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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0048245 A1 (herein “Knafl”).
Regarding claim 1. Knafl discloses a heat exchanger process (Figs. 3 and 4) using a heat exchanger (Figs. 3 and 4 – 100), the process comprising: contacting a surface of a heat exchanger with a fluid by transporting the fluid (Fig. 3 shows transporting of exhaust gas fluid) through the heat exchanger (shown in Fig. 3); and transferring heat between the surface and the fluid (inherent function of a heat exchanger); wherein the transporting is at a rate of less than 2 m/s ([0041]), and wherein the process is capable of being practiced with a heat exchanger having a surface that includes a silicon-containing fouling-resistant coating.
Regarding claim 5. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid includes particles known to cause fouling (exhaust gas includes particles known to cause fouling).
Regarding claim 6. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid includes corrosion products known to cause fouling (exhaust gas includes corrosion products known to cause fouling).
Regarding claim 7. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid includes crystals known to cause fouling ([0026] diesel exhaust gas includes crystals known to cause fouling).
Regarding claim 9. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid includes non-homogenous materials known to cause fouling (exhaust gas includes non-homogenous materials known to cause fouling).
Regarding claim 10. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid includes impure materials known to cause fouling (exhaust gas includes impure materials known to cause fouling).
Regarding claim 11. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid flows at a first rate, then a second rate, the first rate differing from the second rate by at least 1 m/s ([0041] discloses a flow rate of 1 m/s and [0040] discloses employing short periods of negative flow which would constitute a change of at least 1 m/s).
Regarding claim 12. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, which can be practiced with a heat exchanger having a surface which has a roughness that causes fouling in the absence of a fouling-resistant coating.
Regarding claim 13. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, which can be practiced with a heat exchanger having a shell and one or more tubes with said surface within the shell.
Regarding claim 14. Knafl discloses the process of claim 13, which can be practiced with a shell heat exchanger having segmented baffles arranged at a distance of less than one fifth of a diameter of the shell.
Regarding claim 15. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, which can be practiced with a low-finned tube heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 16. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, which can be practiced with a plate heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 17. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the fluid is a gas (exhaust gas).
Regarding claim 19. Knafl discloses the process of claim 1, which can be practiced with a fouling-resistant coating of amorphous silicon, hydrogen, and carbon.
Regarding claim 20. Knafl discloses a heat exchanger process (Figs. 3 and 4) using a heat exchanger (Figs. 3 and 4 – 100), the process comprising: contacting a surface with a fluid by transporting the fluid (Fig. 3 shows transporting of exhaust gas fluid) through the heat exchanger (shown in Fig. 3); and transferring heat between the surface and the fluid (inherent function of a heat exchanger); wherein the process is capable of being practiced with a heat exchanger having a surface that includes a silicon-containing fouling-resistant coating; and wherein the fluid includes particles known to cause fouling (exhaust gas includes particles known to cause fouling).
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.
Claims 2-4, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knafl in view of US 2013/0140006 A1 (herein “Johnson”).
Regarding claims 2-4. Knafl does not explicitly disclose the use of laminar and turbulent flows.
Johnson discloses a heat transfer process transporting a fluid contacting a surface (Figs. 1 and 2) utilizing one or more of laminar and turbulent flow ([0011]). Johnson also discloses fluid velocity has a significant effect on heat transfer, laminar flows having a lower heat transfer than turbulent flows, and that turbulent heat transfer is preferred over laminar if the material can withstand turbulent flow without degradation and if turbulent flow is economically feasible ([0006]).
Johnson establishes that laminar flow is more economically feasible than turbulent flow, but that turbulent flow provides improved heat transfer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Knafl with the teachings of Johnson to perform routine experimentation on the fluid flow profiles including laminar flow, turbulent flow, and laminar and turbulent flow, in an attempt to provide an improved heat exchange process.
Regarding claim 2. The combined teachings of Knafl and Johnson disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the transporting includes the fluid having laminar and turbulent flow (Johnson – routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 3. The combined teachings of Knafl and Johnson disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the transporting consists of laminar flow (Johnson – routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 4. The combined teachings of Knafl and Johnson disclose the process of claim 1, wherein the transporting consists of the fluid having turbulent flow (Johnson – routine experimentation).
Regarding claim 8. Knafl does not disclose the use of biological material known to cause fouling.
Johnson discloses that the heat exchange process can be performed with a fluid comprising biological materials ([0097], [0191]) which are known to cause fouling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the heat exchange process of Knafl with the biological material fluid teachings of Johnson in order to provide the improved fouling heat exchange process to fluids beyond just exhaust gases.
Regarding claim 18. Knafl does not disclose the use of a liquid fluid.
Johnson discloses that the heat exchange process can be performed with a fluid that either a gas or liquid (abstract, [0031], [0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the heat exchange process of Knafl with the liquid fluid teachings of Johnson in order to provide the improved fouling heat exchange process to fluids beyond just exhaust gases.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments that the Knafl reference fails to disclose the claimed heat exchanger process, the Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the structural limitation “wherein the surface includes a silicon-containing fouling-resistant coating”. The claimed process does involve positioning of the surface structure, but none of the claimed steps specifically involve the coating structure. As currently claimed, the presence of the coating does not materially alter the claimed process steps, and the process disclosed by Knafl is capable of being performed on a surface having a silicon-coating fouling-resistant coating. The process being performed is identical even if the structural limitation – “wherein the surface includes a silicon-containing fouling-resistant coating” – is omitted.
MPEP 2106.03 I.
A process defines "actions", i.e., an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps. As explained by the Supreme Court, a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing."
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights