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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 2/9/2026 has been entered. Amended Claim 1 has been noted in addition to new Claims 26-29. Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a heat recycling component” that “transfers a portion of excess heat in a product stream at the output of the second flow path to the input of the burner” (Claim 11)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a heat recycling component” that “transfers a portion of excess heat in a product stream at the output of the second flow path to the input of the burner” (from Claim 11) is being interpreted as a heat exchanger, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groenewald et al. (US 2022/0387952 A1) (hereinafter “Groenewald”) in view of Suzuki et al. (WO 02057395 A1) (hereinafter “Suzuki”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Groenewald teaches of a pyrolysis reactor (1400a) (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-14B), comprising:
a first tube (tube enclosing chamber (1411)) comprising an end region (the upper end region with respect to Fig. 14A) and defining a first flow path (the top to bottom flow path through chamber (1411) as shown in Fig. 14A) (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B);
a burner (1410a) coupled to the end region of the first tube such that the burner delivers heat to the first tube and the first flow path via combustion (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14A); and
a second tube (tube enclosing chamber (1412)) coaxial with and surrounding the first tube (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B), wherein an annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) between the second tube and the first tube defines a second flow path (the top to bottom flow path through chamber (1412) as shown in Fig. 14A) thermally coupled to the first tube such that a portion of the heat from the combustion is received by the second flow path (see at least [0125] and Figs. 14A-B).
Groenewald fails to explicitly teach of a “thermal component” positioned at least partially within the first tube and separate from the second tube “wherein the thermal component is configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the second tube, and wherein at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube is provided to the thermal component”. Note that in light of the specification, a “thermal component” is being interpreted as a physical structure capable of absorbing thermal energy.
Suzuki discloses a relatable pyrolysis apparatus (Fig. 2) that comprises a first tube (10) in which combustion takes place wherein heat from the combustion is used to facilitate pyrolysis (see at least the bottom half of pg. 6 and Fig. 2). Suzuki teaches of a thermal component (32) positioned within the first tube (as is shown in Figs. 2-3) adjacent to an inlet (18) of the first tube that is configured to absorb thermal energy (see at least the bottom half of pg. 6, the bottom half of pg. 7 and Figs. 2-3). Note that the thermal component is configured to increase heat transfer to the first tube (via at least thermal conduction and/or radiation) and that at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube is provided to the thermal component (via at least direct contact with the heated thermal component and/or thermal radiation therefrom as is shown in at least Figs. 2-3) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 6, the bottom half of pg. 7 and Figs. 2-3). Suzuki teaches that positioning a thermal component in the first tube adjacent to the inlet of the first tube where combustion takes place provides the advantage of, inter alia, providing means to store heat in the first tube to in turn enhance combustion and heat exchange efficiency (see at least the bottom half of pg. 7 and Figs. 2-3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Groenewald by positioning a thermal component in the existing first tube taught by Groenewald adjacent to the existing inlet (1410a) of the first tube based on the teachings of Suzuki. Doing so would have provided means to store heat in the first tube and in turn enhance combustion and heat exchange efficiency. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the thermal component being “positioned at least partially within the first tube and separate from the second tube” as claimed since the thermal component would necessarily be disposed only within the first tube already taught by Groenewald and adjacent to the existing inlet of the first tube already taught by Groenewald based on the teachings of Suzuki. Furthermore, note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the thermal component being configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the existing second tube since the heated thermal component would increase heat transfer to the first tube as is taught by Suzuki and Groenewald already teaches that “heat is communicated into the second chamber” (and consequently to the second tube therein) via “conduction and/or radiation through the shared wall of the concentric chambers” (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14 of Groenewald), and that at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube would be provided to the thermal component (via at least direct contact with the heated thermal component and/or thermal radiation therefrom as is shown in at least Figs. 1-2 of Suzuki). Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2: In the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, Groenewald also teaches that the annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) can be considered a second annulus (see at least [0125], Figs. 14A-B and the rejection for Claim 1 above), while Suzuki teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprises a main body (A) (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 3 of Suzuki below) restricting the first flow path to a first annulus (B) between the first tube and the main body (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) in addition to a plurality of protrusions positioned within the first annulus (elements (32) that are positioned within the first annulus and designated as “C” in Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) such that the plurality of protrusions increases interactions between a flue gas from the combustion and the first tube (as is shown via the deflecting flow arrows in Fig. 3) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 6 and Figs. 2-3). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Groenewald and Suzuki teach the pyrolysis reactor of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) and Groenewald also teaches that the annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) can be considered a second annulus (see at least [0125], Figs. 14A-B and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Groenewald and Suzuki fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the thermal component comprises an inner tube restricting the first flow path to an annulus between the first tube and the inner tube such that the inner tube increases interactions between a flue gas from the combustion and the first tube. However, merely reconfiguring the existing thermal component into a structural configuration that comprises an inner tube that restricts the first flow path to an annulus between the first tube and the inner tube such that the inner tube increases interactions between a flue gas from the combustion and the first tube as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically using a thermal component that has the configuration of a “tube” shape is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem over a thermal component of different configuration with a different shape since the specification discloses that a variety of different thermal components with a variety of different shapes/configurations can be used within the claimed reactor to achieve the same purpose. In [0152] it is disclosed that “Although FIGS. 15A-15C shows cylindrical monoliths, tubes, spherical beads, annular chambers, or tubular chambers, other shapes are possible”. Moreover, a plurality of different thermal components with a variety of different shapes/configurations are claimed (see e.g., Claim 3 vs. Claim 4 vs. Claim 5 vs. Claim 8) which provides further evidence that specifically configuring the thermal component to have a “tube” shape is not critical to the invention. Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Suzuki, in the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, teaches that the thermal component is in the form of one or more ceramic balls (32) (see at least Figs. 2-3 and the rejection for Claim 1 above) which the instant application discloses to be, and claims as (Claim 8), an acceptable alternative to a thermal component configuration with a “tube” shape that fulfills the same purpose of heat storage equally as well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring the existing thermal component to have a “tube” shape as claimed since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have resulted in the thermal component comprising an inner tube that would necessarily restrict the first flow path to an annulus between the existing first tube and the inner tube via the inner tube shape such that the inner tube would increase interactions between a flue gas from the combustion and the first tube (via the tube shape) (see at least Fig. 2 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Groenewald and Suzuki teach the pyrolysis reactor of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) wherein the thermal component (as taught by Suzuki) absorbs at least a portion of the heat from the combustion and necessarily in turn communicates that heat toward the existing second flow path taught by Groenewald via its location (see at least Fig. 14A of Groenewald, Fig. 2 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Groenewald and Suzuki fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein the thermal component comprises a rod extending through at least a portion of the first tube. However, merely reconfiguring the existing thermal component into a structural configuration that comprises a rod extending through at least a portion of the first tube as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically using a thermal component that has the configuration of a “rod” shape is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem over a thermal component of different configuration with a different shape since the specification discloses that a variety of different thermal components with a variety of different shapes/configurations can be used within the claimed reactor to achieve the same purpose. In [0152] it is disclosed that “Although FIGS. 15A-15C shows cylindrical monoliths, tubes, spherical beads, annular chambers, or tubular chambers, other shapes are possible”. Moreover, a plurality of different thermal components with a variety of different shapes/configurations are claimed (see e.g., Claim 3 vs. Claim 4 vs. Claim 5 vs. Claim 8) which provides further evidence that specifically configuring the thermal component to have a “rod” shape is not critical to the invention. Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Suzuki, in the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, teaches that the thermal component is in the form of one or more ceramic balls (32) (see at least Figs. 2-3 and the rejection for Claim 1 above) which the instant application discloses to be, and claims as (Claim 8), an acceptable alternative to a thermal component configuration with a “rod” shape that fulfills the same purpose of heat storage equally as well.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring the existing thermal component to have a “rod” shape as claimed since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have resulted in the thermal component comprising a rod extending through at least a portion of the existing first tube wherein the rod would necessarily absorb at least a portion of the heat from the combustion and communicate that heat toward the existing second flow path via its location (see at least Fig. 2 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5: In the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, Suzuki also teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprises a monolithic structure (A) extending through at least a portion of the first tube (see at least Examiner Annotated Fig. 3 above and note that singular element (A) is a monolithic structure), wherein the first flow path and the second flow path travel in generally opposite directions (as is the case when a “counter-current configuration” is being used as is taught by Groenewald) (see at least [0126] and Figs. 14A-B), and wherein the monolithic structure is positioned within a second end region of the first tube (as is shown in at least Fig. 3 of Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 6, Groenewald also teaches that the first flow path and the second flow are generally parallel (as is shown in Figs. 14A-B) (see at least [0126] and Figs. 14A-B).
Regarding Claim 7, Groenewald also teaches that the first tube and second tube may each be one of a plurality of annular chambers (see at least [0132] and Fig. 14D), wherein the burner is one of a plurality of burners each individually positioned within a corresponding one of the plurality of annular chambers (see at least [0132] and Fig. 14D), and in the combined apparatus, wherein the thermal component taught by Suzuki would be disposed in each annular chamber, it follows that each thermal component would be “one of a plurality of thermal components each individually positioned within a corresponding one of the plurality of annular chambers” as claimed. Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki also teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprises one or more ceramic balls (“ceramic”) positioned within the first flow path (see at least the bottom half of pg. 6 and Figs. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 9, Groenewald and Suzuki teach the pyrolysis reactor of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein a cross-sectional area of the second tube varies along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube varies. However, merely reconfiguring the existing cross-sectional area of the second tube to vary along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube also varies as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically configuring the cross-sectional area of the second tube to vary along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube also varies is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem over a different configuration wherein the cross-sectional area does not vary since the specification discloses that a variety of different cross-sectional area shapes/configurations can be used within the claimed reactor to achieve the same purpose including cross-sectional area shapes/configurations that do not vary. It is disclosed that “alternatively” one or more of the cross-sectional areas may vary and as can be observed in the embodiment of Figs. 6A-6B of the instant application, the invention works equally as well with a configuration wherein a cross-sectional area of the second tube does not vary along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube remains constant (as is shown in Figs. 6A-6B). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Groenewald, in the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, teaches that a cross-sectional area of the second tube does not vary along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube remains constant (as is shown in Figs. 14A-14B) which the instant application discloses as an acceptable alternative that functions equally as well as a configuration wherein a cross-sectional area of the second tube varies along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube also varies (as is evident from at least Figs. 6A-6B of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring the existing cross-sectional area of the second tube to vary along a length of the second tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the second tube would also vary since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, Groenewald and Suzuki teach the pyrolysis reactor of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) but fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein a cross-sectional area of the first tube varies along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube also varies. However, merely reconfiguring the existing cross-sectional area of the first tube to vary along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube also varies as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically configuring the cross-sectional area of the first tube to vary along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube also varies is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem over a different configuration wherein the cross-sectional area does not vary since the specification discloses that a variety of different cross-sectional area shapes/configurations can be used within the claimed reactor to achieve the same purpose including cross-sectional area shapes/configurations that do not vary. It is disclosed that “alternatively” one or more of the cross-sectional areas may vary and as can be observed in the embodiment of Figs. 6A-6B of the instant application, the invention works equally as well with a configuration wherein a cross-sectional area of the first tube does not vary along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube remains constant (as is shown in Figs. 6A-6B). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Groenewald, in the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, teaches that a cross-sectional area of the first tube does not vary along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube remains constant (as is shown in Figs. 14A-14B) which the instant application discloses as an acceptable alternative that functions equally as well as a configuration wherein a cross-sectional area of the first tube varies along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube also varies (as is evident from at least Figs. 6A-6B of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring the existing cross-sectional area of the first tube to vary along a length of the first tube such that a cross-sectional area of the annulus along the length of the first tube would also vary since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 11, Groenewald also teaches of a heat recycling component (“recuperator” that may be in the form of a “heat exchanger”) thermally coupled between an output of the second flow path and an input of the burner such that the heat recycling component transfers a portion of excess heat in a product stream at the output of the second flow path to the input of the burner (see at least [0129] – “The combustion products (e.g., flue gases) can be directed to a recuperator (e.g., into contact with a heat exchanger) to preheat the combustion fuel provided to the first chamber 1411 and/or the reactant provided to the second chamber 1412. Afterward, the combustion products can be directed to an exhaust system.”).
Regarding Claim 21: In the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, Groenewald also teaches that the annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) can be considered a second annulus (see at least [0125], Figs. 14A-B and the rejection for Claim 1 above), while Suzuki teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprises a main body (A) (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 3 of Suzuki below) restricting the first flow path to a first annulus (B) between the first tube and the main body (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) in addition to a plurality of conductive balls positioned within the first annulus (elements (32) that are positioned within the first annulus and designated as “C” in Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) that are configured to absorb at least a portion of the heat from the combustion (see the bottom half of pg. 7 and Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki) and which would necessarily communicate that heat toward the second flow path in the combined apparatus via their location (see Fig. 14A of Groenewald, Fig. 3 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 22, Groenewald and Suzuki teach the pyrolysis reactor of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1), but fail to explicitly teach of an embodiment wherein at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path includes a turn. However, merely reconfiguring the shape of the existing flow paths such at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path includes a turn as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
To support a conclusion that a claim is directed to obvious subject matter, i.e., that a feature is an obvious matter of design choice, an Examiner must present a ‘convincing line of reasoning’ as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed feature to have been obvious. Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. 972, 973 (BPAI 1985). When determining whether a rejection based on design choice is appropriate, the Examiner must review the Specification and ascertain if the limitation in question is disclosed as serving any advantage or particular purpose, or whether it solves a stated problem. The Examiner also should explain the reasoning used to determine that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention. These two steps help present the aforementioned ‘convincing line of reasoning.’ Ex parte Clapp, 227 U.S.P.Q. at 973.
It is apparent from Applicant’s specification that specifically configuring at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path to include a turn is not critical to the invention and does not serve any advantage, particular purpose, or solve a stated problem over a different configuration wherein at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path does not include a turn since the specification discloses that a variety of different flow path shapes can be used within the claimed reactor to achieve the same purpose including flow path shapes that do not have turns and are straight. As can be observed in the embodiment of Figs. 6A-6B of the instant application, the invention works equally as well with a configuration wherein at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path does not include a turn (as is shown in Figs. 6A-6B). Furthermore, it is evident that that the prior art would have performed equally as well as the claimed invention since the prior art teaches of Groenewald, in the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, teaches that at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path does not include a turn (as is shown in Figs. 14A-14B) which the instant application discloses as an acceptable alternative that functions equally as well as a configuration wherein at least one of the first flow path and the second flow path does include a turn (as is evident from at least Figs. 6A-6B of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the combined apparatus by configuring at least one of the first and second existing flow paths to include a turn since such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 23: Note that the limitation “wherein the annulus between the second tube and the first tube is configured to create a laminar flow in the second flow path of an incoming pyrolysis gas and outgoing product stream” is being interpreted as an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, the annulus between the second tube and the first tube (1412) taught by Groenewald allows a variable flow rate therethrough (see at least [0131] and Figs. 14A-B – “the flow rate of the hydrocarbon reactant (and/or the rate of combustion) within first and second chambers 1411, 1412 can be scaled to increase and/or decrease the volume of the output (and the amount of hydrogen gas therein)”). Thus, depending on the output volume, the flow rate through the annulus in the combined apparatus is capable of being adjusted to a value such that the flow in the second flow path becomes “laminar”. Therefore, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki meets the limitations of Claim 23 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 24: Note that the limitation “wherein the burner is configured to create a non-laminar flow within the first flow path adjacent to the burner” is being interpreted as an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, the burner (1410a) taught by Groenewald is capable of operating at a variable capacity to “produce the heat required” (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14A) which necessarily includes a capacity that is configured to create a “non-laminar flow” within the first flow path adjacent to the burner (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14A). Therefore, the burner of the combined apparatus is capable of creating a non-laminar flow within the first flow path adjacent to the burner and the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki accordingly meets the limitations of Claim 24 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 25, Groenewald also teaches that the first tube comprises a ceramic material (“ceramic”) (see at least [0159] and Fig. 14A).
Regarding Claim 26, Suzuki also teaches that the main body (A) that would be used in the combined apparatus that restricts the first flow path to the first annulus between the first tube and the main body (as is shown in Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) forces the flue gas to travel along the first flow path in close proximity to walls of the first chamber (as is shown via at least the flue gas flow arrows in Fig. 3 that flow adjacent to and directly to/against the first tube - see at least the bottom of pg. 6, Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 27, Suzuki also teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus would be positioned downstream from a combustion zone formed at the tip of the existing burner (1410a) already taught by Groenewald (see at least Fig. 14 of Groenewald and note that the thermal component would be positioned in the first tube downstream from the existing burner and combustion zone in/at the tip thereof) (see at least Fig. 14 of Groenewald, Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 28: In the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki, Groenewald also teaches that the annulus (the annulus formed by chamber (1412)) can be considered a second annulus (see at least [0125], Figs. 14A-B and the rejection for Claim 1 above), while Suzuki teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprises a main body (A) (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 3 of Suzuki) restricting the first flow path to a first annulus (B) between the first tube and the main body (see Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) in addition to a plurality of conducting components positioned within the first annulus (elements (32) that are positioned within the first annulus and designated as “C” in Examiner Annotated Fig. 3) such that the plurality of conducting components absorb the at least the portion of heat from a flue gas in the first flow path and transfer the at least the portion of heat into walls of the first tube (see at least the bottom of pg. 6 and Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki) and/or the plurality of conducting components disrupt the first flow path to further increase interaction between the flue gas and the walls of the first tube (as is shown via the disrupted flue gas flow arrows in Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki) (see at least the bottom of pg. 6, Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 29, Suzuki also teaches that the plurality of conducting components (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus comprise at least one of fins attached to and/or spiraling around the main body, ceramic balls, and one or more rings (the plurality of conducting components (32) comprises at least “ceramic balls” - see at least the top of pg. 4, Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant has argued that Claim 1 as amended is now distinguished from the previously relied upon prior art combination of Groenewald and Suzuki and contends that:
“Suzuki also does not teach or suggest at least "a thermal component positioned at least partially within the first tube and separate from the second tube, wherein the thermal component is configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the second tube, and wherein at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube is provided to the thermal component."
The Office Action maps the "thermal component" to Suzuki. However, Suzuki's disclosed structures appear to be (a) a hearth of spherical ceramics 32 in a furnace that distributes air upward through gaps and (b) a gas-permeable heat-insulating wall 60 formed of spherical materials in a reformer that partitions a reforming zone from an outlet passage. Neither of Suzuki's structures are "configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the second tube" across a shared wall. Additionally, the reformer wall 60 from Suzuki is "heat-insulating," which is contrary to increasing cross-wall heat transfer. Further, Suzuki's ceramics are not taught as receiving burner-delivered heat inside a concentric inner combustion tube to increase outward flux to an annulus.
Additionally, Applicant notes that Suzuki's "combustion air" is expressly pre-combustion air distributed through a multilayer spherical-ceramic hearth before combustion occurs in the furnace zone, not burner-delivered combustion heat within a concentric inner tube. In particular, Suzuki states that "the combustion air introduced into the air inlet 18 . . . blows upward into the pyrolysis zone 20 through the gap between the spherical ceramics 32 constituting the hearth 30," with the multilayer ceramic structure distributing air via narrow gaps across the hearth (Suzuki, Description of pyrolysis furnace; Figs. 2-3, elements 18, 30, 32, 35). This pre-combustion air-distribution function differs fundamentally from amended claim 1, which requires "a burner coupled to the end region of the first tube such that the burner delivers heat to the first tube and the first flow path via combustion," and further requires "a thermal component positioned at least partially within the first tube ... wherein at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube is provided to the thermal component" where the component is "configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the second tube." Suzuki's spheres, described as distributing blower-supplied air prior to combustion or as a gas-permeable heat-insulating partition (reformer, Fig. 4, wall 60), are not taught as receiving burner-delivered combustion heat inside an inner first tube of a coaxial reactor and are not configured to increase cross-wall heat transfer to a surrounding annulus.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Suzuki does not teach or suggest "wherein the thermal component is configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the second tube, and wherein at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube is provided to the thermal component."
Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki also does not teach or suggest at least "a thermal component positioned at least partially within the first tube and separate from the second tube, wherein the thermal component is configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the second tube, and wherein at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube is provided to the thermal component."
For instance, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no combined teaching to
position and configure an in-first-tube element to drive cross-wall heat flux into a surrounding annulus. Amended claim 1 provides that the burner at the end region "delivers heat to the first tube and the first flow path via combustion," with a portion of that heat then "provided to the thermal component," which is configured to increase transfer to the second tube. Neither Groenewald nor Suzuki, nor their combination, teaches an internal component that both (i) is arranged to receive burner-delivered heat within a first tube and (ii) is purposefully configured to increase heat flux through the shared wall into a second tube. Suzuki's hearth (Fig. 3) and wall 60 (Fig. 4) are disclosed for in-unit air distribution/mixing/insulation, not outward cross-annulus transfer.
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed herein, Applicant respectfully submits that Groenewald and Suzuki, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest every element of independent claim 1.”
These arguments are not persusive because they focus on Suzuki alone not comprising each and every element of the claim while neglecting the relied upon combination of Groenewald and Suzuki. In the instant case, the base reference of Groenewald already teaches of first and second tubes (as is shown in Fig. 14) wherein it is explicitly disclosed that “heat is communicated into the second chamber via conduction and/or radiation through the shared wall of the concentric chambers” (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14 of Groenewald). Simply positioning a thermal component, that becomes heated during use, in the existing first tube taught by Groenewald adjacent to the existing inlet/burner (1410a) of the first tube based on the teachings of Suzuki to achieve the advantage of enhanced heat exchange efficiency would have necessarily resulted in increased heat transfer through the existing first tube of Groenewald. Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have resulted in the thermal component being configured to increase heat transfer from the first tube to the existing second tube as claimed since the heated thermal component would necessarily increase heat transfer to the first tube as is taught by Suzuki and Groenewald already teaches that “heat is communicated into the second chamber” (and consequently to the second tube therein) via “conduction and/or radiation through the shared wall of the concentric chambers” (see at least [0125] and Fig. 14 of Groenewald). Moreover, in the combination, at least a portion of the heat delivered to the first tube would be provided to the thermal component (via at least direct contact with the heated thermal component and/or thermal radiation therefrom as is shown in at least Figs. 1-2 of Suzuki). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed in amended Claim 1. Moreover, note that in the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki , Suzuki also teaches that the thermal component (32) that would be used in the combined apparatus would be positioned downstream from a combustion zone formed at the tip of the existing burner (1410a) already taught by Groenewald (see at least Fig. 14 of Groenewald and note that the thermal component would be positioned in the first tube downstream from the existing burner and combustion zone in/at the tip thereof) (see at least Fig. 14 of Groenewald, Figs. 2-3 of Suzuki and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Groenewald and Suzuki would have necessarily resulted in the inventions as claimed in each of the new claims including new Claim 27 and the arguments concerning the same are not persuasive.
Note that the new limitations in Claim 1 comprise functional language limitations of an apparatus claim that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, the prior art combination comprises all the structure of Claim 1, would have necessarily been capable of performing all functions of the functional language limitations as claimed and consequently meets all limitations of amended Claim 1 (as is presented above in the rejection for Claim 1). It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 1 to include additional structural elements and/or features (that are not functional language limitations) to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record. Such limitations could relate to, for example, details that better define the structure and/or position of (at least) the “main body” as claimed in Claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ljunggren (US 2010/0043291 A1) and Mueller-Hagedorn et al. (US 2023/0003381 A1) are considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/5/2026
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762