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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 9/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden because group II, claims 20 and 24 depend upon claim 1. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s arguments are directed to the U.S. practice of restriction; while the current restriction falls under the unity of invention which does not require any serious burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, figure 1 in the reply filed on 9/12/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant alleges claims 1-9, 11-14, 17-24 read on the elected species A of figure 1. However, claims 12-14, 18 and 19 are further identified as reading on non-elected species. In particular the limitation of elongate elements being electric heating rods or electric heating coils as set forth in claim 12 is not shown in figure 1; the elongate elements having a porous or semi- permeable wall for an exchange process as set forth in claim 13 is not shown in figure 1; t he elongate elements is fixed to the bars or forms a monolithic part with the bars as set forth in claim 14 is not shown in figure 1, but rather shown in figures 8-11; wherein at least some of the tubes or elongate elements are luminous elements or elements with semi-permeable or porous walls or tubes or rods without heat transfer medium or other elongate profiles for reinforcing the structure at the intended locations of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements as set forth in claim 18 is not shown in figure 1; wherein at least some of the spacing t provided for the tubes of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements are disengaged as set forth in claim 19 is not shown in figure 1. Accordingly, claims 10, 12-16 and 18-19 are withdrawn to non-elected species embodiments. Claims 1-9, 11, 17 and 21-23 are taken up for examination upon the elected invention and species. Claims 10, 12- 16, 18- 20 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, “which = an angle” should read --which equals an angle--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “m” is not the measure for “the axial distance m of the bars”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1 , 3, 5, 6, 11 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (CN107883803B). Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses a n apparatus for supplying or dissipating heat, for carrying out reactions and for mixing and dispersing flowing media in a housing with an internal diameter D (reference #102), through the longitudinal axis of which a main flow direction for a liquid, gaseous or multi-phase product flow (I) is determined, with installations, wherein the installations include a bundle of tubes with an outer diameter d or other elongated elements and between the tubes or other elongated elements (reference #108) at least one bar of a first arrangement is installed and this at least one bar is inclined by an angle a which=an angle between 30-60° to the longitudinal axis of the housing and, inserted crosswise thereto (reference #204a and 206a), at least one second bar of a second arrangement installed with the same angle of inclination but opposite sign (reference #204c and 206c) , and wherein the bars have a width b and this width is smaller than or equal to a spacing t of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements, and in that the bars do not touch ( see figures, reference # 204a, 206a, 204c and 206c pass through spacing between reference #108 and thus has a small width ). Regarding claim 3, Ye discloses wherein a first layer of bars is adjacent to a second layer of bars installed crosswise and that there is a tube or row of tubes in between, and the bars do not touch each other (see figure 2, reference #204a and 206a with reference #108 between). Regarding claim 5, Ye discloses, wherein the bars fit between the tubes of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements without recesses and have a maximum width b=t−d (figure 2 and 7, reference #204a and 206a between reference #108 and have a maximum width b=t−d ). Regarding claim 6, Ye discloses wherein the bars are aligned in the transverse direction in such a way that the bars respectively lie in crossing planes A, B (figure 1, reference #20; figure 2, reference #204a and 206a or 204c and 206c) . Regarding claim 11, Ye discloses wherein at least some of the elongate elements are tubes with an inlet and outlet apparatus for a liquid, gaseous or vaporous heat transfer medium and that this flows in co-current or counter-current to the product flow flows outside the tubes (reference #108) . Regarding claim 21, Ye discloses wherein the at least one bar of a first arrangement is a plate-shaped bar and the at least one second bar of a second arrangement is a plate-shaped bar (figures 1-6, reference #204a and 204c). Regarding claim 22, Ye discloses wherein the installations include a bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements are aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing and have a square spacing t (figures 1-5, reference #108) Regarding claim 23, Ye disclose wherein the at least one second bar of a second arrangement has the same angle of inclination but with the opposite sign as the at least one bar of a first arrangement (figure 1, reference #20; figure 2, reference #204a and 204c). Claim(s) 1- 6, 11 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krawchuk et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,570,739) . Regarding claim 1, Krawchuk et al. discloses a n apparatus for supplying or dissipating heat, for carrying out reactions and for mixing and dispersing flowing media in a housing with an internal diameter D, through the longitudinal axis of which a main flow direction for a liquid, gaseous or multi-phase product flow (I) is determined, with installations (title; abstract; figures 1-7) , wherein the installations include a bundle of tubes with an outer diameter d or other elongated elements (figures 1 and 2, reference #10; figures 3-5, reference #16 and 18; figures 6 and 7, reference #38) and between the tubes or other elongated elements at least one bar of a first arrangement is installed and this at least one bar is inclined by an angle α which=an angle between 30-60° to the longitudinal axis of the housing and, inserted crosswise thereto, at least one second bar of a second arrangement installed with the same angle of inclination but opposite sign, and wherein the bars have a width b and this width is smaller than or equal to a spacing t of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements, and in that the bars do not touch (figures 1 and 2, reference #12; figures 3-5, reference #17; figures 6 and 7, reference #37a and 37b) . Regarding claim 2, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein bars following one another in the axial direction form a layer of bars between the tubes or other elongated elements (figure 5 , reference # 17; figures 6 and 7, reference #37a and 37b ) and the bars of a layer of bars are parallel and have a distance m, and in that the layers of bars are installed between the tubes after a number of bars or a length L rotated by 90° ( figure 2, reference #12; figure 7 , reference # 17). Regarding claim 3, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein a first layer of bars is adjacent to a second layer of bars installed crosswise and that there is a tube or row of tubes in between, and the bars do not touch each other (figure 2, reference #12 with reference #10 between; figure 5, reference #17 with reference #16 and 18 between). Regarding claim 4, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein there are distances between the adjacent bars transversely to the main direction of flow and that the maximum width b of the bars is less than 85% of the tube spacing t (figures 1 and 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17; column 4, lines 18-23) . Regarding claim 5, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein the bars fit between the tubes of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements without recesses and have a maximum width b=t−d (figures 1 and 2, reference #12 between reference #10 and have a maximum width b=t−d ; figure 5, reference #17; column 4, lines 18-23). Regarding claim 6, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein the bars are aligned in the transverse direction in such a way that the bars respectively lie in crossing planes A, B (figure 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17; figures 6 and 7, reference # 37a and 37b ) . Regarding claim 11, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein at least some of the elongate elements are tubes with an inlet and outlet apparatus for a liquid, gaseous or vaporous heat transfer medium and that this flows in co-current or counter-current to the product flow flows outside the tubes (figures 1 and 2, reference #10; figures 3-5, reference #16 and 18; figures 6-7, reference #38 and arrows indicating flows) . Regarding claim 21, Krawchuk et al. discloses wherein the at least one bar of a first arrangement is a plate-shaped bar and the at least one second bar of a second arrangement is a plate-shaped bar (figures 1 and 2, reference #12; figures 3-5, reference #17; figures 6-7, reference #37a and 37b). Regarding claim 22, Krawchuk discloses wherein the installations include a bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements are aligned parallel to the longitudinal axis of the housing and have a square spacing t (figure 2 , reference #10 and spacing around 10 ) . Regarding claim 23, Krawchuk et al. disclose wherein the at least one second bar of a second arrangement has the same angle of inclination but with the opposite sign as the at least one bar of a first arrangement (figure 2 , reference # 1 2; figure 5 , reference # 17 ). 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. Claim(s) 7-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krawchuk et al. Regarding claim 7-9 and 17, Krawchuk et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Regarding claim 9, Krawchuk further discloses wherein groups of layers of bars form mixing elements with an axial length L (figure 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17 and “L”) and that the layers of bars of successive mixing elements are rotated by 90° and inserted between the tubes (figure 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17). While the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the axial distance m of the bars is 0.2 to 0.4 D at least in one bar position ; wherein the axial spacing m of the bars is <4 d at least in one bar position ; the length L of the mixing elements is 0.5 to 4 D ; and wherein the ratio of the surface area of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements to the empty volume of the apparatus or reactor is at least 50 m 2 /m 3 , the change in axial distance of the bars, spacing of the bars, length of the mixing elements and ratio of the surface area of the bundles of tubes in relation to the reactor volume and diameter is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Krawchuk et al. teaches that dimensions of the bars and the spacing between and the occupied space in the reactor all modify the vibration of the tubes during operation and the stability of the tubes (Krawchuk et al. column 2, lines 45-67; columns 4-5, lines 64-4; column 5, lines 54-60). Therefore, the vibration and stability of the tubes are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the dimensions of the bars, the spacing and arrangement between bars and the area of the reactor occupied by the tubes. For that reason, the change in axial distance of the bars, spacing of the bars, length of the mixing elements and ratio of the surface area of the bundles of tubes in relation to the reactor volume and diameter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected resulted, the dimensions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the axial distance of the bars, spacing of the bars, length of the mixing elements and ratio of the surface area of the bundles of tubes in relation to the reactor volume and diameter in the apparatus of Krawchuk et al. to obtain minimal vibration and maximum tube support (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Claim(s) 2, 4, 7-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye Krawchuk et al. Regarding claim s 2, 4, 7-9 and 17, Ye discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the exact dimensions and arrangements of the bars. Krawchuk et al. teaches another tubular heat exchanger with bars (title; abstract; figures). The reference teaches wherein bars following one another in the axial direction form a layer of bars between the tubes or other elongated elements (figure 5, reference #17; figures 6 and 7, reference #37a and 37b) and the bars of a layer of bars are parallel and have a distance m, and in that the layers of bars are installed between the tubes after a number of bars or a length L rotated by 90° (figure 2, reference #12; figure 7, reference #17) ; wherein there are distances between the adjacent bars transversely to the main direction of flow and that the maximum width b of the bars is less than 85% of the tube spacing t (figures 1 and 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17; column 4, lines 18-23) ; and wherein groups of layers of bars form mixing elements with an axial length L (figure 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17 and “L”) and that the layers of bars of successive mixing elements are rotated by 90° and inserted between the tubes (figure 2, reference #12; figure 5, reference #17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the bars of Ye to be rotated by 90° and have a distance of less than 85% because the arrangement provides support for the tubes and reduces vibration (Krawchuk et al. columns 2- 3, lines 67-3; column 4, lines 11-23). Krawchuk et al. teaches that dimensions of the bars and the spacing between and the occupied space in the reactor all modify the vibration of the tubes during operation and the stability of the tubes (Krawchuk et al. column 2, lines 45-67; columns 4-5, lines 64-4; column 5, lines 54-60). Therefore, the vibration and stability of the tubes are variables that can be modified, among others, by varying the dimensions of the bars, the spacing and arrangement between bars and the area of the reactor occupied by the tubes. For that reason, the change in axial distance of the bars, spacing of the bars, length of the mixing elements and ratio of the surface area of the bundles of tubes in relation to the reactor volume and diameter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected resulted, the dimensions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the axial distance of the bars, spacing of the bars, length of the mixing elements and ratio of the surface area of the bundles of tubes in relation to the reactor volume and diameter in the apparatus of Ye to obtain minimal vibration and maximum tube support (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0492 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire X Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1051 . 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. /ELIZABETH INSLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774