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 § 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, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler (US-2723108-A) in view of Zakharov (RU-2313736-C2).
Regarding claim 1, Butler teaches a high-temperature fluid transporting pipeline (FIG. 1, line 12, which carries high temperature molten anhydrous caustic soda), wherein at least a part of a casing of the transporting pipeline is formed by a heat exchange apparatus (FIG. 1, heating unit 24), that the heat exchange apparatus comprises a heat exchange base plate (FIG. 1, tube 17) in contact with the high-temperature fluid and a thermal isolation layer (FIG. 1, jacket 16) in contact with an external environment, the thermal isolation layer being connected to the heat exchange base plate by two end faces (FIG. 1, flanged connections 15) and two weight-bearing plates (FIG. 1, flanges 19), a heat-receiving fluid coil being installed in the heat exchange cavity (FIG. 1, the coil of heating unit 24).
Butler fails to teach that the heat exchange base plate, thermal isolation layer, end faces and weight-bearing plates enclose a hermetic heat exchange cavity.
However, Zakharov teaches that the heat exchange base plate, thermal isolation layer, end faces and weight-bearing plates enclose a hermetic heat exchange cavity (claim 1, the heat exchanger is hermetically sealed).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Butler by hermetically sealing the assembly, as taught by Zakharov, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Butler with these aforementioned teachings of Zakharov with the motivation of preventing the exterior surfaces from reaching extreme temperatures.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Butler and Zakharov teaches that a heat-receiving fluid inlet and a heat-receiving fluid outlet (FIG. 1, ends 26 and 26’) are provided on an outer wall of the thermal isolation layer, the heat-receiving fluid inlet being sequentially in communication with a heat-receiving fluid inlet distributor (FIG. 1, the first corner inside the chamber that causes the fluid to turn) located inside the heat exchange cavity and an inlet of the heat-receiving fluid coil, and the heat- receiving fluid outlet being sequentially in communication with a heat-receiving fluid outlet distributor located inside the heat exchange cavity and an outlet of the heat-receiving fluid coil FIG. 1, the last corner inside the chamber that causes the fluid to turn back into one of the ends 26).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Butler and Zakharov teaches that the outer wall of the thermal isolation layer is provided with an auxiliary fluid inlet and an auxiliary fluid outlet (FIG. 1, ports 18), each being in communication with the heat exchange cavity.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler and Zakharov as applied to claims 1, 3, and 4 above, and further in view of Knechtel (DE-19532152-A1) and Pierce et al. (US 3367075 A; hereinafter Pierce).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Butler and Zakharov teaches that the heat exchange base plate is an arch (FIG. 1, the top of jacket 16 is an arch), the transporting pipeline is arranged horizontally (FIG. 1, the pipe is arranged horizontally), the casing of the transporting pipeline comprises the heat exchange apparatus at an upper half (FIG. 1, the heating unit 24 covers at least the top half), the weight-bearing plates of the heat exchange apparatus are pressed tightly against the [outer layer] under the action of gravity (FIG. 1, the jacket 16 and the flanges 21 are tightly sealed together, and are all under the influence of gravity).
Kogure fails to teach that the casing of the transporting pipeline comprises a refractory layer at a lower half; and a sealing refractory material is used for sealing between the weight-bearing plates and the refractory layer.
However, Knechtel teaches that the casing of the transporting pipeline comprises a refractory layer at a lower half (FIG. 5, the exterior of the combustion chamber 32 is insulated with a refractory material 38).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Butler by sealing the assembly with a refractory layer, as taught by Knechtel, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Butler with these aforementioned teachings of Knechtel with the motivation of preventing the exterior environment from affecting the temperature of the heating unit 24 of Butler).
Knechtel fails to teach a sealing refractory material is used for sealing between the weight-bearing plates and the refractory layer.
However, Pierce teaches that a sealing refractory material is used for sealing between the weight-bearing plates and the refractory layer (glass fiber is applied as an insulative and connective material).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Butler by sealing the assembly with glass fiber, as taught by Pierce, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kogure with these aforementioned teachings of Pierce with the motivation of further insulating the assembly.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Butler, Zakharov, Knechtel and Pierce teaches that the sealing refractory material comprises one of ceramic fiber, glass fiber (Pierce, glass fiber is employed) and refractory mortar, or a combination of more than one thereof.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler and Zakharov as applied to claims 1, 3, and 4 above, and further in view of Giannoni et al. (US 20170102164 A1; hereinafter Giannoni) and Pierce.
Regarding claim 7, Butler and Zakharov fails to teach that a number of heat exchange apparatuses are arranged in the axial direction of the transporting pipeline, with the end faces of the heat exchange apparatuses being tightly arranged against each other, and a sealing refractory material being used for sealing between the end faces.
However, Giannoni teaches that a number of heat exchange apparatuses are arranged in the axial direction of the transporting pipeline (FIG. 3, the group of arced coils 13), with the end faces of the heat exchange apparatuses being tightly arranged against each other (Fig. 4, the faces of the coils 13 are pressed up against each other).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Butler by employing a series of coils for heat exchange, as taught by Giannoni, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Butler with these aforementioned teachings of Giannoni with the motivation of employing easily replaceable coils instead of more difficult to manufacture structures.
Giannoni fails to teach a sealing refractory material being used for sealing between the end faces.
However, Pierce teaches a sealing refractory material being used for sealing between the end faces (glass fiber is applied as an insulative and connective material).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Kogure by sealing the assembly with glass fiber, as taught by Pierce, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kogure with these aforementioned teachings of Pierce with the motivation of further insulating the assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, on page 6 of the remarks the Applicant asserts that the flanges 19 and 21 of Butler are not “weight-bearing plates” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the Examiner notes that, employing broadest reasonable interpretation, a weight-bearing plate is any plate member that bears any weight, which is true of the flanges 19 and 21, which are continuous with the structure of the assembly shown in FIG. 1 of Butler and therefore support some weight.
On pages 6 and 7 of the remarks the Applicant asserts that the jacket 16 of Butler is not a thermal isolation layer because heat transfer occurs between tube 17 and pipe 12. The Examiner notes that the jacket 16 separates the tube 17 from an external environment, and that any thermal insulation the jacket 16 provides has little bearing on the heat transfer occurring at the assembly’s core.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights