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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 recites that the high fins are plate fins; however, claim 1 requires them to be radial fins. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostow et al. (US PG Pub 20170336136), hereinafter referred to as Brostow and further in view of Yuan (CN206959656), hereinafter referred as Yuan and further in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub 20120103583), hereinafter referred to as Kim and further in view of Steinbauer et al. (US PG Pub 20170051985), hereinafter referred to as Steinbauer and Hickock (US Patent No. 6904779), hereinafter referred to as Hickock.
With respect to claim 1, Brostow teaches a method comprising: providing a heat exchanger system (Figure 2) comprising:
a shell having at least one first inlet and at least one first outlet defining a flow path for a first process fluid (heat exchanger 242, which receives vapor 224 and passes out partially condensed stream 225, paragraph 133),
and at least one second inlet and at least one second outlet defining a flow path for a second process fluid (refrigerant enters via 216 and is removed at 219),
using the heat exchange system for heating, cooling or condensing the first process fluid, wherein the first process fluid is a gaseous multiple component process stream comprising at least one hydrocarbon (refrigerant 224 is partially condensed in the heat exchanger, paragraph 108, and contains ethane, methane, propane and nitrogen, paragraph 133).
Brostow does not teach a number of parallel tubes arranged in the shell between the at least one first inlet and at least one first outlet, each tube having an outer surface provided with a multitude of fins extending radially from the outer surface, with the first flow path extending along the outer surface of the tubes and the second flow path extending between the tubes.
Yuan teaches a shell and tube heat exchanger (Figure 1) has a number of parallel tubes where a refrigerant passes through (liquid nitrogen passes through the tubes 4, paragraph 18) and the fluid being cooled passes across the tubes where the tubes are provided with fins to improve the efficiency of the heat exchange (paragraph 18) in order to liquefy the fluid (paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Brostow a shell and tube heat exchanger with the refrigerant being cooled (from line 224) passing through the shell of the heat exchanger over a number of parallel tubes containing the refrigerant being used for cooling (from 216) with fins on the outside of the tubes since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger in this configuration would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of high efficiency heat exchange through the use of multiple tubes with fins on them for the condensing refrigerant to be cooled against.
Brostow as modified does not explicitly teach the fins are high fins, understood in view of the instant specification to mean the fins have a dimensional range of 25 to 150% larger diameter than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm.
Kim teaches that performance characteristics for a heat exchanger can be varied according to the size of the heat transfer area that is in part defined by the height of the fins and further, that the ratio between the heat transfer area, which is in part defined by the height of the fins, and the heat transfer area inside the tubes can be optimized in order to achieve the optimum overall performance characteristics (paragraphs 75-77).
As such it can be clearly seen that the height of the fins and the relationship between the fin height and the tube dimension is a result effective variable that needs to be optimized to “achieve the optimum overall performance characteristics” of the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Brostow as modified to have when using fins to have had the fins be high fins, with either a diameter 25 to 150% larger than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Brostow by making the fins high fins with either a diameter 25 to 150% larger than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Brostow as modified does not teach wherein each high fin of the multitude of high fins circumferentially surrounds the tube and is laterally spaced apart from an adjacent high fin along the tube.
Hickock teaches a method of manufacturing a heat exchanger tube with parallel fins (title) where fins can be formed as “radial fins which are a sequence of closely spaced, parallel fins where each fin is a complete, uninterrupted circular portion extending in a radial plane along the axis of a tubular member” which have a reduces pressure drop compared to a heat exchanger of the same size and capacity wherein the fins are spiraled (Column 1, line 61 – Column 2, line 4, see Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when providing fins on the heat exchanger tubes of Brostow as modified for the fins to have been radial fins as taught by Hickock since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using radial fins is common knowledge in the art (as taught by Hickock) of the predictable result of providing fins for increasing heat transfer which are known to have lower pressure drop than other fin types.
Brostow does not teach wherein the heat exchanger system is a cross-flow heat exchanger system, wherein the first flow path extends between each high fin of the multitude of high fins and the first flow path being generally perpendicular to the second flow path.
Steinbauer teaches that for heat exchanger between two fluid mediums in a liquefaction system that the heat exchangers can either be in counter-flow or cross-flow (paragraph 21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Brostow as a cross-flow heat exchanger based on the teaching of Steinbauer since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that cross flow heat exchangers have high heat exchange efficiency while minimizing pressure drop through the heat exchanger. As the heat exchanger is a cross-flow heat exchanger, the flow between the two flows would be perpendicular1 as that is the defining quality of a cross-flow heat exchanger and as the flows are in a perpendicular configuration, the flow would be across the tubes in a way that it would pass through each of the radial fins as modified.
With respect to claim 4, Brostow as modified does not explicitly teach the multiple component process stream comprising two or more components selected from the group of methane, ethane, propane and nitrogen (the fluid stream in 224 contains all of these components, paragraph 133).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Brostow teaches the multiple component process stream being a mixed refrigerant comprising two or more components, at least one of the components being a hydrocarbon 224 is a mixed refrigerant which is nitrogen, methane, propane and butane, paragraph 133), wherein the step of using the heat exchanger system for heating, cooling or condensing comprises using the heat exchanger system for cooling and condensing, the mixed refrigerant in a process for liquefaction of natural gas (refrigerant 224 is partially condensed to form 225, paragraph 106 and then used as a refrigerant to liquefy a natural gas stream 202 to 204, paragraphs 131-133).
With respect to claim 17, Brostow as modified teaches wherein each parallel tube in the number of parallel tubes has a diameter (as it is a tube it has a diameter) and wherein the high fins comprise a diameter greater than the diameter of the diameter of the parallel tubes by about 25% to 150% (as modified by Kim in claim 9, it has been shown to be obvious for the fins to have this configuration).
With respect to claim 18, Brostow as modified teaches wherein each find of the multitude of high fins has a height of 5 to 40 mm with respect to the outer surface of the parallel tubes (as modified by Kim in claim 9, it has been shown to be obvious for the fins to have this configuration).
Claim 19 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim(s) 2, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostow/Yuan/Kim/Steinbauer/Hickock and further in view of Hackemesser (US Patent No. 5653282), hereinafter referred to as Hackemesser.
With respect to claim 2, Brostow as modified does not teach the heat exchanger system comprising a distributor plate arranged in the shell between the at least one inlet and the number of parallel tubes.
Hackemesser (Figure 1) teaches that inside the overall shell (12) between the inlet (where fluid 24 enters) and the tubes (20) a distributor plate (52) is provided as part of a distribution channel to evenly distribute the shell side fluid (Column 5, lines 42-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Hackemesser to have between the first inlet and the tubes to have a distributor plate in Brostow so as to provide an even distribution of the first process fluid over the tubes to provide even heat transfer distribution over the tubes.
With respect to claim 21, Brostow as modified does not teach comprising distributing the flow of the first process fluid entering the shell through the at least one first inlet, wherein the heat exchanger comprises a distributer plate between the at least one first inlet and a first tube of the number of parallel tubes for distributing the flow.
Hackemesser (Figure 1) teaches that inside the overall shell (12) between the inlet (where fluid 24 enters) and the tubes (20) a distributor plate (52) is provided as part of a distribution channel to evenly distribute the shell side fluid (Column 5, lines 42-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Hackemesser to have between the first inlet and the tubes to have a distributor plate such that the flow of the firs process flow is distributed when it enters into the heat exchanger in Brostow so as to provide an even distribution of the first process fluid over the tubes to provide even heat transfer distribution over the tubes.
In a different interpretation of claim 1 with respect to claims 7 and 8.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahari et al. (US PG Pub 20180017320) and further in view of Yuan, Kim, and Steinbauer and Hickock.
With respect to claim 1, Bahari teaches a method comprising: providing a heat exchanger system (Figure 1) comprising:
a shell having at least one first inlet and at least one first outlet defining a flow path for a first process fluid (heat exchanger 3, which receives natural gas at 7 and liquefies natural gas to form 4, paragraph 59, which although 3 is not referred to as having a shell, based on the configuration shown and the tub 29 being referred to, overall 3 would have a shell),
and at least one second inlet and at least one second outlet defining a flow path for a second process fluid (refrigerant enters via 5 and leaves via 6, paragraph 60),
using the heat exchange system for heating, cooling or condensing the first process fluid, wherein the first process fluid is a gaseous multiple component process stream comprising at least one hydrocarbon (natural gas is condensed in the heat exchanger, paragraph 59).
Bahari does not teach a number of parallel tubes arranged in the shell between the at least one first inlet and at least one first outlet, each tube having an outer surface provided with a multitude of fins extending radially from the outer surface, with the first flow path extending along the outer surface of the tubes and the second flow path extending between the tubes.
Yuan teaches a shell and tube heat exchanger (Figure 1) has a number of parallel tubes where a refrigerant passes through (liquid nitrogen passes through the tubes 4, paragraph 18) and the fluid being cooled passes across the tubs where the tubes are provided with fins to improve the efficiency of the heat exchange (paragraph 18) in order to liquefy the fluid (paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Bahari a shell and tube heat exchanger with the refrigerant being cooled (from line 7) passing through the shell of the heat exchanger over a number of parallel tubes containing the refrigerant being used for cooling (from 5) with fins on the outside of the tubes since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger in this configuration would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of high efficiency heat exchange through the use of multiple tubes with fins on them for the condensing refrigerant to be cooled against.
Bahari as modified does not explicitly teach the fins are high fins, understood in view of the instant specification to mean the fins have a dimensional range of 25 to 150% larger diameter than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm.
Kim teaches that performance characteristics for a heat exchanger can be varied according to the size of the heat transfer area that is in part defined by the height of the fins and further, that the ratio between the heat transfer area, which is in part defined by the height of the fins, and the heat transfer area inside the tubes can be optimized in order to achieve the optimum overall performance characteristics (paragraphs 75-77).
As such it can be clearly seen that the height of the fins and the relationship between the fin height and the tube dimension is a result effective variable that needs to be optimized to “achieve the optimum overall performance characteristics” of the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Bahari as modified to have when using fins to have had the fins be high fins, with either a diameter 25 to 150% larger than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Bahari by making the fins high fins with either a diameter 25 to 150% larger than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Bahari as modified does not teach wherein each high fin of the multitude of high fins circumferentially surrounds the tube and is laterally spaced apart from an adjacent high fin along the tube.
Hickock teaches a method of manufacturing a heat exchanger tube with parallel fins (title) where fins can be formed as “radial fins which are a sequence of closely spaced, parallel fins where each fin is a complete, uninterrupted circular portion extending in a radial plane along the axis of a tubular member” which have a reduces pressure drop compared to a heat exchanger of the same size and capacity wherein the fins are spiraled (Column 1, line 61 – Column 2, line 4, see Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when providing fins on the heat exchanger tubes of Bahari as modified for the fins to have been radial fins as taught by Hickock since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using radial fins is common knowledge in the art (as taught by Hickock) of the predictable result of providing fins for increasing heat transfer which are known to have lower pressure drop than other fin types.
Bahari does not teach wherein the heat exchanger system is a cross-flow heat exchanger system, wherein the first flow path extends between each high fin of the multitude of high fins and the first flow path being generally perpendicular to the second flow path.
Steinbauer teaches that for heat exchanger between two fluid mediums in a liquefaction system that the heat exchangers can either be in counter-flow or cross-flow (paragraph 21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Bahari as a cross-flow heat exchanger based on the teaching of Steinbauer since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that cross flow heat exchangers have high heat exchange efficiency while minimizing pressure drop through the heat exchanger. As the heat exchanger is a cross-flow heat exchanger, the flow between the two flows would be perpendicular2 as that is the defining quality of a cross-flow heat exchanger and as the flows are in a perpendicular configuration, the flow would be across the tubes in a way that it would pass through each of the radial fins as modified.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakari/Yuan/Kim/Steinbauer/Hickock and further in view of Roberts et al. (US PG Pub 20100281915), hereinafter referred to as Roberts.
With respect to claim 7, Bakari as modified teaches wherein the step of using the heat exchange system for heating, cooling or condensing comprises using the heat exchanger system for condensing the gaseous multiple component process stream (natural gas is liquefied in the heat exchanger system).
Bakari as modified does not explicitly teach the gaseous multiple component process stream is condensed from a fully gaseous state at the first inlet to a fully liquid state at the first outlet.
Roberts teaches that a liquefaction heat exchanger (115) can take a vapor stream and fully condense and subcool the vapor stream to form an LNG product stream (paragraph 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teachings of Roberts to have when liquefying the natural gas stream of Bakari as modified to have the inlet stream be a vapor stream (fully gaseous) and the liquefied stream to be fully condensed and subcooled since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that providing the stream as a vapor and fully condensing the stream would provide the predictable result of being able to use a single heat exchanger for most of the cooling while ensuring that the liquefied stream is fully liquefied such that even if the pressure is lowered after liquefaction, minimal flash gas is formed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakari/Yuan/Kim/Steinbauer/Hickock and further in view of Minta et al. (US PG Pub 20100186445), hereinafter referred to as Minta.
With respect to claim 8, Bakari as modified does not teach wherein the step of using the heat exchange system for heating, cooling or condensing comprises using the heat exchanger system comprises using the heat exchanger for heating the natural gas.
Minta teaches that a natural gas stream (flash vapor stream 16) can be passed through the same heat exchangers used for liquefaction (50) where it is heated (paragraph 25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Minta to have in Bakari passed a flash vapor stream from the liquefied natural gas back through a passageway provided in the heat exchanger since to provide cooling through the heating of the flash vapor stream since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby heating the flash vapor stream of natural gas in the heat exchanger would provide the predictable result of recovering heat energy from the stream and reducing the amount of refrigeration required from refrigeration loop.
Claim(s) 9, 11-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostow and further in view of Yuan, Kim and Steinbauer.
With respect to claim 9, Brostow as modified teaches a heat exchanger system for heating, cooling or condensing a gaseous multiple component process stream comprising at least one hydrocarbon (heat exchanger cools a stream that contains ethane, methane, propane and nitrogen, paragraph 133)., the heat exchanger system comprising:
a shell having at least one first inlet and at least one first outlet defining a flow path for a first process fluid (heat exchanger 242, which receives vapor 224 and passes out partially condensed stream 225, paragraph 133),
and at least one second inlet and at least one second outlet defining a flow path for a second process fluid (refrigerant enters via 216 and is removed at 219).
Brostow does not teach a number of parallel tubes arranged in the shell between the at least one first inlet and at least one first outlet, each tube having an outer surface provided with a multitude of fins extending radially from the outer surface, with the first flow path extending along the outer surface of the tubes and the second flow path extending between the tubes.
Yuan teaches a shell and tube heat exchanger (Figure 1) has a number of parallel tubes where a refrigerant passes through (liquid nitrogen passes through the tubes 4, paragraph 18) and the fluid being cooled passes across the tubs where the tubes are provided with fins to improve the efficiency of the heat exchange (paragraph 18) in order to liquefy the fluid (paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Brostow a shell and tube heat exchanger with the refrigerant being cooled (from line 224) passing through the shell of the heat exchanger over a number of parallel tubes containing the refrigerant being used for cooling (from 216) with fins on the outside of the tubes since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the heat exchanger in this configuration would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of high efficiency heat exchange through the use of multiple tubes with fins on them for the condensing refrigerant to be cooled against.
Brostow as modified does not explicitly teach the fins are high fins, understood in view of the instant specification to mean the fins have a dimensional range of 25 to 150% larger diameter than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm.
Kim teaches that performance characteristics for a heat exchanger can be varied according to the size of the heat transfer area that is in part defined by the height of the fins and further, that the ratio between the heat transfer area, which is in part defined by the height of the fins, and the heat transfer area inside the tubes can be optimized in order to achieve the optimum overall performance characteristics (paragraphs 75-77).
As such it can be clearly seen that the height of the fins and the relationship between the fin height and the tube dimension is a result effective variable that needs to be optimized to “achieve the optimum overall performance characteristics” of the heat exchanger. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Brostow as modified to have when using fins to have had the fins be high fins, with either a diameter 25 to 150% larger than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Brostow by making the fins high fins with either a diameter 25 to 150% larger than the tubes or a height of 5 to 40 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Brostow does not teach wherein the first flow path extending along the outer surface of the tubes and between each high fins, and the second flow path extending through the tubes, wherein the first flow path is perpendicular to the second flow path.
Steinbauer teaches that for heat exchanger between two fluid mediums in a liquefaction system that the heat exchangers can either be in counter-flow or cross-flow (paragraph 21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the heat exchanger of Brostow as a cross-flow heat exchanger based on the teaching of Steinbauer since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that cross flow heat exchangers have high heat exchange efficiency while minimizing pressure drop through the heat exchanger. As the heat exchanger is a cross-flow heat exchanger, the flow between the two flows would be perpendicular3 as that is the defining quality of a cross-flow heat exchanger and as the flows are in a perpendicular configuration, the flow would be across the tubes in a way that it would pass through each of the fins.
With respect to claim 11, Brostow as modified teaches wherein the multiple component process stream being a mixed refrigerant comprising two or more components, at least one of the components being a hydrocarbon (the stream 224 contains ethane, methane, propane and nitrogen, paragraph 133).
With respect to claim 12, Brostow as modified teaches wherein the multiple component process stream comprising two or more components selected from the group of methane, ethane, propane, and nitrogen (refrigerant stream 224 contains ethane, methane, propane and nitrogen, paragraph 133).
With respect to claim 13, Bristow as modified teaches wherein the parallel tubes has a diameter (as it is a tube it has a diameter) and wherein the high fins comprise a diameter greater than the diameter of the diameter of the parallel tubes by about 25% to 150% (as modified by Kim in claim 9, it has been shown to be obvious for the fins to have this configuration).
With respect to claim 14, Brostow as modified teaches wherein each high find of the multitude of high fins has a height of 5 to 40 mm with respect to the outer surface of the parallel tubes (as modified by Kim in claim 9, it has been shown to be obvious for the fins to have this configuration).
With respect to claim 16, Brostow as modified teaches wherein the heat exchanger system is a cross-flow heat exchanger system with the first flow path being generally perpendicular to the second flow path (as modified this is the configuration, with the first and second flow path being in cross flow).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostow/Yuan/Kim/Steinbauer and further in view of Hackemesser (US Patent No. 5653282), hereinafter referred to as Hackemesser.
Hackemesser (Figure 1) teaches that inside the overall shell (12) between the inlet (where fluid 24 enters) and the tubes (20) a distributor plate (52) is provided as part of a distribution channel to evenly distribute the shell side fluid (Column 5, lines 42-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Hackemesser to have between the first inlet and the tubes to have a distributor plate in Brostow so as to provide an even distribution of the first process fluid over the tubes to provide even heat transfer distribution over the tubes.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brostow/Yuan/Kim/Steinbauer and further in view of Kurihara et al. (US PG Pub 20050061492), hereinafter referred to as Kurihara.
With respect to claim 15, Brostow does not explicitly teach wherein the multitude of 1high fins are plate fins.
Kurihara teaches that for providing fins on tubes that plate fins are used (paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Kurihara to have provided plate fins as the high fins of Brostow as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the fins as plate fins would provide the predictable result that is common knowledge in the art of a suitable type of fin known to be useable with a tube to increase the heat exchanger area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 filed 12/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hickock. Applicant’s amendments overcame the previous prior art rejection as the Brostow as amended did not include “each high find of the multitude of high fins circumferentially surrounds the tube and is laterally spaced apart from an adjacent high fin along the tube” as applicant argues; however, such teaching can be readily seen to be obvious by Hickock as shown in the rejection above. Yuan is only relied on in the rejection above for the presence of a shell and tube heat exchanger that has fins, it is Hickock who is provided to show the specific type of fins that are claimed are obvious. The presence of lack of presence of an outer tube in Yuan does not change the obviousness of the teaching of Hickock to have the specific fins configuration as modified. Further, the “outer tube” as discussed by Yuan is referred to as being present “in a preferred embodiment” which one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would recognize that such language is not specifically requiring it to be present although preferred.
It should be noted that applicant makes no specific argument as to claim 9 and no amendments were made to claim 9; however, if similar amendments were made to claim 1 as to claim 9 the same rejection would be applied as has been to claim 1 in further view of Hickock.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 Noureldin (US PG Pub 20190048757) teaches that in cross-flow fluid path runs perpendicular (paragraph 94) and Shigemori et al. (US PG Pub 20160282066) provides the same teaching (paragraph 37).
2 Noureldin (US PG Pub 20190048757) teaches that in cross-flow fluid path runs perpendicular (paragraph 94) and Shigemori et al. (US PG Pub 20160282066) provides the same teaching (paragraph 37).
3 Noureldin (US PG Pub 20190048757) teaches that in cross-flow fluid path runs perpendicular (paragraph 94) and Shigemori et al. (US PG Pub 20160282066) provides the same teaching (paragraph 37).
Prosecution Insights