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
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 an 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 equals 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 an 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 equals 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 an 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 flow direction and that a maximum value of the width b of the bars is less than 85% of the 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 #12; 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 vertical distance m between the bars that follow in the main flow direction of the bars is 0.2 to 0.4 D at least in one bar position; wherein an 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 a ratio of the surface area of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements to an empty volume of the apparatus or reactor is at least 50 m2/m3, 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 claims 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 an 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 flow direction and that a maximum value of the width b of the bars is less than 85% of the 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Ye does not disclose the bars having a width b that is smaller than or equal to a spacing t of the bundle of tubes with outer diameter d or other elongated elements as recited in claim 1 because, while this is shown in the figures, the specification does not specifically state this. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The figures are a part of the disclosure of the Ye reference. See MPEP §2125.I that states that the drawings can be used as prior art. While the figures may not be to scale with regard to exact dimensions, the relationship between the structures are disclosed by the figures and are not speculative. The figures 2, 4 and 5 clearly show #204a, 206a, 204c and 206c pass through the spacing between #108 which clearly and unambiguously shows the bars having a width that is smaller than a spacing of the tubes. Applicant argues Ye is silence as to this limitation, but the figures clearly show this. There is no silence when the figures show the limitation. The figures are not an idealized schematic; the figures are a part of the disclosure and they show and disclose the limitations of claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory with no basis for generalizing the figures as being irrelevant to any kind of disclosure. Applicant further argues Ye fails to disclose a single embodiment that includes all the claimed structural relationship between the bars and bundle of tubes. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Examiner has clearly set forth the identifying reference numbers that read on each limitation, and the figures of Ye are all directed to a single embodiment with each figure showing different views or perspectives of the single embodiment.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant similarly argues Ye does not disclose limitations of the dependent claims because there is no explicit statements in Ye and anticipation cannot rest on speculative drawings. Again, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. The figures of Ye are part of the disclosure of the reference and clearly show the limitations of the claims and are not speculative in any way. Applicant has no basis for not considering the figures a part of the disclosure.
Applicant further makes a similar argument as to the Krawchuk reference failing to disclose the limitations of the claims because the figures cannot be considered to disclose the limitations even though they clearly show the limitations. As stated above for the same reasoning, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant further argues “any inference that bars must not touch or that width equals or is bounded as claimed is speculative and based on improper hindsight reasoning…See MPEP §2145(X)(A)(2024)”. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant is throwing out the word “speculative” without backing it up with any evidence or support. The figures clearly show the limitations as explained above in the 102 rejections, and since this is a 102 rejection, Applicant’s basis of argument being improper hindsight reasoning is directed to a 103 rejection is irrelevant. Furthermore, Krawchuk discloses the limitations not only in the figures, but also explicitly states in its specification that the bars’ width is smaller than a spacing between tubes (columns 2-3, lines 67-3; column 4, lines 1-10; column 4, lines 19-23). Again, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 5 and 6 are directed to an obviousness rejection, while Krawchuk rejects claims 5 and 6 under a 102 rejection. Krawchuk discloses all the limitations of the claim as set forth above. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory with no basis or support for why the reference fails to disclose the limitations.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 17 and the result effective rejection, Applicant further argues Applicant’s specification teaches that the claimed range is critical in paragraphs 27 and 37. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant’s cited paragraphs do not establish a criticality of the axial distance, spacing, mixing element length and surface area ratio dimensions as claimed in providing an unexpected result. Rather, Applicant’s paragraph 37 states that the optimal tube spacing depends on the specific requirements of the application. Applicant’s specification states the dimensions are preferable, but fails to specifically show that the particular range is critical by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Applicant further argues Krawchuk fails to teach such parameters are result-effective variables because the reference fails to teach the specific claimed ratios govern the hydrodynamic mixing and mechanical stabilization in the manner set forth in the present application. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive, because the reference is not required to disclose or teach the same variables. Krawchuk teaches optimizing the dimensions according to other variables (see Krawchuk columns 2-3, lines 67-3, columns 4-5, lines 64-4 and column 5, lines 54-60) which still establishes a result effective variable.
Applicant further argues Ye cannot be modified by Krawchuk to teach dependent claims because there is improper hindsight and it would change the principal of operation of Ye. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. The motivation is not improper hindsight and changing the spacing would not change the principal operation of Ye. Applicant’s arguments are conclusory with no supporting evidence as to why there is hindsight or why there would be a frustration of purpose.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and references disclose and/or teach all the limitations of the claims as set forth in the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights