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 without traverse of Group I, claims 24-41, in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Group II, c laim s 42 and 43 , is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Objections Claim s 26 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 26, “ 1,9” should be changed to --1.9-- and “3,2” should be changed to --3.2--. In claim 34, “Wherein” (at line 2) should be changed to --wherein--. Appropriate correction is required. 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. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 28, 33-39, and 41 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. Regarding claim 28, the recitation of “ the elements for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube” ( plural, at line 2) is unclear because claim 24 previously set forth “ one or more elements for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube” ( singular and plural, at lines 7-8) . Regarding claim 33, the relationship between “ an element for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube” (at line 2) and “ one or more elements for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube” previously set forth in claim 24 (at lines 7-8) is unclear . Regarding claim 34, the relationship between “ an element for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube” (at line 2) and “one or more elements for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube” previously set forth in claim 24 (at lines 7-8) is unclear. Regarding claim 35 , the relationship between “ an element for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube” (at line 2) and “ one or more elements for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube” previously set forth in claim 24 (at lines 7-8) is unclear. Regarding claim 36, the recitation of “ the element” ( singular, at line 2) is unclear because claim 24 sets forth “ one or more elements ” ( singular and plural, at lines 7-8). Regarding claim 37, the relationship between “ an element for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube” (at line 2) and the “ one or more elements for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube” previously set forth in claim 24 (at lines 7-8) is unclear. Regarding claim 38, the recitations of “the inlet” and “the outlet” (at line 3) lack proper positive antecedent basis. Regarding claim 39, the limitation “the number of elements… is comprised between 0 (zero) and 50” is considered indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the number range should include the endpoints of zero and 50. Regarding claim 41, the recitation of “ the reformer tube provided with one element or a plurality of elements” (at line 2) is unclear because claim 24 sets forth that “ at least a portion of the plurality of reformer tubes is provided with one or more elements” (at lines 7-8). 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. Claims 24 -26 , 29-37, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Farnell (GB 2314853 A). The instant “reforming reactor” claims are considered apparatus claims. Regarding claim 24, Farnell discloses a reforming reactor for an endothermic process (i.e., a reactor for effecting an endothermic reaction, and in particular, the catalytic steam reforming of hydrocarbons; see page 1, lines 2-3; page 2, lines 1-8), the reforming reactor (i.e., a top-fired reformer 1 ; see FIG. 1-2; page 2, line 34, to page 3, line 8) comprising: a plurality of reformer tubes (i.e., catalyst filled reformer tubes 2 ) allowing a flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid (i.e., a flow of hydrocarbon and steam, supplied via a header 4 ) inside the tubes, wherein the reformer tubes 2 contain in their interior a catalyst for the conversion of said hydrocarbons and said at least one further fluid to synthesis gas (i.e., the reformer tubes 2 are filled with a catalyst for promoting the steam reforming reaction of hydrocarbons to synthesis gas; see page 2, lines 1-8); and means for heating the reformer tubes (i.e., burners 7 and hot flue gas ; wherein said “means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to burners or a hot flue gas and/or a hot product gas , as described in the specification , and equivalents thereof ; see specification at page 6, lines 8-9 and 29-30) ; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of reformer tubes 2 is provided with one or more elements (i.e., longitudinally extending fins 11 , see page 2, lines 9-17 ; other means of extending the surface may also be employed, for example, serrations or studs, see page 2, lines 28-29 ) for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube 2 ; and wherein the catalyst comprises a structured catalyst (i.e., the tubes 2 are filled with reforming catalysts having good heat transfer characteristics, which are catalysts in the form of shaped units having a plurality of through passages, see page 2, lines 6-8; for example, the reforming catalyst has the form of cylinders with a diameter of 14.0 mm and a length of 17.6 mm, wherein each cylinder has four cylindrical passages with an internal diameter of 4.0 mm extending axially therethrough , see page 3, lines 9-12). Regarding claim 25, the further limitation “wherein the reforming reactor is configured such that a normalized space velocity at an inlet of a reformer tube is from 1 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 ) to 5 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 )” is directed to a process condition that does not impart further structur e to the apparatus claim. The reforming reactor of Farnell would be operable in the claimed manner by feeding the flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid to the inlet of the reformer tube at a volume flow rate that achieve d the desired normalized space velocity. Regarding claim 26, the further limitation “wherein the reforming reactor is configured such that a normalized space velocity at an inlet of a reformer tube is from 1,9 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 ) to 3,2 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 )” is directed to a process condition that does not impart further structur e to the apparatus claim. The reforming reactor of Farnell would be operable in the recited manner by feeding the flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid to the inlet of the reformer tube at a volume flow rate that achieve d the desired normalized space velocity. Regarding claim 29, Farnell discloses that the structured catalyst consists of monoliths (i.e., the reforming catalyst, comprising a support made from calcium aluminate and h aving the form of a cylinder with four cylindrical passages extending therethrough, is known as a monolithic catalyst; see page 3, lines 9-12). Regarding claim 30, Farnell (see page 3, lines 9-12) discloses that the structured catalyst comprises a supporting structure (i.e., a calcium aluminate support having the form of a cylinder with four cylindrical passages extending therethrough) and a catalytic active species (i.e., 16% by weight nickel) fixed to said supporting structure. Regarding claim 31, Farnell discloses that a flowed-through area of the reformer tube 2 comprises a circular cross-section (i.e., each reformer tube 2 has a circular cross-section, for example, with an internal diameter of 80 mm; see page 3, lines 4-6). Regarding claim 32, Farnell discloses that the structured catalyst comprises one type of structured catalyst (i.e., the reforming catalyst is of one type, in the form of a catalyst comprising 16% by weight nickel supported on a cylindrical calcium aluminate support having cylindrical passages extending axially therethrough; see page 3, lines 9-12). Regarding claim 33, Farnell further discloses that the element 11 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 2 can be made from the same material as the reformer tube (i.e., the extended surface may be “integrally cast thereon”, such that the materials forming the fins 11 and the reformer tubes 2 are the same; see page 2, lines 29-30). Regarding claim 34, Farnell further discloses that the element 11 for enlarging the outer surface of the reformer tube 2 may comprise a substance bonded to the material of the reformer tube (i.e., the extended surface may be “provided by attachments to the tubes”; see page 2, lines 29-30 ). Regarding claim 35, Farnell discloses that the element 11 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 2 comprises fins (i.e., the longitudinally extending fins 11 ; see FIG. 2). Regarding claim 36, Farnell discloses that the element 11 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 2 is a fin (i.e., the longitudinally extending fin 11 ; see FIG. 2). Regarding claim 37, Farnell discloses that the element 11 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 2 extends in the longitudinal direction of the reformer tube 2 (i.e., the fins 11 extend longitudinally; see page 3, lines 4-6). Regarding claim 39, Farnell discloses that the number of elements 11 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 2 on the circumference at any height along the reformer tube is comprised between zero and 50 (i.e., the number of fins 11 may be 8 to 30 fins, see page 2, lines 12-14; for example, twelve fins 11 , see FIG. 2 and page 3, lines 4-6). Regarding claim 41, Farnell discloses that the reformer tube 2 provided with one element or a plurality of elements 11 for enlarging the outer surface area of said reformer tube 2 comprises an outside surface area which is at least 10% to 60% highe r than a comparable reformer tube without elements for enlarging the outer surface area (i.e., the number and height of the fins 11 is preferably such as to increase the heat transfer surface area by 40 to 120%, see page 2, lines 14-15 ; for example, the finned tube has a heat exchange surface area that is about 76% greater than that of an unfinned tube, see page 3, lines 4-8). Claims 24-26, 29-32, 35-38 , and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Guazzo t ti et al. (US 2019/0039038 A1). The instant “reforming reactor” claims are considered apparatus claims. Regarding claim 24, Guazzo t ti et al. discloses a reforming reactor for an endothermic process (i.e., an endothermic reactor according to FIG. 1 or FIG. 2), the reactor comprising: a plurality of reformer tubes (i.e., a plurality of catalytic vessels 10 having the form of tubes; see paragraphs [0044]-[0045]) allowing a flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid inside the tubes (i.e., a process gas feed 1 comprising starting materials for a steam reforming process or a CO 2 reforming process, distributed to a top end of the catalytic vessels 10 via a manifold 13 ; see paragraph [0001]) , wherein the reformer tubes 10 contain in their interior a catalyst (i.e., an enhanced catalytic device 11a , 11b ; see paragraphs [0048]-[0049]) for the conversion of said hydrocarbons and said at least one further fluid to synthesis gas (see paragraph [00 01 ]) ; means for heating the reformer tubes (i.e., burners 101 and hot flue gases, see paragraph s [0044] -[0044] ; wherein said “means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to burners or a hot flue gas and/or a hot product gas , as described in the specification , and equivalents thereof ; see specification at page 6, lines 8-9 and 29-30 ); wherein at least a portion of the plurality of reformer tubes 10 is provided with one or more elements (i.e., an extended surface 12 , for example longitudinal fins or studs; see paragraph [0046]) for enlarging the outer surface area of a reformer tube 10 , and wherein the catalyst comprises a structured catalyst (i.e., the enhanced catalytic device 11a or 11b comprises a mechanical support, for example, an o pen cell ceramic foam, metal foam , or wire mesh , on which a catalytic material for the endothermic process is deposited; see paragraph [0051]) . Regarding claim 25, the further limitation “wherein the reforming reactor is configured such that a normalized space velocity at an inlet of a reformer tube is from 1 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 ) to 5 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 )” is directed to a process condition that does not impart further structur e to the apparatus claim. The reforming reactor of Guazzotti et al. would be operable in the claimed manner by feeding the flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid to the inlet of the reformer tube at a volume flow rate that achieve d the desired normalized space velocity. Regarding claim 26, the further limitation “wherein the reforming reactor is configured such that a normalized space velocity at an inlet of a reformer tube is from 1,9 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 ) to 3,2 Nm 3 /(s*m 3 )” is directed to a process condition that does not impart further structur e to the apparatus claim. The reforming reactor of Guazzotti et al. would be operable in the claimed manner by feeding the flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid to the inlet of the reformer tube at a volume flow rate that achieve d the desired normalized space velocity. Regarding claim 2 9 , Guazzotti et al. discloses that the structured catalyst is selected from the group consisting of monoliths, open cell foams, stacked wire meshes and structured packing (i.e., the enhanced catalytic device 11a , 11b comprises a mechanical support, for example, an o pen cell ceramic foam, metal foam , or wire mesh , on which a catalytic material for the endothermic process is deposited; see paragraph [0051]). Regarding claim 30 , Guazzotti et al. (see paragraph [0051]) discloses that the structured catalyst 11a , 11b comprises a supporting structure (i.e., the mechanical support, for example, an open cell ceramic foam, metal foam, or wire mesh) and a catalytic active species fixed to said supporting structure (i.e., the catalytic material for the endothermic process, for example, catalyst active species selected from transition metals (single component or combination of more metals) , deposited on the mechanical support) . Regarding claim 31, Guazzotti et al. discloses that a flowed-through area of the reformer tube 10 comprises a circular cross-section (i.e., the second embodiment, shown in FIG. 2 and 3b) or an annular cross-section (i.e., the first embodiment, shown in FIG. 1 and 3a) . Regarding claim 32, Guazzotti et al. discloses that the structured catalyst 11a , 11b comprises one type of structured catalyst or a plurality of structured catalysts within the same reformer tube ( i.e., the enhanced catalytic device 11a , 11b comprises structured elements stacked one over the other inside if the catalytic vessels 10 after the deposition of the catalyst active species; see paragraph [005 2 ]) . Regarding claim 35 , Guazzotti et al. discloses that the element 12 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 10 is selected from at least one element of the group consisting of fins, blades, rips, slats and lamellae (i.e., the extended surface 12 can comprise longitudinal fins; see paragraph [0030], [0046]) . Regarding claim 36 , Guazzotti et al. discloses that the element 12 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 10 is a fin (i.e., the extended surface 12 can comprise longitudinal fins; see paragraph [0030], [0046]) . Regarding claim 37, Guazzotti et al. discloses that the element 12 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 10 extends in the longitudinal direction of the reformer tube (i.e., the extended surface 12 can comprise longitudinal fins; see paragraph [0030], [0046]) . Regarding claim 38, Guazzo t ti et al. (see FIG. 2) discloses that the number of elements 12 for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube 10 is larger in the area of the inlet of the reformer tube than in the area of the outlet of the reformer tube (i.e., the extended surface 12 , for example, the longitudinal fins or studs, is only provided in the area of the catalytic vessel 10 proximate to the inlet , which receives the process gas 1 ; the area of the catalytic vessel 10 proximate to the outlet 2 , which discharges the syngas product, does not include elements for enlarging the outer surface area). Regarding claim 40, Guazzotti et al. discloses that an average heat flux of the reformer tubes 10 ranges from approximately 55,000 to 95,000 k cal/hr/m 2 , depending on location in the combustion chamber 100 of the reforming reactor (see Table at paragraph [0045]). 1 kW equals approximately 860 kcal/hr. Therefore, Guazzotti et al. discloses that the heat flux from an outer part of the reformer tubes 10 to an inner part of the reformer tubes 10 lies within the claimed range of from 50 kW/m 2 to 200 kW/m 2 (or the range of from 43,000 kcal/hr/m 2 to 172,000 kcal/hr/m 2 ) on average along the length of the tube. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnell (GB 2314853 A) in view of Ca nces et al. (EP 2 70 8 812 A1). Farnell discloses that the means for heating the reformer tubes 2 are burners 7 (see page 2, lines 35-37). Farnell, however, does not disclose or adequately suggest the claimed arrangement of the burners 7 and the reformer tubes 2 within the reforming reactor. Cances et al. discloses a reforming reactor for an endothermic process (i.e., a typical arrangement of a top-fired furnace 1 , in FIG. 1, which has been modified according to the design modification of FIG. 5 ; see paragraphs [0035], [0039] ) , wherein the reactor comprises: a plurality of reformer tubes (i.e., catalyst tubes 2 ) allowing a flow of hydrocarbons and at least one further fluid (i.e., a feed comprising methane and steam) inside the tubes; wherein the reformer tubes 2 contain in their interior a catalyst for the conversion of said hydrocarbons and said at least one further fluid to synthesis gas; and means (i.e., burners 3 ) for heating the reformer tubes 2 ; and wherein the means for heating the reformer tubes 2 are burners 3 . Specifically, Cances et al. (see FIG. 5; paragraph [0039]) discloses that the burners 3 and the reformer tubes 2 are arranged within the reformer reactor 1 in a manner such that : the reformer tubes are arranged in rows (i.e., as a first row of catalyst tubes 2 1 , a second row of catalyst tubes 2 2 , etc . ) within the reforming reactor 1 , with each row of reformer tubes 2 1 , 2 2 , etc. , thereby defining a reformer tube row; the burners 3 are arranged in rows (i.e., as rows of inner burners 3a and rows of outer or side burners 3b ) within the reforming reactor 1 ; a plurality of inner burners 3a is arranged between and parallel to two reformer tube rows (i.e., between adjacent rows of catalyst tubes 2 1 , 2 2 , etc.) , thereby defining an inner burner row; and a plurality of outer burners 3b is arranged between and parallel to a reformer tube row (i.e., the row of reformer tubes 2 1 ) and a reforming reactor wall (i.e., a furnace wall 1a ), thereby defining an outer burner row. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange of the burners and the reformer tubes within the reforming reactor in the claimed manner , as taught by Cances et al. , in the reforming reactor of Farnell because the arrangement would make it possible to generate a more homogenous temperature profile in the reformer tubes (see paragraph [0028] ). Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farnell (GB 2314853 A) in view of Cances et al. (EP 2 708 812 A1) , as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Ganeshan (US 6,364,658 B1). Cances et al. (see FIG. 1, 5) further discloses that the circumferential surface of a reformer tube 2 has a first partial surface and a second partial surface, wherein the first partial surface corresponds to the surface with which reformer tubes 3 within a reformer tube row face one another, and the second partial surface corresponds to the surface with which reformer tubes 2 face a row of inner burners 3a or a row of outer burners 3b . The combination of Farnell and Cances et al., however, fails to disclose or teach the claimed heterogeneous distribution of the elements for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube along the circumference of the reformer tube . Ganeshan discloses an apparatus (i.e., a double-fired furnace used as chemical process equipment; see FIG. 9 , column 4, lines 7-19, and column 6, lines 13-20) comprisin g: tubes (i.e., radiant tubes) allowing a flow of fluids to be heated inside the tubes ; and burners for heating the tubes (i.e., burners for producing flame s at the positions of radiant planes 74 on the opposite sides of the radiant tube) ; wherein at least a portion of the tubes is provided with one or more elements (i.e., studs 60 defining extended surfaces ; alternatively, fins can be used ) for enlarging the outer surface area of the tube. Specifically, Ganeshan (see FIG. 9) discloses that the elements 60 are distributed heterogeneously (i.e., “partially studded”) along the circumference of the tube; wherein the circumferential surface of the tube has a first partial surface (i.e., at the relatively low-flux margin s 75 of the tube) and a second partial surface (i.e., at the relatively high-flux light sides 72 of the tube) ; wherein the first partial surface 75 corresponds to the surface of the tube which is farther away from the burners 74 , and the second partial surface 72 correspond s to the surface of the tube which face s the burners 74 ; and wherein the number of elements 60 for enlarging the outer surface of the tube arranged on the first partial surface 75 is larger than the number of elements 60 for enlarging the outer surface of the tube arranged on the second partial surface 72 (i.e., studs 60 are located at the relatively low - flux margin s 75 of the tubes , and a smooth surface without studs is provided at the relatively high-flux light sides 72 of the tube ). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heterogeneously distribute the elements for enlarging the outer surface area of the reformer tube along the circumference of the reformer tube in the modified reforming reactor of Farnell because, by providing the elements at the relatively low-flux areas of the reformer tubes , which correspond to the first partial surface of the tubes , and by providing a smooth surface without elements at the relatively high flux areas of the reformer tubes , which correspond to the second partial surface of the tubes , the heat flux would be more uniformly distributed around the circumference of the reformer tube s , an overall heat transfer of the reformer tube s would be increased, and the temperature differential between the first partial surface and the second partial surface of the reformer tubes w ould be decrease d , as taught by Ganeshan (see, e.g., column 2, lines 40-45; column 6, lines 33-67). C onclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Burlingame et al. (US 2003/0064011 A1), Camy -Peyret et al. (US 2018/037210 A1) and Ulber et al. (US 2019/0275494 A1) are cited to further illustrate the state of the art. * * * Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNIFER A LEUNG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1449 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, 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. /JENNIFER A LEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774