Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/847,509

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INDUCTIVELY HEATING MICRO- AND MESO-CHANNEL PROCESS SYSTEMS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Sep 16, 2024
Examiner
CHORBAJI, MONZER R
Art Unit
1799
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Stars Technology Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
915 granted / 1196 resolved
+11.5% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
1210
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
37.1%
-2.9% vs TC avg
§112
13.0%
-27.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1196 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA Election/Restrictions Claims 21, 28 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of using a chemical processor and to a toroidal chemical processor, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/25. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and 14-19 in the reply filed on 05/08/25 is acknowledged. 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plurality of microchannels or mesochannels” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitations "the process stream” and “the product stream” in lines 2 and 3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Claim 17 recites the limitation "the cobalt iron flux concentrators” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same applies to claims 18-19. Claims 9-10 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 9-10, Applicant recites “the top wall” in lines 2 of claims 9 and 10. However, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claims 9-10 because it not known if Applicant is referring to the top wall of the process layer or the heat transfer layer. It is respectfully requested that claims 9-10 be amended to positively recite that the top wall is either “of the process layer” or “of the heat transfer layer”. Regarding claim 15, Applicant recites “or at least 20% less or at least 50% less” in lines 4-5. The examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of claim 15 because it not clear what Applicant is trying to claim. It is respectfully requested that the term “or at least 20% less or at least 50% less” be deleted. Please refer to MPEP 2173.05(d). 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (WO 2007/048641 A1) in view of Chudiwala (WO 2015/001566 A2). Regarding claim 1, Meyer discloses a chemical processor [0001], comprising, in order from top to bottom (Fig.1f:1): a layer (Fig.1f:100) comprising a plurality of flux concentrators ([0114]; high frequency coil); a process layer (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100) having a top wall that (unlabeled top surface of 39 as shown in Fig.2a) is adapted to heat in response to an alternating magnetic field [0051], a bottom wall (unlabeled lower surface of 39 as shown in Fig.2a) opposite the top wall, and side walls (Fig.2b:28 and 33 of 22) disposed between the top and bottom walls; the process layer (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100) comprising a channel (Fig.2b:25) adapted for fluid flow [0121 and 0126] and an inlet (fluid in tubes 25 entering at end plate 32 of 22 as shown in Fig.2b) and outlet (fluid in tubes 25 exiting at end plate 33 of 22 as shown in Fig.2b) adapted for fluid flow into and out of the process layer; a heat transfer layer (Fig.2a:34 or 26 cylindrical tube of heat exchanger 23 or 24) adjacent the bottom wall of the process layer (bottom layer 39 of reactor 22 in touch with upper layer of cylindrical tube 23 as shown in Figures 2a and 2b); the heat transfer layer (Fig.2a:34 or 26 cylindrical tube of heat exchanger 23 or 24) having a top wall (unlabeled top wall of cylindrical tube 34 or 26 as shown in Fig.2b), a bottom wall (unlabeled lower wall of cylindrical tube 34 or 26 as shown in Fig.2b) opposite the top wall, and side walls (Fig.2b:27 and 28 or 35 and 25) disposed between the top and bottom walls; the heat transfer layer (Fig.2a:34 or 26 cylindrical tube of heat exchanger 23 or 24) comprising a channel adapted (Fig.2b:25) for fluid flow [0126] and an inlet (unlabeled entry parts of tubes of 25 at end plate 27 or at end plate 35 as shown in Fig.2b) and an outlet (unlabeled exit parts of tubes 25 at end plate 28 or 33 as shown in Fig.2b) such that a fluid can flow into and out of the heat transfer layer; wherein the outlet (fluid in tubes 25 exiting at end plate 33 of 22 as shown in Fig.2b) of the process layer (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100) is connected to the inlet (unlabeled entry tubes at end plate 35 of 34 as shown in Fig.2b) of the heat transfer layer (Fig.2a:34 or 26 cylindrical tube of heat exchanger 23 or 24) such that a fluid can flow out of the process layer (Fig.2b:22) and into the heat transfer layer (Fig.2b:34); wherein the bottom wall (unlabeled bottom wall of cylindrical tube 39 of 22 as shown in Fig.2a) of the process layer (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100) is the top wall of the heat transfer layer (Fig.2a:34 or 26 cylindrical tube of heat exchanger 23 or 24) or where the walls (the upper walls of heat exchangers 23 and 24 are in thermal contact with the lower surface of cylindrical tube 39 of reactor block 22 as shown in Fig.2a) are in thermal contact; and an inductor [0051] configured to generate an alternating magnetic field in the top wall (unlabeled top surface of 39 as shown in Fig.2a) of the (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100) process layer. Meyer discloses cooling tubes (Fig.1f:12 and 11) and also teaches that the housing can be cooled, for example with water or air [0061]. However, Meyer appears silent to disclose the use of a cooling plate. Chudiwala discloses a chemical processor (Fig.3) for generating energy using electro-magnetic effects to generate energy (page 1, lines 4-6 and lines 16-17) where the outer ring (Fig.3:310) acts as a cooling chamber (considered as the cooling plate) using liquid nitrogen (page 4, lines 7-21) in order to maintain the temperature of the processor (page 4, lines 20-21). 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 to add Chudiwala outer cooling ring (cooling plate) on top of Meyer high frequency coils (Fig.1f:100) in order to improve and maintain the temperature of the microreactor. Regarding claim 2, Meyer discloses an insulation [0089 and 0121layer (cylindrical tube 39 as shown in Fig.2a) disposed between the inductor (Fig.1f:100) and the process layer (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100). Regarding claim 5, the Meyer chemical processor (fig.1f) during operation, flow is cross flow such that the plurality of microchannels (Fig.1f:2, 11 and 12) in the heat transfer layer (Fig.2a:34 or 26 cylindrical tube of heat exchanger 23 or 24) overlap with the plurality of microchannels in the process layer (Fig.1f:2 or 22 in Figures 2a and 2b; microstructred reactor block is below layer 100) such that the channels cross are capable of providing flow that is both counter-flow (Fig.1f:11 and 12) and cross-flow (Fig.2b:25). Regarding claim 6, the inductor coils (Fig.1f:100) has a pancake induction coil (rounded coils). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-4, 7-11 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matters are the inclusions of a ferromagnetic material that includes a cobalt iron alloy is disposed between the insulation layer and the process layer; an induction enhancer; an induction susceptor; the use of ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic or paramagnetic materials; a recuperative heat exchanger; a coating of a thermally conductive material; and the use of ferrite flux concentrators. Furthermore, the closest prior art found (Meyer and Chudiwala) and upon further searches do not teach or fairly suggest the following: a ferromagnetic material that includes a cobalt iron alloy is disposed between the insulation layer and the process layer; an induction enhancer; an induction susceptor; the use of ferrimagnetic or ferromagnetic or paramagnetic materials; a recuperative heat exchanger; a coating of a thermally conductive material; and the use of ferrite flux concentrators. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONZER R CHORBAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-1271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-12:00 and 6:00-9:00. 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, Jill J Warden can be reached at (571)272-1267. 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. /MONZER R CHORBAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 31, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599905
DROPLET GENERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594358
NATURAL METHOD OF REDUCTION AND REMOVAL OF PATHOGENIC AGENTS AND MICROORGANISMS CONTAINED IN SOLIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595109
DEVICE TO RELEASE WATER AND ANTIMICROBIAL VAPOR INTO AN ENCLOSED OR PARTIALLY ENCLOSED SPACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589174
STERILANT STORAGE DEVICE AND STERILIZATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582734
SYSTEM FOR PREVENTING SCALING, REMOVING HYDROGEN PEROXIDE RESIDUES AND RECYCLING WATER IN ASEPTIC FILLING SYSTEMS OF LAMINATED CARTON CONTAINERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+21.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1196 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month