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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are direct to “A system and method…” therefore does not clearly fall under one of the statutory categories as “system” and “method” are different categories with different requirements for claiming. For example a method claim according to MPEP 2106.03: “A process defines "actions", i.e., an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps” however in the current claim 1 and dependent claims there does not appear to be any action steps, therefore is not directed to the statutory category of “method”, therefore amounting to a “use claim” method claim without method steps, see MPEP 2173.05(q). For purposes of examination the claims will be treated as if directed to “A system to heat fluids…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-9, claim 1 recites “A system and method…” attempting to claim product and process in the same claim, however there does not appear to be any action steps, therefore the claim appears to only be directed to “system” limitations, and the two categories in one claim is improper, see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). For purposes of examination the claims will be treated as if directed to “A system to heat fluids…”.
For the same reason above, claims 7-8 is treated as if reciting “the system of claim 1…”.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 9, “the annuli” in each claim has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, for purposes of examination claim 1 is treated as if reciting “coaxial structures having annuli”.
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.
Claims 2-7 and 9 are 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. Each of claims 2-7 and 9 start with a recitation directed to a component of claim 1, for example in claim 2, “The catalytic susceptors of claim 1” this leads to confusion as to if claim 2 comprises all the limitations of claim 1. In order to be treated as dependent claims, and for purposes of examination claims 2-7 and 9 are treated as if starting with “The system of claim 1…” and then reciting the further limitation. Failure to amend claims in this or similar manner will result in Restriction by original presentation. 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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackwell et al (US 2003/0175196) and Coffey et al (US 8,362,407).
Regarding claim 1, Blackwell teaches a system for heating a gas to high temperatures for the purposes of reactions, i.e. heating of fluids (title, abstract), the system comprising catalytic susceptors of electromagnetic energy 1 (Fig 1-2, [0033-0034]), coaxial resonant cavities formed by one or more coaxial structures 4/5 (Fig 1-2, [0033-0034]), temperature is controlled by monitoring single bulk temperature of the reactor i.e. a temperature sensor is present ([0045-0046]), flow rates through the reactor are controlled ([0045-0046], Tables 1-2) via inlet 6 and outlet 8 (Fig 1-2, [0033-0034]), electromagnetic input from induction coil 3 (Fig 1-2, [0033-0034]).
However while Blackwell teaches controlling flow rates of the gases, Blackwell does not teach explicitly flow detector and valving because Blackwell is focused on the reactor design itself, however in order to control flow rates in the manner taught by Blackwell it was notoriously well known to include valving and flow meters to achieve the measurement and rates taught by Blackwell and was routine skill before the effective filing date of the invention to match flow rates of Blackwell Tables 1 and 2 without unexpected results.
However Blackwell does not teach turbulator as claimed.
Coffey teaches a system for particle synthesis that utilized spray pyrolysis (title abstract, C1:L54-59), Coffey teaches the system comprises tubular reactor 10 with susceptor 12 formed in cylindrical shaped vessel where a continuous flow path 16 in interior space 20 is heated by incident energy (Fig 1, C4:L4-30), in a further embodiment turbulent flow is induced by openings 26 and spacers 28 to increase residence time and enhance mixing of materials (Fig 4, C6:L22-42).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Blackwell in view of Coffey to induce turbulent flow by tubulators being created by opening and spacers as taught by Coffey to increase residence time and enhance mixing of materials (Coffey Fig 4, C6:L22-42).
Regarding claim 2, Blackwell further teaches iron was known susceptor material [0005-0006].
Regarding claim 3, Blackwell further teaches frequencies up to 300 kHz [0026].
Regarding claim 4, Blackwell further teaches inputs of at least 3.0 MW [0032].
Regarding claim 5, Blackwell has taught hydrogen containing HCN is heated (title, abstract).
Regarding claim 6, in Blackwell the catalytic susceptors of electromagnetic energy 1 are within the coaxial resonant cavities formed by one or more coaxial structures 4/5 (Fig 1-2, [0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Blackwell further teaches frequencies up to temperatures of from 1000-1200 degrees C [0026].
Regarding claim 8, Blackwell further teaches woven wire mesh forms within the end of annuli (see Fig 3, [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, in Blackwell the catalytic susceptors of electromagnetic energy 1 are within the coaxial resonant cavities formed by one or more coaxial structures 4/5 (Fig 1-2, [0033-0034]), thereby formed by the annuli.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koch (US 5,958,273) teaches induction heated reactor. Blankenbeckler (US2004/0173607) teaches microwave susceptor material. Wilkes (US 2007/0068933) teaches induction curie point heated reactor. Biris (US 7,473,873) teaches a cylindrical reactor. Oqab (US 2022/0397042) teaches inductively heated thermal system. Cassidy (US 2024/0066486) teaches pyrolysis cylindrical reactor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772