Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/9/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112b rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4/9/2024.
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 push mechanism that exerts a pushing force” in claim 4.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the upstream tubular component and/or the downstream tubular." It is unclear what is required by the claim whether it is both “upstream tubular component and the downstream tubular,” or just one of “upstream tubular component of the downstream tubular” is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US3930536) in view of Kochendoerfer (US20210179948) and in further view of Blue (US20140014316).
Regarding claim 1, Cherry teaches an apparatus for heating a fluid, the apparatus including a tubular conduit comprising: first and second bend portions (plurality of returns bends 20, having the same structure) each having first and second ends (Fig. 4 return bend 20 having two ends, which are present for each of the two return bends); the first end of the first bend portion (20, one of the plurality of return bends 20) being removably attached (one end of a return bend 20 attached to an inner tube 16) to an upstream tubular component (16, taken to be the upper tube 16 shown in Fig. 4); the second end of the second bend portion (20, one of the plurality of return bends 20) being removably attached (one end of a return bend 20 attached to an inner tube 16) to a downstream tubular component (16, taken to be the lower tube 16 shown in Fig. 4); wherein the apparatus further includes a support structure (17) containing the first and second bend portions (outer tubes 17 receive ends of return bend 20, for each of the plurality of return bends), but is silent on the second end of the first bend portion being removably attached to the first end of the second bend portion such that the first and second bend portions are in fluid communication, each bend portion including at least one microwave emitter.
Kochendoerfer teach the second end of the first bend (112, element A in annotated Fig. 1C below) portion being attached to the first end (annotated Fig. 1C, element C being where the second end of the first bend and the first end of the second bend are attached) of the second bend portion (114, element B in annotated Fig. 1C below) such that the first and second bend portions are in fluid communication ([0078] pipelines segments 112 and 114 in fluid connection, shown in annotated Figure below 1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
309
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1C of Kochendoerfer
Cherry and Kochendoerfer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid heating. It would have been obvious to have modified Cherry to incorporate the teachings of Kochendoerfer to have a first and second bend portion be connected together in fluid connection so that heating of fluid within the pipes may be heated by separate sources in each bend in a way that no electrical conduction occurs between subsequent pipelines (Kochendoerfer [0020]).
Blue teaches each bend portion including at least one microwave emitter ([0042] a plurality of first RF power applicator stages 31, 35, 40, 45 at each stage or pipe segment).
Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid heating. It would have been obvious to have modified Cherry and Kochendoerfer to incorporate the teachings of Blue to have a microwave emitter in each bend portion as the rf power applicators of Blue are used as a means of heating fluids within the pipes, which reduce viscosity of the fluid being processed and benefits the mobility of the fluid within the pipes (Blue [0003]).
Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue disclose the claimed invention except for a first end of the first bend portion being removably attached to an upstream tube and a second end of the second bend portion being removably attached to a downstream tube. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have an end of the first bend portion and an of the second bend portion be removably attached to respective upstream and downstream tubes, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 1.
Regarding claim 2, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Cherry teaches wherein the support structure (17) includes first and second support portions (Fig. 1 outer tube 17 shown as a plurality of tubes), the first and second support portions each having a distal end and a proximal end (Fig. 1 outer tube 17 having a distal and proximal end); each distal end having an opening through which a bend portion is slidably insertable in a direction toward the proximal end; and each proximal end containing the first and second ends of the respective bend portion (Fig. 1 and 4 outer tube 17 shown to receive ends of return bend 20, shown in Fig. 1 to receive a return bend 20 at either a distal or proximal end).
Regarding claim 4, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 2, and Cherry teaches wherein each distal end comprises a push mechanism (27 and 25, threaded by screw 28) that exerts a pushing force against the respective bend portion in the direction of the proximal end (27, 25 attached to outer tube 17 horizontally, the pushing force extered would be in the direction of the other end, or proximal end, of outer tube 17).
Cherry is silent on hereby retaining the bend portions against one another as Cherry teaches the return bend 20 being retained against a straight tube section 16. However, Kochendoerfer teaches having two bent sections, Kochendoerfer’s pipeline segments 112 and 114. Therefore. it would have been obvious to modify the one bent portion and one straight portion of Cherry being pushed together, with the two bent portions of Kochendoerfer because Kochendoerfer teaches that it is desirable for two bent portions to be placed adjacent and in fluid communication with one another (Kochendoerfer [0020]).
Regarding claim 5, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 4, and Cherry teaches wherein the push mechanism comprises a first flange (27) attached to the distal end; and a jacking bracket comprising a second flange (25, having the shape of a bracket), the second flange being removably attached to the first flange (Fig. 4 threadably engaged by bolts 28 to flange 27).
Regarding claim 6, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Cherry teaches wherein at least a portion of the support structure (17) is contained within an insulated enclosure (30, between outer tubes 17).
Regarding claim 9, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 1, but Cherry and Blue are silent on wherein the upstream tubular component and/or the downstream tubular component comprises further bend portions.
Kochendoerfer teaches wherein the upstream tubular component and/or the downstream tubular component comprises further bend portions. ([0019] four pipeline segments connected).
It would have been obvious to have modified Cherry and Blue to incorporate the teachings of Kochendoerfer to have a first and second bend portion be connected together in fluid connection with third and fourth bend portions so that heating of fluid within the pipes may be heated by separate sources in each bend in a way that no electrical conduction occurs between subsequent pipelines in whatever combination of pipes that are desired for an intended use purpose (Kochendoerfer [0020]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US3930536), Kochendoerfer (US20210179948), and Blue (US20140014316) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petela (US20170137722).
Regarding claim 3, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 2, but are silent on wherein the proximal end includes first and second tubular passages; the first end of a respective bend portion being provided coaxially within the first tubular passage; and the second end of the respective bend portion being provided coaxially within the second tubular passage.
Petela wherein the proximal end (stringer 8) includes first and second tubular passages (one or more bottom guides 3, Fig. 1 shown to be a tubular); the first end of a respective bend portion (one of a plurality of "U" bends 2) being provided coaxially within the first tubular passage (Fig. 1 one of "U" bends 2 being coaxially connected to one of guides or supports 3); and the second end of a respective bend portion being provided coaxially within the second tubular passage (Fig. 1 one of "U" bends 2 being coaxially connected to one of guides or supports 3).
Cherry, Kochendoerfer, Blue, and Petela are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid heating. It would have been obvious to have modified Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue to incorporate the teachings of Petela to have a support with one end supporting a first and second of a bend portion in order to be able to support the heating tubes and respective heating elements in such a way that reduces thermal bending and flexing (Petela [0084]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry (US3930536), Kochendoerfer (US20210179948), and Blue (US20140014316) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (US20180265792).
Regarding claim 7, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue teach the apparatus of claim 6, but are silent on wherein the insulated enclosure comprises at least one heat source for heating the portion of the support system.
Choi teaches wherein the insulated enclosure comprises at least one heat source (314) for heating the portion of the support system (190).
Cherry, Kochendoerfer, Blue, and Choi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fluid heating. It would have been obvious to have modified Cherry, Kochendoerfer, and Blue to incorporate the teachings of Choi to have a heat source for heating a portion of the support system in order to be able to increase the temperature of the fluids within the device to a desired critical temperature for further use (Choi [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, Cherry, Kochendoerfer, Blue, and Choi teach the apparatus of claim 7, and Cherry, Kochendoerfer, Blue, and Choi teach the apparatus of claim 8, as set forth in the modification regarding claim 7 above, and Choi further teaches wherein the at least one heat source is a methane burner (314, producing methane by product).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's arguments that Cherry cannot be modified to incorporate microwave emitters, applicant argues that the heat exchanger would not have any provision for an external heat source to be provided for additional heat transferring, however, Cherry contemplates additional heat surfaces within the return bend, as in Col. 2 lines 50-60, which would have been obvious to modify with either Blue to have a microwave emitter for the purpose of heating the fluids within pipes (Blue [0003]). The addition of an external heating device would not render Cherry inoperable or unobvious as Cherry contemplates at least a surface to aid heat transfer, which may be also effected by an external heating device.
Regarding applicant's argument that Kochendoerfer cannot be modified to incorporate removable bends, applicant argues that Kochendoerfer is directed to a pipe system that is a contiguous fluid conduit, so in coporating any removable sections would introduce a degree of non-contiguity in the pipeline system. However, Kochendoerfer is not relied upon to teach a "removable bend" rather is used to modify Cherry, which teaches a removable section, with the end connections of bent sections of Kochendoerfer. It would have therefore been obvious to have modified Cherry, which teachings removable bends, with the connection of a second end of the first bend to the first of the second bend portion to heat the fluid with separate sources to avoid electrical conduction (Kochendoerfer [0020]).
Regarding applicant's argument that Blue fails to teach microwave transmitters on removable bends, Blue is used to modify the removable bends of Cherry and Kochendoerfer to have microwave transmitters rather than to teach the removable bends themselves.
Additionally applicant argues that Blue is adapted to RF, radio frequency, and not microwave radiation, however with broadest reasonable interpretation, RF is known to incorporate microwave frequencies, which would be understood to be emitted by microwave frequencies, and given that no specific frequencies are required in the claims Blue would be understood to teach the limitation.
Regarding applicant's argument that claims 3, 7, and 8 are allowable based on dependence on claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 stands and given that there are no further arguments, the rejection of claims 3, 7, and 8 stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Dana Ross can be reached on 5712724480. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/15/2024
/DANA ROSS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761