DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 18-37 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-17 of parent case 16/077975 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 18-37 of the instant application are broader than Claims 1-17 of parent case 16/077975 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2). Each and every element of the apparatus of Claims 18-37 of the instant application can be found in Claims 1-17 of the parent case. For example, all elements of Independent Claim 18 of the instant application are present in Independent Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2 but Claim 18 of the instant application is broader than Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2 since Claim 18 of the instant application does not establish (at least) a “direct steam generator” and a “pressure reducing device” which is required by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2. The same applies to each of Claims 18-37 of the instant application relative to Claims 1-17 of parent case 16/077975 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2). Note that since Claims 18-37 of the instant application and Claim 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,635,202 B2 are not identical, this is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The differences between Claims 18-37 of the instant application and Claims 1-17 of the issued application is that Claims 1-17 of the issued application include further limitations (i.e., Claims 18-37 of the instant application are broader than Claims 1-17 of the issued application). Therefore, Claims 1-17 of the issued application are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of Claims 18-37 of the instant application and it has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since Claims 18-37 of the instant application are anticipated by Claims 1-17 of the issued application, Claims 18-37 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from Claims 1-17 of the issued application. Claims 18-37 of the instant application are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral (27) in Fig. 1 has no corresponding line to match it to an element in the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of Claims 21 and 22, change “the feedwater” to -- a feedwater --
In Claim 27, change “the second fluid” to -- a second fluid --
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pressure reducing device” (Claim 23)
“water return system” (Claim 23)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a pressure reducing device” (from Claim 23) is being interpreted as: a throttling valve, and equivalents thereof
“water return system” (from Claim 23) is being interpreted as: a system comprising a return pump disposed in a return conduit, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pronske et al. (US 2014/0137779 A1) (hereinafter “Pronske”) in view of Soukup et al. (US 4,330,038) (hereinafter "Soukup") and Goto (JP 2004156825 A) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 18, Pronske teaches of a heat exchanger (heat exchanger comprising “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3), comprising:
a condenser portion (portion of the “Condenser” inside of the enclosure of the condenser that feeds conduit (54) as shown in Fig. 3) configured to route saturated steam through the condenser portion via a condenser side steam conduit (53) and configured to condense the saturated steam to form a condensate (see at least [0053]-[0056], [0061] and Fig. 3), wherein the condenser portion is surrounded by an enclosure (the outer enclosure of the “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0060]-[0062] and Fig. 3); and
an evaporator portion of the close coupled heat exchanger (portion that feeds conduit (58)) that comprises a corrugated heat exchange element (the corrugated conduit that extends through the “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0061]-[0062] and Fig. 3).
Pronske fails to explicitly teach that the evaporator portion is configured to evaporate the condensate. However, doing so is well known in the art.
Soukup discloses a relatable system for generating steam (Fig. 2) that comprises a direct steam generator (1) that feeds saturated steam and combustion exhaust constituents to a close coupled heat exchanger (7). The close coupled heat exchanger comprises a condenser portion that feeds a separation tank (8) in addition to an evaporator portion that receives condensate from the evaporator portion and evaporates the condensate to form steam (“steam from heat exchanger 7” - see at least Col. 5 lines 7-22 and Fig. 2). It is advantageous for the evaporator section to be able to form steam itself because the steam, as opposed to heated water, can be put to use immediately upon exit of the evaporator section (see at least Col. 5 lines 7-22 and Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Pronske by configuring the existing evaporator portion of the close coupled heat exchanger to directly evaporate the condensate to form steam based on the teachings of Soukup. Doing so would have enabled the evaporator section taught by Pronske to output useable steam directly from the evaporator section itself that could then (at least) be more easily superheated in the existing superheater taught by Pronske (since the fluid temperature at the superheater inlet would become higher as a result). Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the evaporator portion being configured to evaporate the condensate as claimed.
Furthermore, Pronske fails to explicitly teach that the condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger also includes a corrugated heat exchange element that is arranged such that the corrugated heat exchange element of the evaporator is disposed on an opposite side of the enclosure from the corrugated heat exchange element of the condenser portion.
Goto discloses a relatable heat exchanger (1) that comprises a first portion (first portion comprising passage (19)) through which a first fluid passes (as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7) and a second portion (second portion comprising passage (17)) through which a second fluid passes (as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto teaches that each portion comprises its own corrugated heat exchange element (elements 15 and 13 respectively) and that a corrugated heat exchange element (15) of the first portion is disposed on an opposite side of an enclosure (at least the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) from a corrugated heat exchange element (17) of the second portion (as is shown in Figs. 6-7) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto teaches that configuring the first and second heat exchange portions to each have their own corrugated heat exchange element and arranging the same in the fashion demonstrated is advantageous because, inter alia, “heat exchange efficiency can be increased” (see at least [0018], [0065] and Fig. 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the apparatus taught by Pronske by configuring the existing first condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger to also include a corrugated heat exchange element that is arranged such that the corrugated heat exchange element of the existing second evaporator portion would be disposed on an opposite side of an enclosure from the corrugated heat exchange element of the first condenser portion based on the teachings of Goto. Doing so would have, inter alia, led to increased heat exchange efficiency. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the condenser portion comprising a first corrugated heat exchange element and the evaporator portion comprising a second corrugated heat exchange element that are arranged as claimed. Therefore, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 19, Pronske also teaches of a direct steam generator (“Oxy-Fuel Combustor”) (see at least [0043] and Fig. 3) fluidly coupled with the close coupled heat exchanger via the condenser side steam conduit (53) (as is shown in Fig. 3 - see at least [0043]-[0045] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Pronske also teaches that a feedwater provided to the direct steam generator includes produced water (“Produced Water”) (see at least [0041]-[0042] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Pronske also teaches that a feedwater includes produced water (“produced water”) and dirty makeup water (“water which is less than substantially pure” such as “effluent”) (see at least [0014], [0041]-[0042] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 22, Pronske also teaches that a feedwater includes produced water (“produced water”), dirty makeup water (“water which is less than substantially pure” such as “effluent”), and bitumen process pond water (“waste water coming from a discharge of some processing facility” that may contain “bitumen”) (see at least [0012], [0014], [0041]-[0042] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 23, Pronske also teaches of a pressure reducing device (the throttling valve disposed in conduit (54) as shown in Fig. 3) disposed after the condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger (as is shown in Fig. 3) and fluidly coupled to the condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger via a condenser side condensate conduit (portion of conduit (54) that is upstream from the valve disposed in line (54) as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0062] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 24, Pronske also teaches of a separation tank (“H2O Storage”) and water return system (system comprising conduit (55) and the pumps within conduit (55) as shown in Fig. 3) fluidly coupled to the pressure reducing device via an expansion conduit (portion of conduit (54) that is downstream from the valve disposed in line (54) as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the separation tank and water return system is configured to separate the combustion exhaust constituents from the condensate (via the “vent” - see at least [0017], [0055] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 25, Pronske also teaches that the evaporator portion of the close coupled heat exchanger is fluidly coupled with the separation tank and water return system via an evaporator side condensate conduit (conduit (55) that feeds the evaporator portion as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the evaporator portion of the combined apparatus would be configured to evaporate the condensate from the separation tank and water return system via heat transfer between the condenser portion and evaporator portion to form super-heated steam as taught by Soukup (see at least Fig. 2 of Soukup and the rejection for Claim 18 above and note that depending on the fluid temperatures used, the combined apparatus would be capable of, and thus configured to, form super-heated steam as claimed). Therefore, the combined apparatus would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Claims 26-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pronske in view of Goto.
Regarding Claim 26, Pronske teaches of a close coupled heat exchanger (heat exchanger comprising “Condenser” a shown in Fig. 3) that comprises a condenser portion (portion of the “Condenser” inside of the enclosure of the condenser that feeds conduit (54) as shown in Fig. 3) configured to route a first fluid (“saturated steam”) through the condenser portion (see at least [0053]-[0056], [0061] and Fig. 3), wherein the condenser portion is surrounded by an enclosure (the outer enclosure of the “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0060]-[0062] and Fig. 3); and
an evaporator portion of the close coupled heat exchanger (portion that feeds conduit (58)) that comprises a corrugated heat exchange element (the corrugated conduit that extends through the “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0061]-[0062] and Fig. 3).
Pronske fails to explicitly teach of the condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger also including a corrugated heat exchange element that is arranged such that the corrugated heat exchange element of the existing evaporator portion is disposed on an opposite side of the enclosure from the corrugated heat exchange element of the condenser portion and a first and second corrugated heat exchange element are formed.
Goto discloses a relatable heat exchanger (1) that comprises a first portion (first portion comprising passage (19)) through which a first fluid passes (as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7) and a second portion (second portion comprising passage (17)) through which a second fluid passes (as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto teaches that each portion comprises its own corrugated heat exchange element (elements 15 and 13 respectively) and that a corrugated heat exchange element (15) of the first portion is disposed on an opposite side of an enclosure (at least the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) from a corrugated heat exchange element (17) of the second portion (as is shown in Figs. 6-7) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto teaches that configuring the first and second heat exchange portions to each have their own corrugated heat exchange element and arranging the same in the fashion demonstrated is advantageous because, inter alia, “heat exchange efficiency can be increased” (see at least [0018], [0065] and Fig. 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the apparatus taught by Pronske by configuring the existing first condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger to also include a corrugated heat exchange element that is arranged such that the corrugated heat exchange element of the existing second evaporator portion would be disposed on an opposite side of an enclosure from the corrugated heat exchange element of the first condenser portion based on the teachings of Goto. Doing so would have, inter alia, led to increased heat exchange efficiency. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the condenser portion comprising a first corrugated heat exchange element and the evaporator portion comprising a second corrugated heat exchange element that are arranged as claimed. Therefore, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 27, Pronske also teaches that the first fluid is saturated steam (“saturated steam”) (see at least [0053]-[0056], [0061] and Fig. 3) and that a second fluid (fluid that is fed to the “Condenser” from “H2O Storage”) is a condensate (condensate that is supplied into “H2O Storage” - see at least [0062] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 28: In the combined apparatus, the condenser portion taught by Pronske already condenses saturated steam into condensate (see at least [0062], Fig. 3 and the rejection for Claim 26 above) wherein that function would necessarily remain intact with the condenser portion comprising the extra efficient first corrugated heat exchanger element as is taught by Goto in the combined apparatus (see at least Fig. 3 of Pronske, Fig. 6 of Goto and the rejection for Claim 1 above). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 29: Goto also teaches that the second corrugated heat exchange element of the combined apparatus that cooperates with the first corrugated heat exchanger element is configured to evaporate condensate (see at least [0042] of Goto and the rejection for Claim 26 above). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 30: Goto also teaches that heat is transferred between the first corrugated heat exchange element and the second corrugated heat exchange element that would be used in the combined apparatus (see at least [0042] and Fig. 6 of Goto and the rejection for Claim 26 above). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 31, Goto also teaches that the first corrugated heat exchange element (15) that would be used in the combined apparatus defines first lumens (as shown in Fig. 6) between the first corrugated heat exchange element (15) and the enclosure (the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) through which the first fluid flows (as is shown in Fig. 6 - see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 32, Goto also teaches that the second corrugated heat exchange element (17) that would be used in the combined apparatus defines second lumens (as is shown in Fig. 6) between the second corrugated heat exchange element (17) and the enclosure (the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) through which the second fluid flows (as is shown in Fig. 6 - see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 33, Goto also teaches that the enclosure that would be used in the combined apparatus (the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) separates the first fluid from the second fluid (as is shown in Fig. 6 - see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 34, Pronske teaches of a close coupled heat exchanger (heat exchanger comprising “Condenser” a shown in Fig. 3) that comprises a condenser portion (portion of the “Condenser” inside of the enclosure of the condenser that feeds conduit (54) as shown in Fig. 3) configured to route a first fluid (“saturated steam”) through the condenser portion (see at least [0053]-[0056], [0061] and Fig. 3), wherein the condenser portion is surrounded by an enclosure (the outer enclosure of the “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0060]-[0062] and Fig. 3); and
an evaporator portion of the close coupled heat exchanger (portion of the condenser that feeds conduit (58)) that comprises a corrugated heat exchange element (the corrugated conduit that extends through the “Condenser” as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least [0061]-[0062] and Fig. 3).
Pronske fails to explicitly teach of the condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger also including a corrugated heat exchange element that is arranged such that the corrugated heat exchange element of the existing evaporator portion is disposed on an opposite side of the enclosure from the corrugated heat exchange element of the condenser portion and first and second corrugated heat exchange elements are formed and such that the first corrugated heat exchange element and the enclosure define lumens through which the first fluid flows while the second corrugated heat exchange element and the enclosure define lumens through which the second fluid flows.
Goto discloses a relatable heat exchanger (1) that comprises a first portion (first portion comprising passage (19)) through which a first fluid passes (as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7) and a second portion (second portion comprising passage (17)) through which a second fluid passes (as is shown via the flow arrows in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto teaches that each portion comprises its own corrugated heat exchange element (elements 15 and 13 respectively) and that a corrugated heat exchange element (15) of the first portion is disposed on an opposite side of an enclosure (at least the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) from a corrugated heat exchange element (17) of the second portion (as is shown in Figs. 6-7) (see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto also teaches that the first corrugated heat exchange element (15) and the enclosure define lumens through which the first fluid flows (as is shown in Fig. 6) while the second corrugated heat exchange element (17) and the enclosure define lumens through which the second fluid flows (as is shown in Fig. 6 - see at least [0015]-[0018] and Figs. 6-7). Goto teaches that configuring the first and second heat exchange portions to each have their own corrugated heat exchange element and corresponding lumens and arranging the same in the fashion demonstrated is advantageous because, inter alia, “heat exchange efficiency can be increased” (see at least [0018], [0065] and Fig. 6).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the apparatus taught by Pronske by configuring the existing first condenser portion of the close coupled heat exchanger to also include a corrugated heat exchange element that is arranged such that the corrugated heat exchange element of the existing second evaporator portion would be disposed on an opposite side of an enclosure from the corrugated heat exchange element of the first condenser portion based on the teachings of Goto and to have configured the first corrugated heat exchange element and the enclosure to define lumens through which the first fluid flows while the second corrugated heat exchange element and the enclosure define lumens through which the second fluid flows as is also taught by Goto. Doing so would have, inter alia, led to increased heat exchange efficiency. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the condenser portion comprising a first corrugated heat exchange element and the evaporator portion comprising a second corrugated heat exchange element that are arranged as claimed. Therefore, such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 35, Goto also teaches that heat is transferred between the first fluid and the second fluid across the enclosure that would be used in the combined apparatus (the enclosure formed by the plates that sandwich element (15) between them as shown in Fig. 6) (see at least [0015]-[0018], Figs. 6-7 and the rejection for Claim 34 above).
Regarding Claim 36, Goto also teaches that heat is transferred between the first corrugated heat exchange element (15) and the second corrugated heat exchange element (17) that would be used in the combined apparatus (see at least [0018], Figs. 6-7 and the rejection for Claim 34 above).
Regarding Claim 37, Pronske and Goto also teach that the first fluid is a hot fluid and the second fluid is a cold fluid (Note that the limitations “hot fluid” and “cold fluid” in the context claimed are being interpreted as fluids with relative temperatures to one another wherein a first fluid with a higher temperature than a second fluid can be considered a “hot fluid” relative to the second fluid while the second fluid can be considered a “cold fluid” relative to the first fluid. In the instant case, this exact relationship is taught by both Pronske and Goto (see at least [0061]-[0062] of Pronske, [0018] and Figs. 6-7 of Goto (“high-temperature fluid”/“low-temperature fluid) and the rejection for Claim 34 above). Thus, the combination of Pronske and Goto would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in terms of structure and use:
Maeda et al. (US 8,651,170 B2)
Yin et al. (US 8,550,153 B2)
Ogawa (US 5,560,424)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 4/30/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights