DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 13-14, 21, and 24 have been amended. Claims 8, 11-12, 15, 17, 19, and 27 are cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20-26 are pending and under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 06/26/2026, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. Jonathan C. Hughley on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(1)
Applicant amended claim 1 by further limiting the claimed apparatus having “an insulating layer surrounding the reaction chamber; wherein the insulating layer is between the reaction chamber and the electrically conducting coil; wherein the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer”. In addition, Applicant argued that the Kiap reference (the `648 publication) is silent as to any spacing between the insulating material 220 and the induction coil 120. The only positive teaching in the Kiap reference regarding the spatial relationship between insulation and the coil appears in Figures 4-6, where insulation jacket 221 surrounds the induction coil 120 such that the insulation is in direct contact with the coil. See Kiap, page 27, lines 1-6 (Figure 4: "an insulation material 220 surrounds the induction coil 120 in the form of an insulation jacket 221"); page 29, lines 1-3 (Figure 5/6: "the induction coil 120 is designed as a hollow coil 120 which is surrounded by an insulation jacket 221 "). This is the opposite of what claims 1 and 24 require-namely, the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer. Applicant’s amendment and argument are sufficient to overcome the rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant’s amendment and argument have been considered, but not sufficient to overcome the rejection because the added limitation “the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer” is taught and/or suggested by the `648 publication in view of the `094 publication cited in the previous 103(a) rejection. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and revised.
The following rejection is necessitated by the amendment filed 08/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (revised)
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2014/064648 (“the `648 publication”) to How Kiap Gueh in view of US20190218094 (“the `094 publication”) to Arne Godal, and Zinn et al., Heat Treating, (June 1988), p.32-41.
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus for the pyrolytic decomposition of a hydrocarbon fuel into a plurality of products, the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber comprising: an inlet for supplying hydrocarbon fuel into the reaction chamber; and an outlet for the products of the pyrolytic decomposition; and an electrically conducting coil surrounding the reaction chamber between the inlet and the outlet of the reaction chamber; and an insulating layer surrounding the reaction chamber; wherein the insulating layer is between the reaction chamber and the electrically conducting coil; wherein the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer; and wherein the electrically conducting coil is arranged to receive an alternating current and heat the reaction chamber by induction.
Applicant’s claim 24 is drawn to a method for the pyrolytic decomposition of a hydrocarbon fuel into a plurality of products, the method comprising: introducing a hydrocarbon fuel into a reaction chamber; wherein the reaction chamber is surrounded by an insulating layer; passing an alternating current through an electrically conducting coil surrounding the reaction chamber such that an alternating magnetic field is generated to inductively heat the reaction chamber; wherein the insulating layer is between the reaction chamber and the electrically conducting coil; and wherein the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer; and heating the hydrocarbon fuel in reaction chamber to effect pyrolytic decomposition of the hydrocarbon fuel.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `648 publication (Abstract and FIG. 5) discloses a device for converting one or more feed fuel to syngas comprises a metallic crucible for holding an electrically conductive material and at least one electric heater in the vicinity of the crucible. The electric heater comprises a coil for providing a flow of current through at least one electric heater so as to cause melting and heating of the electrically conductive material to form a molten material disposed within the metallic crucible. Furthermore, the device comprises a liquid cooling arrangement for the crucible, at least one feeding conduit for providing a flow stream of the one or more feed fuel to be delivered into contact with the molten material to convert at least a portion of one or more feed fuel to syngas and at least one supply conduit for delivering the syngas to the exterior of the crucible, wherein the device is illustrated by FIG. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
832
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the metallic crucible 40 (a reaction chamber) is suspended within an encasement tank or housing 142 that is filled with a dielectric fluid 143, which is also referred to as "dielectric coolant". The dielectric fluid 143 is circulated through the encasement tank 142 through a cooling fluid inlet 144 and a cooling fluid outlet 145. An induction coil 120 is provided within the outer container 142 in proximity to the metallic crucible 40, wherein a distance “d” between the induction coil 120 and an outer surface of the metallic crucible is indicated. A slag conduit 110 passes from the interior of the crucible 40 to the exterior of the outer container without passing through the interior of the outer container 142. The dielectric cooling fluid 143 provides cooling for the crucible 40 and the induction coil 120 (lns. 8-22, p.26). In terms of the limitation “wherein the electrically conducting coil is arranged to receive an alternating current”, the `648 publication teaches using an induction coil 120 as an induction heater. One ordinary skilled in the art would have known that Induction heating is the process of heating electrically conductive materials, namely metals or semi-conductors, by electromagnetic induction, through heat transfer passing through an inductor that creates an electromagnetic field within the coil to heat up. An induction heater consists of an electromagnet and an electronic oscillator that passes a high- frequency alternating current (AC) through the electromagnet. The rapidly alternating magnetic field penetrates the object, generating electric currents inside the conductor called eddy currents. The eddy currents flow through the resistance of the material, and heat it by Joule heating, see “Induction heating” Wikipedia.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 18, and 24 and the `648 publication is that the prior art does not disclose a specific apparatus wherein the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer. Instead, the `648 publication discloses a device illustrated by FIG. 5, wherein an induction coil 120 is provided within the outer container 142 in proximity to the metallic crucible 40. The `648 publication (FIG. 3) discloses the induction coil 120 surrounds the reaction chamber between the inlet and the outlet of the reaction chamber; and an insulating layer (220) surrounds the reaction chamber; wherein the insulating layer is between the reaction chamber (40) and the electrically conducting coil (120), and the electrically conducting coil (120) is in direct contact with the insulating layer (220).
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 18, and 24 would be obvious over the `648 publication because the difference of “the electrically conducting coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer” is further taught and/or suggested by the `094 publication. Specifically, the `094 publication (FIG. 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
609
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
illustrates a portion of the heating zone in a reactor wherein the external electrical heating element coil is not in direct contact with the insulating layer. Therefore, the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `094 publication.
In terms of claim 3, wherein the reaction chamber has no solid particulate material located therein, the `648 publication (FIG. 5) discloses the device comprising the reaction chamber of the metallic crucible 40 has no solid particulate material located therein.
In terms of claim 5, wherein the electrically conducting coil comprises a length such that the electrically conducting coil heats a portion of the reaction chamber of substantially the same length, and the length ranges from 5 mm to 10 m, the `648 publication (FIGs. 13-16) discloses the electrically conducting coil (120) comprises a length such that the electrically conducting coil heats a portion of the reaction chamber of substantially the same length. In addition, the `094 publication [0061-0062] teaches an apparatus for decomposing a hydrocarbon fuel comprises a reaction chamber is of sufficient length to allow for the majority of the hydrocarbon fuel to decompose before the gas is quenched; and an apparatus comprising 10 individual reaction chambers each having an internal diameter of 2 cm and a length of 30 cm would provide an overall reaction chamber volume of 940 cm3.
In terms of claim 7, wherein the electrically conducting coil comprises a plurality of turns ranging between 2 and 100 turns; and wherein the electrically conducting coil comprises a plurality of turns comprising a spacing between adjacent turns of the plurality of turns, wherein the spacing ranges from between 0.01 mm and 1 m, the `648 publication (col. 10-14, p.31 and claim 77) discloses the induction coil may be provided within a distance “d” of 1 mm to 1.52 m to the side walls of the crucible. Based on FIG. 5, the spacing ranges between adjacent turns of the plurality of turns reads on the spacing ranges from between 0.01 mm and 1 m.
In terms of claim 10, wherein the apparatus comprises a pair of electrically conducting coils; wherein the pair of electrically conducting coils comprise a common line; wherein the common line splits at a branch point to form the two electrically conducting coils in the pair of electrically conducting coils; and wherein the common line is arranged to receive the alternating current, Zinn et al. teaches coil design and fabrication comprising a pair of electrically conducting coils, wherein the pair of electrically conducting coils comprise a common line, and the common line is arranged to receive the alternating current. In terms of the common line splits at a branch point to form the two electrically conducting coils in the pair of electrically conducting coils, it is a common design, see Figs. 3-13 at p. 30-32.
In terms of claim 13, wherein the apparatus further comprises an insulating layer between the reaction chamber and the electrically conducting coil; and wherein the insulating laver is in direct contact with and surrounds the reaction chamber, the `648 publication (Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image3.png
770
415
media_image3.png
Greyscale
shows across section partial view of electrically insulating material 220 which can be interposed between the metallic crucible 40 and the induction coil 120, and the insulating layer 220 is in direct contact with and surrounds the reaction chamber.
In terms of claim 14, wherein the insulating layer is in direct contact with and surrounds the reaction chamber; wherein the insulating laver comprises an ultra-high temperature ceramic, the `648 publication (Fig. 3) shows insulating material 220 which can be interposed between the metallic crucible 40 and the induction coil 120, and the insulating layer 220 is in direct contact with and surrounds the reaction chamber. The `648 publication (lns. 7-9, p.23) teaches the insulating material 220 has a maximum continuous service temperature of at least 1200 degrees Celsius (1200 °C). In addition, the `648 publication (lns. 16-18, p.6; and ln. 31, p.40 - ln.3, p.41) teaches the exterior wall surface of the metallic crucible can be surrounded with a layer of heat insulating material to minimize heat loss from the metallic crucible to its immediate and or ambient environment; and the crucible can partly or entirely be made of non-metallic material, such as concrete, ceramics, a refractory lining, fire clay, chamotte, fire bricks or a combination of these materials, including non-metallic and metallic materials in combination. Because the insulating material 220 has a maximum continuous service temperature of at least 1200 degrees Celsius (1200 °C), the ceramic of exterior wall surface of the metallic crucible must be an ultra-high temperature ceramic.
In terms of claim 16, wherein the insulating layer comprises at least one layer of an ultra-high temperature ceramic and at least one layer of ceramic fiber felt, In addition, the `648 publication (lns. 16-18, p.6; and ln. 31, p.40 - ln.3, p.41) teaches the exterior wall surface of the metallic crucible can be surrounded with a layer of heat insulating material to minimize heat loss from the metallic crucible to its immediate and or ambient environment; and the crucible can partly or entirely be made of non-metallic material, such as concrete, ceramics, a refractory lining, fire clay, chamotte, fire bricks or a combination of these materials, including non-metallic and metallic materials in combination. Because the `648 publication teaches using the exterior wall surface of the metallic crucible can be surrounded with a layer of heat insulating material to minimize heat loss from the metallic crucible to its immediate and or ambient environment with ceramics, a refractory lining, fire clay, chamotte, fire bricks or a combination of these materials, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the layer of heat insulating material to further include at least one layer of ceramic fiber felt in order to minimize heat loss from the metallic crucible to its immediate and or ambient environment.
In terms of claims 20-22, the `648 publication (lns. 16-22, p.12) teaches the first desired temperature range, second desired temperature range, third desired temperature range, or combinations thereof, are measured by one or more sensors in communication with at least one remote processor operable to further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid, the second desired temperature range of cooling fluid or a combination thereof, so as to cause the metallic crucible to be operating within first desired temperature range. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to design an apparatus further comprises at least one thermal sensor arranged to measure the temperature of the reaction chamber at least one position along the reaction chamber which is heated by the surrounding electrically conducting coil in view of the disclosure by the `648 publication.
In terms of claim 23 drawn to a system comprising: the apparatus as claimed in claim 1; and a quenching chamber in fluid communication with, and downstream of the output of the reaction chamber and arranged to cool the plurality of products of the pyrolytic decomposition; and/or a filter chamber for collecting and separating the products of the pyrolytic decomposition, wherein the filter is in fluid communication and downstream of the outlet of the apparatus, the `648 publication (Abstract and FIG. 5) discloses a device for converting one or more feed fuel to syngas comprises a metallic crucible for holding an electrically conductive material and at least one electric heater in the vicinity of the crucible. The electric heater comprises a coil for providing a flow of current through at least one electric heater so as to cause melting and heating of the electrically conductive material to form a molten material disposed within the metallic crucible. Furthermore, the device comprises a liquid cooling arrangement for the crucible, at least one feeding conduit for providing a flow stream of the one or more feed fuel to be delivered into contact with the molten material to convert at least a portion of one or more feed fuel to syngas and at least one supply conduit for delivering the syngas to the exterior of the crucible. The `648 publication does not teach an apparatus comprising a quenching chamber in fluid communication with and downstream of the output of the reaction chamber and arranged to cool the plurality of products of the pyrolytic decomposition. However, the difference is further taught and/or suggested by the `094 publication. The `094 publication [0061-0062] teaches an apparatus for decomposing a hydrocarbon fuel comprises a reaction chamber is of sufficient length to allow for the majority of the hydrocarbon fuel to decompose before the gas is quenched; and an apparatus comprising 10 individual reaction chambers. Because the `094 publication teaches the majority of the hydrocarbon fuel to decompose before the gas is quenched, it suggests an apparatus comprising a quenching chamber in fluid communication with and downstream of the output of the reaction chamber and arranged to cool the plurality of products of the pyrolytic decomposition.
In terms of claims 25 and 26 wherein the method further comprising: receiving a temperature measurement of a position along the reaction chamber; and comparing the temperature measurement to a pre-set desired temperature range, wherein the pre-set desired temperature range comprises an upper limit and a lower limit; and determining that the temperature of the position along the reaction chamber is above the upper limit or below the lower limit; and transmitting a control signal to change the current of the alternating current passing through the electrically conducing coil if it is determined that the temperature is below the lower limit or above the upper limit, the `648 publication (lns. 16-22, p.12) teaches the first desired temperature range, second desired temperature range, third desired temperature range, or combinations thereof, are measured by one or more sensors in communication with at least one remote processor operable to further control the flow rate of the cooling fluid, the second desired temperature range of cooling fluid or a combination thereof, so as to cause the metallic crucible to be operating within first desired temperature range. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to design an apparatus further comprises at least one thermal sensor arranged to measure the temperature of the reaction chamber at least one position along the reaction chamber, and comparing the temperature measurement to a pre-set desired temperature range; or determining that the temperature of the position along the reaction chamber is above the upper limit or below the lower limit; and transmitting a control signal to change the current of the alternating current passing through the electrically conducing coil if it is determined that the temperature is below the lower limit or above the upper limit; because all the measurements are routine optimization, and at a grasp of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Conclusions
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20-26 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights