover 16 (Katayama, paragraph [0045], Figs. 5 and 7A). Crawford teaches that the metal used (i.e., induction susceptor) for induction heating can be 300 or 400 series stainless steels (Crawford, paragraph [0063]), either with high or low magnetic permeability depending on desired design specifications (Crawford, paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Katayama in view of Takeda with the stainless steels of Crawford for obtaining a desired inductance heating pattern (Crawford, paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 14-16 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anna Tonkovich of US 2003/0072699 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tonkovich) in view of Koji Katayama of US 2006/0171867 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Katayama) and Tukasa Takeda of US 4,145,591 (hereinafter referred to as Takeda).
As to claim 14, Tonkovich pertains to the instant invention because Tonkovich relates to conducting exothermic and endothermic reactions (Tonkovich, paragraph [0002]).
Tonkovich teaches to a method of conducting an endothermic chemical process (Tonkovich, paragraph [0002]), comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
552
780
media_image4.png
Greyscale
First Modified Fig. 5 of Tonkovich
passing a process stream (co-flow of endothermic and exothermic reaction streams; Tonkovich, paragraph [0005]) into an apparatus (an integrated reactor; Tonkovich, paragraph [0005]) comprising:
a process layer having a top wall, a bottom wall that opposite the top wall, and side walls disposed between the top and bottom walls (process layer; Tonkovich, First Modified Fig. 5);
the process layer comprising a channel adapted for fluid flow and an inlet and outlet adapted for fluid flow into and out of the process layer (channel, inlet, and outlet; Tonkovich, First Modified Fig. 5);
the process stream flowing through the channel of the process layer (Tonkovich, First Modified Fig. 5);
PNG
media_image5.png
591
885
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Second Modified Fig. 5 of Tonkovich
a heat transfer layer adjacent the bottom wall of the process layer; the heat transfer layer having a top wall, a bottom wall opposite the top wall, and side walls disposed between the top and bottom walls (Tonkovich, Second Modified Fig. 5);
the heat transfer layer comprising a channel adapted for fluid flow and an inlet and an outlet such that a fluid can flow into and out of the heat transfer layer; passing a heat transfer fluid flowing through the channel of the heat transfer layer (Tonkovich, Second Modified Fig. 5);
wherein the bottom wall of the process layer is the top wall of the heat transfer layer or where the walls are in thermal contact (Tonkovich, Second Modified Fig. 5);
wherein heat transfers between the heat transfer fluid in the heat transfer channel and the process stream in the process channel (in addition thermal transfer between adjacent reaction chambers, a reaction chamber can be in thermal contact with a microchannel heat exchanger; Tonkovich, paragraph [0054]).
Tonkovich does not explicitly teach “a top wall that is adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field” and “generating an alternating magnetic field in the top wall of the process layer via an inductor; wherein the top wall is heated by the alternating magnetic field and heat from the top wall transfers into the process stream.”
Katayama pertains to the instant invention because Katayama relates to a fine channel device which is used as a reactor for gas-phase reactions (Katayama, paragraph [0052]), which require heating or activation (Katayama, paragraph [0043]).
Katayama does not explicitly teach “a top wall (of upper cover 16 in Fig. 5 of Katayama) that is adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field” and an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field “in the top wall of the process layer.”
However, Katayama does teach at least one portion of metal 18 may be disposed along the walls of the fine channel (Katayama, Fig. 7A), wherein the metal may be heated using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal for increasing heating efficiency (Katayama, paragraph [0045]) to accelerate any chemical reactions within the fine channels for processing chemicals (a metal catalytic effect; Katayama, paragraph [0045]).
Katayama’s teaching is not exclusively limited to a top wall being adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field and is not exclusively limited to an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field in the top wall of the process layer. Instead, Katayama teaches that metal 18 may be embodied in fine channels (Katayama, Fig. 7A). Katayama teaches that fine channels are incorporated in upper cover 16, fine channel substrate 8, lower cover 17 in Fig. 5. As a whole, Katayama does cure the deficiencies of Tonkovich to arrive at the recited claim elements of claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the method of Tonkovich with the teachings shown in Fig. 7A of Katayama and the device shown in Fig. 5 of Katayama to arrive at the instant invention for providing a fine channel device to enable highly efficient chemical reactions (Katayama, paragraphs [0002] and [0007] – [0008]).
Tonkovich in view of Katayama does not explicitly teach an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field.
Tonkovich in view of Katayama does teach using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal, thereby causing heating; Katayama, paragraph [0045]). The metal is acting as an induction susceptor placed within the inlet path 3, such that, when heated by an inductor, the metal heats fluid within the channel. Using the electromagnetic induction necessarily uses an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field because induction heating cannot operate without an inductor. However, Takeda teaches an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field. Please see below.
Takeda pertains to the instant invention because Takeda relates to a chemical processor (a reactor in chemical factory; Takeda, col. 3, ln. 18).
Takeda teaches a toroidal induction coil (said wire being wound round said ring core in a coil manner; Takeda, col. 1, ln. 28-29, Fig. 7), or an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field, in an induction heating apparatus (Takeda, abstract).
Both Tonkovich in view of Katayama and Takeda relate to chemical processor (a reactor in chemical factory; Takeda, col. 3, ln. 18), heating via induction coil. Katayama does not explicitly teach using a toroidal induction coil. Katayama does teach using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal, thereby causing heating (Katayama, paragraph [0045]). Takeda teaches a ring for generating magnetic flux disposed surrounding said heating element, the magnetic flux generating ring being composed of a ring core and an electric conductive wire wound round said ring core in a coil manner (Takeda, col. 3 , ln. 30-48) for ensuring efficient heating (Takeda, col. 3, ln. 65).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Takeda
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified the device of Tonkovich in view of Katayama with the toroidal induction coil of Takeda for accommodating the material-to-be-heated therein (Takeda, col. 1, ln. 8).
As to claim 15, Tonkovich in view of Katayama teaches to the method of claim 14, wherein
the outlet of the process layer is connected to the inlet of the heat transfer layer (Second Modified Fig. 5); wherein the heat transfer layers comprises a plurality of microchannels, wherein the process stream flows out of the process layer and into the plurality of microchannels of the heat transfer layer (hydrogen in channels 56 flows through aperture 58 and into channels 54 where the oxygen reacts with hydrogen; Tonkovich, paragraph [0050]).
As to claim 16, Tonkovich in view of Katayama teaches to the method of claim 14, wherein the endothermic chemical process is a chemical reaction (methane steam reforming, aromatization, cracking, dehydrogenation, decarbonylation, reverse water gas shift, and carboxylation are chemical reactions; Tonkovich, paragraphs [0068], [0142]).
As to claim 22, Tonkovich in view of Katayama teaches to the method of claim 14, wherein the endothermic chemical process comprises a chemical separation (the invention also includes methods of conducting unit operations in the device; Tonkovich, paragraph [0180]; wherein “unit operation” means chemical separation; Tonkovich, paragraph [0022])
As to claim 23, Tonkovich in view of Katayama teaches to the method of claim 22, wherein the chemical separation comprises distillation or sorption (the invention also includes methods of conducting unit operations in the device; Tonkovich, paragraph [0180]; wherein “unit operation” means chemical separation and distillation; Tonkovich, paragraph [0022]).
As to claim 24, Tonkovich in view of Katayama teaches to the method of claim 14, wherein the heat transfer fluid comprises the reaction products of a chemical reaction in the process layer (the hydrogen is mixed with oxygen; Tonkovich, paragraph [0050], Fig. 5; by introducing gases that are to undergo a chemical reaction; Katayama, paragraph [0038], Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji Katayama of US 2006/0171867 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Katayama) and Tukasa Takeda of US 4,145,591 (hereinafter referred to as Takeda) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Robin Crawford of US 2017/0014764 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Crawford), as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Ryuichiro Maeyama of JP 2007283236 A (hereinafter, Maeyama).
As to claim 47, Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford teaches to the apparatus of claim 7, wherein induction enhancer is disposed between the inductor and the top wall of the process layer (Crawford, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein induction enhancer is disposed between the inductor and the top wall of the process layer, as Crawford teaches to magnetic shield 24 disposed between the inductor, coil 20, and casing 18).
Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford does not explicitly teach wherein the inductor is a pancake induction coil.
In an analogous art, Maeyama teaches to wherein the inductor is a pancake induction coil (Maeyama, Fig. 1, teaches to wherein the inductor is a pancake induction coil, as Maeyama teaches to an exciting coil 21, which is a pancake induction coil).
Both Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford and Maeyama relate to electromagnetic induction heating (Maeyama, abstract). Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford does not explicitly teach an induction coil in a pancake shape. Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford does teach a toroidal inductor shape. Maeyama teaches to a pancake shape for the inductor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Katayama in view of Takeda and Crawford with the pancake induction coil of Maeyama for forming an alternating magnetic field, thereby effectively heating fluid.
Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the instant claim is a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed structure and a structure having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art structure, the claimed structure is not patentably distinct from the prior art structure MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In addition, the configuration/shape of the claimed structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. Please see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10 of 12, the applicant argues that the invention of claim 1 remains patentable over Katayama in view of Takeda because the proposed combination would lack the claimed feature of “an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field in the top wall of the process layer.” The applicant asserts that Takeda’s inductor would generate an alternating field to generate heat in the metal in the fine channels.
However, Takeda, col. 1, ln. 28-29, Fig. 7, teaches to an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field in the top wall of the process layer, as Takeda teaches to a toroidal induction coil (said wire being wound round said ring core in a coil manner) configured to generate eddy current, which are currents induced by an alternating magnetic field, within the metal which are in the fine channels in the top wall of the process layer. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Takeda’s inductor reads into the claimed invention in the combination.
Katayama does not explicitly teach using a toroidal induction coil. Katayama does teach using electromagnetic induction to generate an eddy current within the metal, thereby causing heating (Katayama, paragraph [0045]). The metal is acting as an induction susceptor placed within the inlet path 3, such that, when heated by an inductor, the metal heats fluid within the channel. Using the electromagnetic induction necessarily uses an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field because induction heating cannot operate without an inductor. However, Takeda teaches an inductor configured to generate an alternating magnetic field.
Takeda teaches a ring for generating magnetic flux disposed surrounding said heating element, the magnetic flux generating ring being composed of a ring core and an electric conductive wire wound round said ring core in a coil manner (Takeda, col. 3 , ln. 30-48) for ensuring efficient heating (Takeda, col. 3, ln. 65). Please refer to the rejection above.
On pg. 11 of 12, the applicant argues that the invention of claim 31 is patentable over the combination because the combination of Katayama and Takeda does not lead to the claimed “toroidal-shaped processor.” The applicant asserts that Katayama’s processor does not process a “toroidal shape” since it lacks a hole through the center of the reactor.
Katayama, paragraph [0069], Fig. 5, teaches to a toroidal-shaped processor, as Katayama teaches to a through-hole of diameter 1. The applicant’s assertion is therefore not valid.
On pg. 11 of 12, the applicant argues that claim 5 is additionally patentable because claim 5 recites “that flow is both counter-flow and cross-flow.” The applicant argues that Tonkovich teaches either, but not both. The applicant argues that the difference is significant in providing more robust and uniform heat exchange. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combined use of counter-flow (the plurality of inlet paths 3 in the fine channel substrate 8 overlapping with the plurality of inlet paths 3 in the upper cover 16 so that flow is counter-flow) of the structure disclosed in Katayama with the use of cross-flow as suggested by Tonkovich, paragraph [0054], amounts merely to a matter of obvious engineering choice, as the use of cross-counter heat exchanging system is very well-known in the art of reactors (for instance, see Tsung-Chieh Cheng of EP1938036 B1, Figs. 1 and 3, teaching to cross-counter heat exchanging system) and as the combination would have been operable to one of ordinary skill in the art for improving heat distribution; as such, the integration of the claimed invention is not contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art. See MPEP 2144.04.V.B.
In response to applicant's argument that Tonkovich teaches either, but not both, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
For new claims 47-48, please refer to the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsung-Chieh Cheng of EP 1938036 B1 (hereinafter, Cheng).
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 JOHN LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1254. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-16:00.
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.
/JOHN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794