DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 30 were amended in the reply filed April 14, 2026. Claims 18 and 26 remain withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species. Claims 16, 17, 19-25 and 27-30 are examined on the merits herein and stand rejected.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71 because of the following informalities, which are noted because they affect passages relied upon for written description support of the claims under examination:
- Paragraph 0141 states that the openings of a longitudinal channel all emerge at "its downstream portion 323" and that the mixing device is devoid of an opening emerging at "its upstream portion 324." These recitations are internally inconsistent with paragraph 0117, which defines element 323 as the upstream portion and element 324 as the downstream portion, and with the remainder of paragraph 0141 itself, which describes the phases as being mixed upstream of the downstream portion 324. The reference numerals appear to be transposed. This paragraph is the written description support for claims 20 and 22, and correction is required so that the support is unambiguous.
- Paragraphs 0127, 0128 and 0130 recite the symbol "Dm" where the maximum width "DM" appears to be intended. Paragraph 0127 recites that the downstream portion has "a minimum width Dm and a maximum width Dm," and paragraph 0130 recites that "the maximum width Dm is measured at the second outlet 322." Correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is reminded that no new matter may be added.
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.
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 source of a first phase" and "a source of a second phase" in claim 27, which is understood to be a separator (see para. 0094 of the publication).
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.
Applicant amended claim 27 to correct the spelling of "phase" but did not amend the limitations to recite sufficient structure, nor did Applicant present a showing that the limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is therefore maintained.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 19-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16, L 6 calls for the use of the word “each” which is confusing as it is unclear which particular one of the previously cited structures recited above, applicant is referring to i.e., at least one passage or at least one lateral channel or a series of longitudinal channels.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said lateral channel" in the clause directed to the at least one opening. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis, the claim having previously recited "at least one lateral channel." The limitation should read --said at least one lateral channel--. Applicant did not amend this limitation, and the rejection is therefore maintained. Appropriate correction is required throughout the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at least one longitudinal channel" in the clause directed to the at least one opening, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously recited limitation "a series of longitudinal channels." Applicant’s amendment changing "said longitudinal channel" to "said at least one longitudinal channel" in the same clause and in the following "wherein" clause provides internal antecedent basis for the later references but does not resolve the ambiguity as to whether "at least one longitudinal channel" is one of the previously recited series of longitudinal channels or an additional, distinct channel. For examination purposes, the examiner reads the limitation as --at least one of the series of longitudinal channels--.
Claim 16 recites, in the final clause, "said downstream portion having, at any point of said downstream portion’s length, a width that is greater than the width of the upstream portion." This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the upstream portion is not required to have a single, constant width. The specification expressly contemplates that "the upstream portion 323 has a variable width D3 over all or some of its length, with Dy being greater than the maximum value that can be reached by D3" (para. 0144). It is therefore unclear whether the recited comparison is to be made against a maximum width, a minimum width, or the locally opposed width of the upstream portion, and the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. It is suggested that the limitation read --a width that is greater than a maximum width of the upstream portion-- (see para. 0144).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the external profile," which lacks proper antecedent basis. Neither claim 16 nor claim 19 previously recites an external profile of the downstream portion. Applicant amended the surrounding limitations "the tangent," "the point of intersection" and "the axis of symmetry" but did not amend "the external profile." The rejection is therefore maintained. It is suggested that the limitation read --an external profile of the downstream portion--.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "a longitudinal channel," which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously recited limitations "a series of longitudinal channels" and "at least one longitudinal channel" of claim 16. For examination purposes, the examiner reads the limitation as --at least one of the series of longitudinal channels--.
Claim 28 recites the limitations "the longitudinal channel" and "the opening" in step iii), which lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 16, from which claim 28 depends, recites "a series of longitudinal channels," "at least one longitudinal channel" and "at least one opening." It is further unclear whether "the longitudinal channel" of step iii) refers to the same channel as "each longitudinal channel" recited in step ii). For examination purposes, the examiner reads these limitations as --said at least one longitudinal channel-- and --said at least one opening--, respectively.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "a heat exchanger" in section a), which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously recited limitation "a heat exchanger" in claim 16, from which claim 30 depends by way of claim 28. Applicant did not amend section a), and the rejection is therefore maintained. The limitation should read --the heat exchanger--.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the second fluid" in the preamble, which lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 30 depends from claim 28, which depends from claim 16, and neither claim 28 nor claim 16 recites a second fluid; claim 16 recites only "a first fluid." For examination purposes, the examiner reads the limitation as --a second fluid--.
