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 .
Priority
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 8-11, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pawlik (US 4,233,494) in view of Makris (US 5,473,141) as evidenced by Kanthal PM Tubes.
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Pawlik teaches an electric gas heater, comprising: a housing (Figs 1, 2, cylindrical housing 1, Col 4), a number of thin tubes arranged in a bundle (electrically conductive elongated open-ended tubes 6, Col 4) inside the housing, an insulation member configured for supporting the number of thin tubes separated from each other and electrically insulated from each other (circular holder plates 5, spacers 12, made from sintered aluminum oxide and ceramic, Col 4, Lines 45-50, 62-66), electrical conductors configured for connecting the number of thin tubes with an external electric power supply (Fig 1, shows electrical conductors connecting tubes 6 to voltage source 20, Col 4), and inside the housing an inlet chamber upstream (antechamber 15, Col 5) of the number of thin tubes and an outlet chamber downstream (exit chamber 14, Col 5) of the number of thin tubes, a gas flow path extends from the inlet chamber via insides of the number of thin tubes to the outlet chamber (Col 5, Lines 14-18), and individual tubes of the number of thin tubes are of an electric resistance material (nickel-chromium steel), the number of thin tubes are supported with the housing only by the insulation member (holder plates 5, spacers 12 are in the only component that contacts and support tubes 6).
Pawlik discloses the claimed invention except for the thin tubes are an aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material or of a molybdenum based alloy; the aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material is an iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) alloy comprising at least 3 wt % aluminum.
However, Makris discloses the thin tubes (Fig 4, heating elements 41, Col 4) are an aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material or of a molybdenum based alloy (Col 5, Lines 13-17, TUBOTHAL elements from the Kanthal Corporation); the aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material is an iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) alloy comprising at least 3 wt % aluminum (Col 5, Lines 13-17, TUBOTHAL elements from the Kanthal Corporation; where the TUBOTHAL elements have tubes made of APM or APMT with compositions of FeCrAl with Al wt% of 5.0~5.8 as seen on pages 6, 7, 20, 21 of Kanthal PM Tubes that forms aluminum oxide) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the electric gas heater having tubes made from chromium electrical resistance material silent to the aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material with the thin tubes are an aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material or of a molybdenum based alloy; the aluminum oxide forming electric resistance material is an iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) alloy comprising at least 3 wt % aluminum of Makris for the purpose of using a known tube material that enables the heater to operate at continuously elevated temperatures with virtually no bunching or creeping (Col 5, Lines 8-17), thereby improving the overall reliability of the device.
With respect to the limitations of claims 2, 10, 11, Pawlik teaches the insulation member seals the inlet chamber from the outlet chamber (see figure 2A) so that the gas flow path constitutes a main flow path for gas from the inlet chamber to the outlet chamber (Col 5, Lines 14-18);
the housing forms a pressure vessel (Fig 1, closed-off ends of housing 1 allows for build up of pressure);
the housing comprises a sealable opening (Fig 1, closure plate 25, Col 5) sized such that the number of thin tubes arranged in a bundle are extractable out of the housing as one unit via the opening (Col 5, Lines 40-46).
With respect to the limitations of claims 8 and 9, Pawlik in view of Makris discloses the number of thin tubes are configured to be electrically heated up to a temperature of 1250° C (Makris, Col 5, Lines 8-17, operation up to 1400 degrees C);
the number of thin tubes are configured to be electrically heated up to a temperature of 1300° C (Makris, Col 5, Lines 8-17, operation up to 1400 degrees C).
With respect to the limitations of claim 15, Pawlik teaches a method for heating a gas in an electric gas heater according to claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising steps of: supplying a gas to the inlet chamber (compressor 21, inlet 13, antechamber 15, Col 5) whereby the gas is conducted along the gas flow path via the insides of the number of thin tubes to the outlet chamber (Col 5, Lines 14-18), supplying an electric current to the number of thin tubes in order to heat the number of thin tubes (Fig 1, shows electrical conductors connecting tubes 6 to voltage source 20, Col 4), continue with conducting the gas along the gas flow path via the insides of the number of thin tubes to the outlet chamber (exit chamber 14, Col 5), and leading the gas from the outlet chamber (adsorber 24, Col 5);
With respect to the limitations of claim 17, Pawlik in view of Makris discloses the number of thin tubes are configured to be electrically heated up to a temperature within a range of 900-1250° C (Makris, Col 5, Lines 8-17, operation up to 1400 degrees C).
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pawlik (US 4,233,494) in view of Makris (US 5,473,141) as applied to claims 1 and , further in Olsson (US 2015/0338126).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3, 4, 5, 7 and 16, Pawlik in view of Makris discloses the claimed invention except for the insulation member comprises a fibrous material; the fibrous material comprises a vacuum formed fibrous material; in the vacuum formed fibrous material the fibres are bound to each other via a binder; the insulation member extends along ≥50% of a length of the thin tubes; the insulation member extends along ≥90% of the length of the thin tubes.
However, Olsson discloses the insulation member comprises a fibrous material (Figs 1-3, insulation 14, 0011, fibre insulation); the fibrous material comprises a vacuum formed fibrous material (fibre insulation); in the vacuum formed fibrous material the fibres are bound to each other via a binder (fiber insulation inherently held together by a binder); the insulation member (Fig 1, fiber insulation 14) extends along ≥50% of a length of the thin tubes (tubes 16, 17); the insulation member (Fig 1, fiber insulation 14) extends along≥90% of the length of the thin tubes (tubes 16, 17) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the electric gas heater of Pawlik having an insulation member silent to a fibrous material with the insulation member comprises a fibrous material; the fibrous material comprises a vacuum formed fibrous material; in the vacuum formed fibrous material the fibres are bound to each other via a binder; the insulation member extends along ≥50% of a length of the thin tubes; the insulation member extends along ≥90% of the length of the thin tubes of Olsson for the purpose of using a known alternative insulation material that is suitable for high temperature gas heater applications (0011).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the limitation of “the fibrous material comprises a vacuum formed fibrous material” is product by process claim, here it is noted that a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S. P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pawlik (US 4,233,494) in view of Makris (US 5,473,141) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schatz (WO 2019110799). Schatz (US 2020/0386443) is being used as an English language equivalent for Schatz (WO 2019110799).
With respect to the limitations of claims 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19, Makris discloses the individual thin tubes of the bundle are arranged for a high energy transfer (Col 5, Lines 5-17, operation up to 1400 degrees C continuous temperature). Pawlik in view of Makris discloses the claimed invention except for the individual thin tubes of the bundle are arranged for an energy transfer of up to 100 W/cm.sup.3; individual thin tubes of the bundle have an inner diameter within a range of 7-30 mm and a wall thickness within a range of 1-3 mm; individual thin tubes of the thin tubes arranged in the bundle are arranged with outer diameters of adjacent thin tubes within a range of 10-30 mm from each other; individual thin tubes of the bundle have an inner diameter within a range of 9-20 mm and a wall thickness within a range of 1.5-2.5 mm; individual thin tubes of the bundle are arranged for an energy transfer of up to within a range of 40-70 W/cm.sup.3.
However, Schatz discloses individual thin tubes of the bundle have an inner diameter within a range of 7-30 mm (Fig 5, jacket element 6, 0052; 0034, diameter of each of the bores or each of the channels may be in a range 1 mm to 20 mm or even 0.5 mm to 60 mm) and a wall thickness; individual thin tubes of the bundle have an inner diameter within a range of 9-20 mm (Fig 5, jacket element 6, 0052; 0034, diameter of each of the bores or each of the channels may be in a range 1 mm to 20 mm or even 0.5 mm to 60 mm) and a wall thickness. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the electric gas heater of Pawlik having a bundle of individual tubes having an inner diameter silent to the diameter size with the individual thin tubes of the bundle have an inner diameter within a range of 7-30 mm; individual thin tubes of the bundle have an inner diameter within a range of 9-20 mm and a wall thickness of Schatz for the purpose of using a known diameter range that is suitable for an electric heaters that efficiently heat gases to high temperatures (0002).
Pawlik in view of Makris or Schatz discloses the claimed invention except for the individual thin tubes of the bundle are arranged for an energy transfer of up to 100 W/cm.sup.3 and 40-70 W/cm.sup.3.; a wall thickness within a range of 1-3 mm and 1.5-2.5 mm; individual thin tubes of the thin tubes arranged in the bundle are arranged with outer diameters of adjacent thin tubes within a range of 10-30 mm from each other. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the individual thin tubes of the bundle are arranged for an energy transfer of up to 100 W/cm.sup.3 and 40-70 W/cm.sup.3.; a wall thickness within a range of 1-3 mm and 1.5-2.5 mm; individual thin tubes of the thin tubes arranged in the bundle are arranged with outer diameters of adjacent thin tubes within a range of 10-30 mm from each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable operating conditions and dimensional ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Response to Amendments
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph rejection of claim 16 is withdrawn in view of the claim 16 amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued on pages 7-12, that the combination of Pawlik in view of Makris discloses fails to disclose the limitations of claim 1 directed to “the number of thin tubes are supported with the housing only by the insulation member” because Pawlik has holder plates that are supported by various other components (flanges 18, carrier plate 4, upper shelf 2) and that the combination of Pawlik in view of Makris with the render the device of Pawlik inoperable, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Amended claim 1 recites “the number of thin tubes are supported with the housing only by the insulation member” which Pawlik fully discloses because the insulation member (holder plates 5, spacers 12) is the only member that contacts and supports the tubes 6, and therefore fully discloses the claim limitations. Additionally, under BRI, the holder plates 5, spacers 12 with the supporting structure carrier plate 4, shelf 2, flanges 18 assembly could be considered as a whole the be the “insulation member” and therefore fully discloses the limitations of the claim.
The applicant has further argued on pages 13-14 that claims 3-5, 7, 12-14, 16 and 18-19 are patentable because they are dependent upon allowed claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Pawlik in view of Makris fully discloses the limitations of claim 1.
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 THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/9/2026