Claims 21, 22, 25 and 29 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth below are made in view of the above indefiniteness, and the claims are treated as best understood by the examiner. See MPEP 2173.06.
Interpretation of the claimed directions
Claim 16 recites a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction orthogonal thereto, at least one lateral channel, and a series of longitudinal channels extending in the longitudinal direction and succeeding each other in the lateral direction. Claim 16 does not recite the orientation of either direction relative to the direction of flow through the passage of the heat exchanger. The claimed directions are therefore defined only by their relationship to one another and to the channels of the mixing device, and not by any absolute orientation within the heat exchanger.
Note regarding Haik-Beraud for the 103 rejection below
It is noted that Haik-Beraud designates as the "longitudinal" direction (z) the direction in which its first channels (31) extend, and describes the passages (10, 20) of the exchanger as extending in the direction (y) (see p. 6, ll. 30-32; p. 7, ll. 30-33; p. 17, ll. 20-27). This labeling convention is the inverse of that used in the present claims. Haik-Beraud further expressly teaches that the orientations of its two sets of channels may be interchanged, that is, that the first channel (31) may instead extend in the direction (y) and the lateral channel (32) in the direction (z) (p. 17, ll. 20-27). Two grounds of rejection are set forth below, corresponding to the two orientations that Haik-Beraud expressly contemplates.
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 16, 17, 19-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haik-Beraud et al. (WO 2018/172644 A1, hereinafter "Haik-Beraud") in view of Voggenreiter et al. (US 4,646,822, hereinafter "Voggenreiter").
In regard to claim 16, Haik-Beraud teaches a mixing device (3) for distributing a mixture of a first phase (61) and a second phase (62) of a first fluid (F1) in a longitudinal direction in at least one passage (10) of a heat exchanger (1) (p. 9, ll. 1-12; p. 10, ll. 8-12; figs. 1, 2), said mixing device (3) comprising:
- at least one lateral channel (31/31a/31b/31c) configured for the first phase (61) to flow from at least one first inlet (311) (p. 9, ll. 13-19; p. 11, ll. 12-17; p. 13, ll. 25-29; p. 17, ll. 20-27; figs. 2, 3);
- a series of longitudinal channels (32/32a/32b) extending in the longitudinal direction and each configured for the second phase (62) to flow from a second inlet to a second outlet, said longitudinal channels (32a/32b) succeeding each other in a lateral direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (p. 9, l. 29 - p. 10, l. 6; p. 13, ll. 25-29; p. 17, ll. 20-27; figs. 2, 3); and
- at least one opening (34) fluidly connecting said at least one lateral channel (31) to at least one longitudinal channel (32) such that the mixing device (3) is configured to distribute a mixture of the first phase (61) and the second phase (62) via the second outlet of said at least one longitudinal channel (32) (p. 9, ll. 24-30; p. 10, ll. 1-6; p. 11, ll. 1-4; claim 1; figs. 1-3).
Haik-Beraud does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one longitudinal channel of the mixing device is divided, in the longitudinal direction, into an upstream portion having a length L3 measured in the longitudinal direction and a width D3 measured in the lateral direction, and a downstream portion having a length L4 measured in the longitudinal direction and a width D4 measured in the lateral direction, with the downstream portion being arranged between the upstream portion and the second outlet.
However, Voggenreiter teaches a mixing device (10/110/410) arranged in a passage (8/108) of a plate-type heat exchanger (1) for distributing a mixture of a gas phase and a liquid phase in the flow direction (9) of the passage, said mixing device comprising a bar (14/114/414) that extends across the section of the passage and fully bridges the gap between the two plates (1/101/401) defining that passage, a row of channels (11/111/411) distributed across the width of the bar and oriented in the flow direction of one of the phases, and a duct (13/113/413) oriented perpendicular to that flow direction, extending substantially over the entire width of the passage, and communicating with said channels through outlet orifices (15/115/415) (col. 3, ll. 19-27; col. 6, ll. 30-58; col. 7, ll. 3-24; figs. 1-4; see also FR 2,563,620, p. 3, ll. 1-15; p. 6, ll. 24-38). Voggenreiter further teaches an embodiment in which the channel is divided, in the flow direction, into an upstream portion (411) and a downstream portion (411′) arranged between the upstream portion and the discharge of the channel into the passage, the outlet orifices (415) of the duct (413) opening not into the mixing volume downstream of the bar but directly into the channels, such that the mixing of the two phases already occurs in that zone and the mixture is thereafter formed and discharged in the downstream portion uniformly across the width of the flow passage (col. 7, l. 60 - col. 8, l. 6; fig. 7; see also FR 2,563,620, p. 8, ll. 6-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to divide the longitudinal channel (32) of the mixing device (3) of Haik-Beraud, in the longitudinal direction, into an upstream portion and a downstream portion arranged between the upstream portion and the second outlet, as taught by Voggenreiter, in order to confine the formation of the diphasic mixture to a defined terminal portion of the channel and thereby obtain a mixture that is homogeneous to a large extent and uniformly distributed across the width of the flow passage, as expressly taught by Voggenreiter (FR 2,563,620, p. 6, ll. 1-8; p. 8, ll. 6-16; US 4,646,822, col. 1, l. 40 - col. 2, l. 3). Such a modification is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of improved uniformity of the two-phase mixture in the width of the passage, which is the objective pursued by both references (Haik-Beraud, p. 2, l. 18 - p. 3, l. 2; p. 3, ll. 11-15; p. 11, ll. 1-4). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Haik-Beraud as modified by Voggenreiter does not explicitly teach said downstream portion having, at any point of said downstream portion’s length, a width that is greater than the width of the upstream portion.
However, Haik-Beraud teaches that a channel of the mixing device (3) is divided, along its direction of extension, into successive portions of different transverse cross-section, including at least one portion (310) arranged downstream of an inlet (311) and having a transverse cross-section (S2) that is greater than the transverse cross-section (S1) of that channel at the inlet (311); that the enlargement is obtainable by an increase in the width of the channel measured in a direction orthogonal to its direction of extension and/or by an increase in the depth of the channel measured in a stacking direction (x) orthogonal thereto; that the variation may be induced locally or progressively along all or part of the channel; that the ratio S2/S1 is preferably greater than or equal to 1.2 and ranges between 1.2 and 2; and that the enlarged portion serves to reduce the local flow velocity of the phase circulating in the channel and thereby to promote a more homogeneous distribution of the liquid-gas mixture over the width of the passage (10) (p. 10, ll. 20-30; p. 11, ll. 1-7 and 12-21; p. 12, ll. 28-31; p. 13, ll. 4-11; figs. 3-5). Haik-Beraud further teaches that the problem to be solved is the uneven distribution of the liquid-gas mixture across the width of the passage that incorporates the mixing device, and that the solution resides in controlling the local flow velocity by adjusting the dimension of the channel cross-section (p. 2, l. 18 - p. 3, l. 2; p. 10, ll. 20-30; p. 11, ll. 1-4).
Haik-Beraud further teaches that the two sets of channels of its mixing device (3) are interchangeable in orientation, that is, that the channel (31) may extend in the direction (y) and the channel (32) in the direction (z), and that the two directions need not be orthogonal to one another (p. 17, ll. 20-27). A person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly have understood Haik-Beraud’s teaching regarding the variation of channel cross-section, and the reduction of local flow velocity obtained thereby, to be a teaching applicable to the channels of the mixing device generally, and not one confined to the particular channel set in which the enlarged portions (310) are illustrated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the downstream portion of the longitudinal channel (32) of the mixing device (3) of Haik-Beraud as modified by Voggenreiter such that the downstream portion has, at any point of its length, a width measured in the lateral direction that is greater than the width of the upstream portion. Doing so applies Haik-Beraud’s own express teaching - that locally enlarging the width of a channel of the mixing device reduces the local flow velocity and thereby promotes a more homogeneous distribution across the width of the passage - to the terminal, mixture-carrying portion of the channel from which the diphasic mixture is discharged into the passage. The predictable and expressly desired results are a reduction of the discharge velocity of the diphasic mixture at the second outlet and a lateral spreading of that mixture over a greater width of the passage, both of which serve the objective that Haik-Beraud identifies as the aim of its own invention (p. 3, ll. 11-15; p. 11, ll. 1-4 and 18-21). Furthermore, a change in the shape or in the relative proportions of a prior art component, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant, is a matter of routine design choice. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
In regard to claim 17, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the downstream portion has a continuous increasing width over an entire length toward the second outlet, Haik-Beraud teaching that the variation of the transverse cross-section of the channel may be induced locally or progressively in the longitudinal direction along all or part of the channel, and that the change in cross-section may be abrupt or progressive and may consist of an increase of said cross-section obtained by increasing the width of the channel measured transversely to its direction of extension (p. 11, ll. 5-11; p. 12, ll. 28-31; figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the widening of the downstream portion progressive and continuous over the entire length of that portion toward the second outlet, as suggested by Haik-Beraud’s express teaching of a progressive variation of the channel cross-section, in order to avoid the abrupt changes in channel width that would cause flow separation, recirculation and additional pressure losses in the diphasic mixture.
In regard to claim 19, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the downstream portion emerges at a downstream face of the mixing device (3), at which downstream face the second outlet of the longitudinal channel (32) is provided and from which the diphasic mixture is discharged into the passage (10) (Haik-Beraud, p. 9, ll. 8-12; p. 10, ll. 8-19; p. 13, ll. 13-33; figs. 2, 3; Voggenreiter, col. 6, ll. 53-58; FR 2,563,620, p. 6, ll. 1-8). In the modified device, the widened downstream portion necessarily presents an external profile that intersects the downstream face and that forms an angle, measured between a tangent to said external profile at a point of intersection with the downstream face and an axis of symmetry of the longitudinal channel.
Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter does not explicitly teach that said angle ranges between 5 and 85 degrees.
However, the recited angle is a result-effective variable: it governs the degree of lateral divergence imparted to the diphasic jet issuing from the second outlet, and correspondingly the pressure loss and the risk of flow separation at the walls of the widened portion. Haik-Beraud expressly teaches that the dimensioning of the enlarged channel portions is adapted as a function of the desired fluid velocity profiles (p. 12, ll. 15-20) and that an excessively abrupt change of section is to be avoided in favor of a progressive one (p. 11, ll. 5-11), and Voggenreiter expressly teaches that the form, the number, the size and the position of the channels and of the outlet orifices of the mixing bar are adapted to the existing conditions (col. 7, ll. 20-24; FR 2,563,620, p. 7, ll. 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at an angle within the claimed range of 5 to 85 degrees through routine experimentation and optimization of a result-effective variable, absent a showing of criticality or of unexpected results for the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(II). It is further noted that the claimed range of 5 to 85 degrees is so broad that it encompasses substantially every divergent transition between a narrower upstream portion and a wider downstream portion emerging at a downstream face.
In regard to claim 20, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the upstream portion of the longitudinal channel (32) is connected to the downstream portion by a first end (the junction between the upstream portion 411 and the downstream portion 411′ of Voggenreiter, col. 7, l. 60 - col. 8, l. 6; fig. 7; FR 2,563,620, p. 8, ll. 6-16), said at least one opening (34) emerging into said longitudinal channel (32) at the upstream portion at a distance from the first end, Haik-Beraud teaching that the openings (34) form a series arranged downstream of the inlet and distributed at spaced positions along the channel, with a first opening arranged on the side of the inlet (311) and a last opening situated at the side of the opposite end, and that the dimensioning, the number and the distribution of the enlarged portions and of the openings are adapted as a function of the desired fluid velocity profiles (p. 11, ll. 28-31; p. 12, ll. 15-22; p. 13, ll. 4-8; figs. 3-5).
Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter does not explicitly teach that said distance Lz is greater than or equal to 4% of the length L3 of the upstream portion.
However, Voggenreiter expressly teaches that the form, the number, the size and the position of the channels (11) and of the outlet orifices (15) of the mixing bar are adapted to the existing conditions (col. 7, ll. 20-24; FR 2,563,620, p. 7, ll. 14-16), and Haik-Beraud expressly teaches that the position of the openings along the channel is selected so as to control the feeding of the openings and thereby the homogeneity of the distribution (p. 10, ll. 20-30; p. 12, ll. 15-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the at least one opening at a distance from the first end that is greater than or equal to 4% of the length of the upstream portion, in order to allow the two phases sufficient residence length to homogenize before entering the widened downstream portion and being discharged. Such a placement is a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, and the recitation of a relative dimensional relationship, without a showing of criticality, does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. It is further noted that the recited lower bound of 4% is met by any opening not situated substantially at the junction of the two portions.
In regard to claim 21, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the at least one opening (34) is arranged such that, when the first phase (61) flows from the first inlet (311) of the lateral channel (31) and the second phase (62) flows from the second inlet of the longitudinal channel (32), the mixing of the first phase (61) and the second phase (62) occurs upstream of the downstream portion, Haik-Beraud teaching that the openings (34) emerge into the longitudinal channel (32) along the length thereof so that the two phases are mixed within said channel before the mixture is distributed via the second outlet (p. 9, ll. 4-12 and 24-30; p. 10, ll. 1-6; p. 11, ll. 18-21), and Voggenreiter teaching an arrangement in which the outlet orifices open directly into the channels so that the mixing of the two phases already occurs in that zone, upstream of the discharge of the channel into the passage (col. 7, l. 60 - col. 8, l. 6; FR 2,563,620, p. 8, ll. 6-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the at least one opening upstream of the widened downstream portion of the longitudinal channel, so that the two phases are already mixed and homogenized when the mixture reaches the widened downstream portion, thereby ensuring that the lateral spreading provided by that portion is applied to an already homogeneous diphasic stream rather than to segregated phases.
In regard to claim 22, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the one or more opening(s) (34) of the mixing device (3) all emerge at the upstream portion of a longitudinal channel (32), Haik-Beraud teaching a series of openings (34) all arranged along the channel downstream of the inlet and upstream of the opposite end thereof (p. 9, ll. 24-30; p. 11, ll. 28-31; p. 12, ll. 21-22; figs. 3-5), for the reasons and with the motivation set forth with respect to claim 21 above.
In regard to claim 23, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein each longitudinal channel (32/32a/32b) of the series of longitudinal channels comprises at least one upstream opening (34) emerging at the upstream portion, with the position of the at least one upstream opening (34) in the longitudinal direction varying between the longitudinal channels (32a/32b), Haik-Beraud teaching that the openings (34) of the different channels may be arranged in a staggered manner relative to one another, as represented in figures 3 to 5, which promotes a more homogeneous distribution of the first phase (61) into the successive channels (32a, 32b) (p. 10, ll. 1-6; figs. 3-5), and Voggenreiter teaching that the outlet orifices (615) may be axially offset from the channels (611) and that the holes and the outlet orifices may be offset relative to one another (col. 8, ll. 24-31; FR 2,563,620, p. 8, ll. 20-25; figs. 9, 10).
Therefore, to the extent that the references do not explicitly state that the longitudinal position of the openings varies from one longitudinal channel to the next, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stagger the openings of the successive longitudinal channels in the longitudinal direction, for the express reason given by Haik-Beraud, namely to promote a more homogeneous distribution of the first phase into the successive channels and thereby to avoid the reinforcement of maldistribution that results from identically positioned injection points.
In regard to claim 24, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the length L3 of the upstream portion and the length L4 of the downstream portion are such that a ratio L3/L4 ranges between 1 and 15, in that the modified mixing device comprises an upstream portion and a downstream portion of respective lengths measured in the longitudinal direction, the downstream portion occupying the terminal region of the channel adjacent the second outlet and the upstream portion occupying the remainder (Voggenreiter, col. 7, l. 60 - col. 8, l. 6; fig. 7; Haik-Beraud, p. 10, ll. 13-19; p. 11, ll. 5-7).
Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter does not explicitly teach that the ratio L3/L4 ranges between 1 and 15.
However, both references teach that the dimensions of the mixing bar and of the channels formed therein are selected as a function of the desired flow and distribution characteristics (Haik-Beraud, p. 10, ll. 13-19; p. 12, ll. 15-20; Voggenreiter, col. 7, ll. 20-24; FR 2,563,620, p. 3, ll. 13-15; p. 7, ll. 14-16), and Haik-Beraud further teaches that the mixing device may have a dimension parallel to the direction of extension of the channels ranging between 20 and 200 mm (p. 10, ll. 15-19), which necessarily constrains the relative lengths of any two successive portions of a channel formed therein.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio L3/L4 within the claimed range of 1 to 15, that is, to make the widened downstream portion no longer than the upstream portion and no shorter than one fifteenth thereof, in order to reserve sufficient channel length upstream for the mixing and homogenization of the two phases while limiting the additional length, pressure loss and material required by the widened terminal portion. Such a selection is a matter of routine optimization, and the recitation of a relative dimensional relationship, without a showing of criticality, does not patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) and 2144.05(II).
In regard to claim 25, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the device as claimed in claim 16 wherein the downstream portion has a depth, measured in a direction, called stacking direction, that is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and perpendicular to the lateral direction, increasing toward the second outlet, Haik-Beraud expressly teaching that an increase of the transverse cross-section of a channel of the mixing device may result from an increase in the depth of that channel measured in a direction (x) orthogonal to the two directions in which the channels extend, that is, in the stacking direction of the plates (2) (p. 10, ll. 8-12; p. 12, ll. 28-31; figs. 2, 3), and Voggenreiter teaching mixing bars (14) whose profile, viewed in a section taken between the two plates (1), is chamfered so that the flow section available to the phases increases toward the downstream face of the bar (FR 2,563,620, p. 7, l. 36 - p. 8, l. 16; figs. 6, 7; US 4,646,822, col. 7, ll. 47-60; figs. 6, 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the depth of the downstream portion of the longitudinal channel toward the second outlet, in addition to increasing its width, in order to further enlarge the flow passage section available to the diphasic mixture at the outlet and thereby to slow the mixture and homogenize it in the height of the passage as well as in the width thereof, consistent with Haik-Beraud’s express teaching that the cross-sectional enlargement may be obtained by an increase in width and/or an increase in depth (p. 12, ll. 28-31).
In regard to claim 27, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches a heat exchange facility comprising:
- the heat exchanger (1) comprising a plurality of plates (2) arranged parallel to each other and to a longitudinal direction, said plurality of plates (2) being stacked in a spaced-apart manner so as to together define at least a first set of passages (10) configured for the first fluid (F1) to flow in the longitudinal direction and at least one second set of passages (20) configured for the flow of a second fluid (F2) to be brought into a heat exchange relationship with the first fluid (F1) (p. 6, ll. 19-32; p. 7, ll. 1-6 and 26-33; fig. 1);
- a source of a first phase (separator device 6, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a separator) of the first fluid (F1) fluidly connected to at least one first manifold (lateral collector 30) of the heat exchanger (1) (p. 9, ll. 4-8; fig. 1);
- a source of a second phase (separator device 6, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a separator) of the first fluid (F1) fluidly connected to at least one second manifold (collector 50) of the heat exchanger (1) (p. 7, ll. 14-22; p. 9, ll. 4-8; fig. 1); and
- the mixing device (3) as defined by claim 16, said mixing device (3) being arranged in at least one passage (10) of a first series and being configured to distribute the first fluid (F1) formed by a mixture of the first phase (61) and the second phase (62) in said passage (10) of the first series, the first inlet (311) of the lateral channel (31) being in fluid communication with said first manifold (30), and the second inlet being in fluid communication with the second manifold (50), the first phase (61) being a liquid phase and the second phase (62) being a gaseous phase (p. 9, ll. 4-12 and 29-30; p. 10, ll. 1-2; p. 11, ll. 12-17; figs. 1-3).
The mixing device recited in claim 27 is rejected for the reasons and upon the combination set forth with respect to claim 16 above.
In regard to claim 28, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches a method for mixing a first phase (61) and a second phase (62) of the first fluid (F1) in the mixing device (3) as defined by claim 16, said method comprising the following steps:
i) introducing the first phase (61) of the first fluid (F1) via the at least one first inlet (311) of the lateral channel (31) (p. 9, ll. 4-8; p. 11, ll. 12-17; figs. 1-3);
ii) introducing the second phase (62) of the first fluid (F1) via a second inlet of each longitudinal channel (32), the second phase (62) flowing in each longitudinal channel (32) in the longitudinal direction to a second outlet of said longitudinal channel (32) (p. 9, ll. 4-12; p. 10, ll. 1-6; figs. 1-3);
iii) flowing at least part of the first phase (61) from the lateral channel (31) toward the longitudinal channel (32) via the opening (34) so as to mix the first phase (61) with the second phase (62) in the longitudinal channel (32) (p. 9, ll. 24-30; p. 10, ll. 1-6; p. 11, ll. 18-21; claim 1); and
iv) distributing the mixture of the first phase (61) and the second phase (62) via the second outlet of each longitudinal channel (32) (p. 9, ll. 8-12; p. 11, ll. 1-4; figs. 1, 2).
The mixing device recited in claim 28 is rejected for the reasons and upon the combination set forth with respect to claim 16 above.
In regard to claim 29, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the mixing method as claimed in claim 28 wherein the first phase (61) is mixed with the second phase (62) upstream of the downstream portion, for the reasons and with the motivation set forth with respect to claim 21 above (Haik-Beraud, p. 9, ll. 24-30; p. 11, ll. 18-21; Voggenreiter, col. 7, l. 60 - col. 8, l. 6; FR 2,563,620, p. 8, ll. 6-16).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haik-Beraud et al. (WO 2018/172644 A1) in view of Voggenreiter et al. (US 4,646,822) and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter "AAPA," paragraphs 0003-0004 of the published application US 2023/0125515 A1).
In regard to claim 30, Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter teaches the mixing method as claimed in claim 28, and Haik-Beraud further teaches that the heat exchanger (1) vaporizes at least one flow rate of a liquid-gas mixture, in particular a mixture of several constituents such as a mixture of hydrocarbons, by heat exchange with at least one other fluid, for example natural gas, the first fluid (F1) being a refrigerant fluid and the second fluid (F2) being a heat-carrying fluid, and that the mixing device (3) is arranged in at least one passage (10) of the first set of passages of the heat exchanger (p. 1, ll. 8-13; p. 5, ll. 12-13 and 19-30; p. 8, ll. 6-8; p. 9, ll. 4-12; fig. 1).
Haik-Beraud in view of Voggenreiter does not explicitly teach steps a) through d), f) and g) of claim 30, namely introducing the hydrocarbon stream into a second set of passages of a heat exchanger; introducing a cooling stream into a third set of passages of the heat exchanger; discharging the cooling stream from the heat exchanger and expanding the cooling stream to at least one pressure level so as to produce at least one diphasic cooling stream; separating at least part of the diphasic cooling stream originating from step c) into a second phase and a first phase; introducing at least part of the second phase and at least part of the first phase into the mixing device so as to obtain a first fluid formed by a mixture of the first phase and the second phase at the outlet of the mixing device; and vaporizing at least part of the first fluid originating from step f) in the passage by exchanging heat with at least the hydrocarbon stream so as to obtain a cooled and/or at least partially liquefied hydrocarbon stream at the outlet of the exchanger.
However, Applicant’s own specification admits that such a method was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, AAPA describes, as a known method among the methods using one or more fluid refrigeration cycles with diphasic coolant for liquefying a natural gas stream in order to obtain liquefied natural gas, that a cooling stream, generally a mixture with a plurality of constituent elements such as a mixture containing hydrocarbons, is compressed by a compressor and then introduced into an exchanger or a series of exchangers where it is completely liquefied and sub-cooled to the coldest temperature of the method that is reached by the fluids that cool, typically that of the liquefied natural gas stream; that at the coldest outlet of the exchanger the cooling stream is expanded, forming a first phase and a second phase; that these two phases are separated by means of a phase separator and then reintroduced into the exchanger and remixed; and that the cooling stream introduced into the exchanger in the diphasic state is vaporized therein against the hydrocarbon stream that liquefies and against the natural gas (AAPA, paras. 0003-0004, further identifying WO-A-2017/081374 as describing one of these known methods). A statement by an applicant in the specification that something is in the prior art is admissible as prior art against the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2129.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the mixing device and mixing method of Haik-Beraud as modified by Voggenreiter in the known natural gas liquefaction method of AAPA, that is, to introduce the hydrocarbon stream into a second set of passages of the heat exchanger, to introduce the cooling stream into a third set of passages, to discharge and expand the cooling stream to produce a diphasic cooling stream, to separate that stream into a first phase and a second phase, to reintroduce both phases into the mixing device arranged in a passage of the first set so as to reform the first fluid as a mixture of the two phases, and to vaporize that first fluid against the hydrocarbon stream so as to cool and at least partially liquefy it. The motivation for doing so is expressly supplied by both references: AAPA identifies the separation, reintroduction and remixing of the expanded diphasic coolant as the known manner of operating such a liquefaction cycle (paras. 0003-0004), while Haik-Beraud teaches that its mixing device is intended precisely for an exchanger that vaporizes a diphasic hydrocarbon coolant against natural gas and that the uniformity of the phase distribution achieved by the mixing device directly determines the performance of that exchanger (p. 1, ll. 8-13; p. 2, ll. 1-8; p. 5, ll. 19-30). The combination is no more than the use of a known distribution device in the known process environment for which it was designed, yielding the predictable result of improved liquefaction performance. See MPEP 2143(I)(A), (C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights