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
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8 May 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
Figs. 1-4 are not drawn in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes without colors (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.a).
Most of the numbers and letters in figs. 1-4 are not clear (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.e), as shown in the following annotation from fig. 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
168
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 and 3-4 use shading. However, cross-sections shall be indicated using oblique hatching (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13.b).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a phrase that can be implied: “In one non-limiting embodiment, an apparatus is provided….” Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the limitation from claim 13: “wherein the fluid is a gas” by using “comprises” or “consists of” instead of “is.” For the purpose of the examination, the term “is” will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as meaning “comprises.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14, 16-19, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites: “transporting the fluid from the first port to one end of the vessel shell along a flow path between outside of a tube forming the overtube arrangement and inside of the vessel shell to preheat the fluid before entering the annular space between the resistive heating element and the tube of the overtube arrangement.” However, there is no mention of this flow path nor is there any mention of preheating the fluid in the original Specification or the original set of Claims. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 16 recites: “tuning heat input to the fluid from the resistive heating element by altering size of the annular space.” Although the Specification discloses that “the system is described as ‘tunable’ wherein the spacing of the annular area between the resistive heating elements 4 and the overtubes 11 may be varied,” there is no disclosure of how this spacing is varied or how the spacing can be altered to tune the heat input. In this case, based on the lack of detail provided by the original disclosure, it is determined that the claimed subject matter is not presented in such a way as to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 17 recites: “further comprising: providing spacers that support the overtube arrangement with respect to the resistive heating element for maintaining the annular space.” Although the Specification discloses in the passive voice that “an overtube assembly centering spacer 16 is provided to allow for support between the body shell 8 and the radiation shield 10,” this disclosure is different than what is recited in claim 17, which requires an active method step of “providing spacers” that is included within a “method of operating a heater.” There is no disclosure in the Specification of method step for “providing spacers” within the context of a “method of operating a heater.” As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 18 recites: “tuning the heater by altering characteristics of a tube forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater.” However, there is no mention of “altering characteristics of a tube” in the original Specification or the original set of Claims. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 19 recites: “tuning the heater by altering cross-section thickness of a tube forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater.” However, there is no mention of “altering cross-section thickness of a tube” in the original Specification or the original set of Claims. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 26 recites: “transporting the fluid from the first port in a first direction through the heater along a flowpath between the vessel shell and an outside of a tube forming the overtube arrangement, wherein the first direction is opposite a second direction the fluid travels when passing through the annular space inside of the tube.” However, there is no mention of this flow path in the original Specification or the original set of Claims. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 27 recites: “transporting the fluid from the first port in a first direction through the heater along a flowpath between the vessel shell and a radiation shield surrounding the overtube arrangement, wherein the first direction is opposite a second direction the fluid travels when passing through the annular space.” However, there is no mention of this flow path in the original Specification or the original set of Claims. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-19 and 23-25 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.
Claim 16 recites: “tuning heat input to the fluid from the resistive heating element by altering size of the annular space because of a tube of the overtube arrangement and the resistive heating element surrounded by the tube.” However, there is no disclosure in the Specification of how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to tune a heat input by altering the annular space between a tube and a resistive heating element. Furthermore, it is not clear why this altering should take place “because of a tube of the overtube arrangement and the resistive heating element surrounded by the tube.” As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know if they were infringing on this limitation or not because the limitation cannot be adequately understood in view of the Specification.
Claim 17 recites: “further comprising: providing spacers.” Claim 17 is dependent on claim 13, which is a “method of operating a heater.” It is unclear how a “method of operating a heater” can include a step for “providing spacers.” As a result, the scope of claim 17 is indefinite—is claim 17 directed to a “method of operating a heater” or is claim 17 directed to a method for manufacturing a heater in addition to a method for operating a heater (fig. 1 of the Drawings shows the spacers 9 as being installed within the shell 8 that surrounds the heater 100)? Recommend broadening the scope of the preamble in claim 13 if the intent is to claim a method for operating and manufacturing a heater.
Claim 18 recites: “tuning the heater by altering characteristics of a tube forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater.” However, there is no disclosure in the Specification of how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to tune a heater by altering the characteristics of a tube. Furthermore, it is not clear what “characteristics of a tube” can be altered to cause the “tuning” of a heater. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know if they were infringing on this limitation or not because the limitation cannot be adequately understood in view of the Specification.
Claim 19 recites: “tuning the heater by altering cross-section thickness of a tube forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater.” However, there is no disclosure in the Specification of how one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to tune a heater by altering the cross-section thickness of a tube. Furthermore, it is not clear what would cause the cross-section thickness of a tube to be altered to result in a “tuning” of the heater. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art could not possibly know if they were infringing on this limitation or not because the limitation cannot be adequately understood in view of the Specification.
Claim 23 recites: “wherein the overtube arrangement includes at least two tubes respectively disposed around first and second ones of the resistive heating element.” It is unclear what the “first and second ones” of the resistive heating element are. It is also unclear how many resistive heating elements are within the scope of claim 23. Does this limitation mean that there are a plurality of resistive heating elements? If so, then how does the limitations of claim 13 that are attributed to the “resistive heating element” affect the “first and seconds ones” of claim 23? Do the first and seconds ones each need to each have an “annular space” as required in claim 13? Recommend broadening the scope of the “resistive heating element” in claim 13 by using “at least one” and ensuring that it is clear how the resistive heating element(s) in claim 23 inherit the limitations that are already recited in claim 13.
Claims 23-25 are structural limitations that are attributed to the structure of the claimed “heater.” Claims that claim both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus are indefinite because is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure of the heater or the method steps for using the heater (MPEP 2173.05.p). As a result, it is unclear how apparatus claims 23-25 affect the method that is claimed in claim 13. Recommend associating claims 23-25 with new method steps or with the method steps that are already recited within claim 13.
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.
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.
Claims 13-14, 16-20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US-20200061514-A1) in view of Mann et al. (US-20170094725-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe teaches a method of operating a heater (operation of the filter 10, fig. 2; para 0009; the filter 2 includes heaters 13, fig. 2), comprising:
providing a fluid (process gas “PG,” fig. 2) to a first port (intake port 23, fig. 2) into a vessel shell of the heater (external housing of filter 10, fig. 2), wherein the fluid is a gas (“process gas,” para 0045);
passing the fluid after being provided to the first port through an annular space (when the process gas moves from S1 to S2, “the process gas PG flows into the gap between the heater 13 and the tubular member 13 a,” para 0055; the space between tube 13a and heater 13 is construed as being annular, fig. 3) between a heating element (heaters 13, fig. 2) and an overtube arrangement (tubes 13a, fig. 2) within an interior volume of the vessel shell (interior of heater 10, fig. 2),
energizing the resistive heating element within the overtube arrangement (the heaters 13 are energized by the power supply device 14, fig. 2; para 0052);
producing a heat by the resistive heating element of the heater (“raise the temperature of the process gas,” para 0057);
conducting the heat to the fluid as the fluid transports through the annular space (paras 0060-0061) between the first port (port 23, fig. 2) to a second port (port 31, fig. 2) exiting from the vessel shell; and
transporting the fluid out of the second port (para 0058).
Watanabe, figs. 2-3
PNG
media_image2.png
931
581
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
539
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose resistive heating element (although Watanabe discloses that the heaters 13 are connected to a power supply device 14, Watanabe does not explicitly disclose that the heaters are resistive heating elements).
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Mann teaches resistive heating element (heating rods 2, fig. 5; “electrical resistance of the heating rod,” para 0018)
Mann, fig. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
502
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Mann, by using a heating rod with electrical resistance, as taught by Mann, for the heaters 3, as taught by Watanabe, in order to generate heat from electrical energy, because although coiled wires made of resistance material can also generate heat from electrical energy, by using a rod made of resistance material along a tube axis, extremely large amounts of energy can be transferred to the gas and the operating life of rods is 10 times greater than conventional heating coils (Mann, paras 0005, 0008-0012, and 0018; Watanabe, para 0012).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe teaches further comprising:
transporting the fluid from the first port (port 23, fig. 2) to one end of the vessel shell (top end of filter 10, fig. 2; space S1, fig. 2; “the process gas PG passes through the filter body 12 and flows out from the outer surface of the filter body 12 to the first space S1,” para 0055) along a flow path between outside of a tube (directly above tubes 13a, fig. 2) forming the overtube arrangement and inside of the vessel shell (inside the outer housing of filter 10, fig. 2) to preheat the fluid (the gas is heated by heaters 13 before entering tubes 13a, which is construed as “preheating;” annotated in fig. 2 below) before entering the annular space between the resistive heating element and the tube of the overtube arrangement (“Then, the process gas PG flows into the gap between the heater 13 and the tubular member 13 a from above the tubular member 13 a and flows downward,” para 0055).
Watanabe, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
2682
2696
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: tuning heat input to the fluid from the resistive heating element by altering size of the annular space because of a tube of the overtube arrangement and the resistive heating element surrounded by the tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Mann teaches further comprising: tuning heat input to the fluid from the resistive heating element by altering size of the annular space (“the appropriate width of the annular gap also depends on the length of the tube and also the electrical heating power implemented in the heating rod,” para 0022; varying the “annular gap” is describe in para 0023, which is construed as the claimed “tuning heat input…by altering size of the annular space;” the Specification of the Instant Application defines “tunable” as “wherein the spacing of the annular area between the resistive heating elements 4 and the overtubes 11 may be varied”) because of a tube of the overtube arrangement and the resistive heating element surrounded by the tube (tubes 1 surrounding rods 2, fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Mann, by adjusting the appropriate width of the annular gap based on the length of the tube and the electrical heating power, as taught by Mann, for the circular gap between the heater 13 and the tube 13a, as taught by Watanabe, because the tube diameters and heating rod diameters can vary in wide ranges, and it has been found that a ratio between 0.3 and 0.8 for the heating-rod diameter to tube diameter is advantageous for the effective transfer of heat energy for gas temperatures above 900° C (Mann, paras 0006, 0016, and 0018).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe teaches further comprising: providing spacers (plates 22a and 22b, fig. 2; para 0042) that support the overtube arrangement (tubes 13a, fig. 2) with respect to the resistive heating element for maintaining the annular space (paras 0050-0051; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: tuning the heater by altering characteristics of a tube forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Mann teaches further comprising: tuning the heater by altering characteristics of a tube (“A cross-sectional ratio of 0.2 is afforded for example approximately with a very thin heating rod diameter of 0.2 mm and a tube diameter of 0.45 mm. A cross-sectional ratio of 0.9 is afforded for example with a heating rod diameter of about 4.75 mm in a tube with an inside diameter of 5 mm,” para 0016; varying the diameter of the tube is construed as the claimed “tuning the heater …by altering characteristics of a tube;” the Specification of the Instant Application defines “tunable” as “wherein the spacing of the annular area between the resistive heating elements 4 and the overtubes 11 may be varied”) forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater (fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Mann, by adjusting the diameter of the tube in order to provide the appropriate width of the annular gap, as taught by Mann, for the circular gap between the heater 13 and the tube 13a, as taught by Watanabe, because the tube diameters and heating rod diameters can vary in wide ranges, and it has been found that a ratio between 0.3 and 0.8 for the heating-rod diameter to tube diameter is advantageous for the effective transfer of heat energy for gas temperatures above 900° C (Mann, paras 0006, 0016, and 0018).
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: tuning the heater by altering cross-section thickness of a tube forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Mann teaches further comprising: tuning the heater by altering cross-section thickness of a tube (“A cross-sectional ratio of 0.2 is afforded for example approximately with a very thin heating rod diameter of 0.2 mm and a tube diameter of 0.45 mm. A cross-sectional ratio of 0.9 is afforded for example with a heating rod diameter of about 4.75 mm in a tube with an inside diameter of 5 mm,,” para 0016; varying the cross-sectional ratio of the rod to tube is construed as the claimed “tuning the heater …by altering cross-section thickness of a tube;” the Specification of the Instant Application defines “tunable” as “wherein the spacing of the annular area between the resistive heating elements 4 and the overtubes 11 may be varied”) forming the overtube arrangement placed within the heater (fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Mann, by adjusting the cross-sectional ratio between a tube and a rod in order to provide the appropriate width of the annular gap, as taught by Mann, for the circular gap between the heater 13 and the tube 13a, as taught by Watanabe, because the tube diameters and heating rod diameters can vary in wide ranges, and it has been found that a ratio between 0.3 and 0.8 for the heating-rod diameter to tube diameter is advantageous for the effective transfer of heat energy for gas temperatures above 900° C (Mann, paras 0006, 0016, and 0018).
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: tuning the heater by altering electrical input to the resistive heating element.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Mann teaches further comprising: tuning the heater (“the appropriate width of the annular gap also depends on the length of the tube and also the electrical heating power implemented in the heating rod,” para 0022; varying the “annular gap” is describe in para 0023, which is construed as the claimed “tuning heat input…by altering size of the annular space;” the Specification of the Instant Application defines “tunable” as “wherein the spacing of the annular area between the resistive heating elements 4 and the overtubes 11 may be varied”) by altering electrical input to the resistive heating element (“the power range can extend between some watts or some 100 watts and 100 or more kilowatts,” construed as altering the power that is inputted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Mann, by adjusting the appropriate width of the annular gap based on the electrical heating power, as taught by Mann, for the circular gap between the heater 13 and the tube 13a, as taught by Watanabe, because the tube diameters and heating rod diameters can vary in wide ranges, and it has been found that a ratio between 0.3 and 0.8 for the heating-rod diameter to tube diameter is advantageous for the effective transfer of heat energy for gas temperatures above 900° C (Mann, paras 0006, 0016, and 0018).
Regarding claim 22, Watanabe teaches wherein the fluid enters the annular space (space between heater 13a and tube 13a, fig. 2) within the interior volume of the vessel shell (interior of housing 10, fig. 2) where the overtube arrangement has an inlet (annotated in fig. 2 below) formed by a tube terminal end located in the interior volume.
Watanabe, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
2682
2350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe teaches wherein the overtube arrangement includes at least two tubes (two tubes 13a, fig. 2) respectively disposed around first and second ones of the resistive heating element (each of the tubes are disposed around a heater 13, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Watanabe teaches wherein the resistive heating element is coupled to the vessel shell of the heater at a first flange disposed on an opposite side of the vessel shell from a second flange used to couple the overtube arrangement to the vessel shell (annotated in fig. 2 below).
Watanabe, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
2682
2618
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Watanabe teaches wherein the resistive heating element (heaters 13, fig. 2) extends linearly into the vessel shell from a first end of the vessel shell (top end of the housing of the filter 10, fig. 2) toward a second end of the vessel shell (heaters 13 are linear rods that extend towards the bottom end of the filter 10, fig. 2) and the overtube arrangement includes a tube that is spaced from the first end of the vessel shell (tubes 13a are spaced from the top end of the filter 10, fig. 2) and surrounds the resistive heating element extending toward the second end of the vessel shell at least as far as the resistive heating element (the tubes 13a surround the heaters 13, fig. 2; the bottom end of the tubes 13a extend towards the bottom of the filter and overlap with the heaters 13 at the bottom of the tubes 13a, which is construed as “extending…at least as far as the resistive heating element”).
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe teaches further comprising: transporting the fluid from the first port (port 23, fig. 2) in a first direction (from bottom to top, fig. 2) through the heater (filter 10, fig. 2) along a flowpath (introduction path 28a, fig. 2; para 0054) between the vessel shell and an outside of a tube forming the overtube arrangement (path 28a is between the left side of the housing for the filter 10 and an outside of the right tube 13a, fig. 2), wherein the first direction is opposite a second direction (from top to bottom, fig. 2) the fluid travels when passing through the annular space inside of the tube (“the process gas PG flows into the gap between the heater 13 and the tubular member 13 a from above the tubular member 13 a and flows downward,” para 0055).
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US-20200061514-A1) in view of Mann et al. (US-20170094725-A1) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Reddy et al. (US-20100129157-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Watanabe teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: limiting heat from transmitting to the vessel shell with a radiation shield surrounding the overtube arrangement.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Reddy teaches further comprising: limiting heat from transmitting to the vessel shell with a radiation shield (shield 414, fig. 13A; “the shield 414 may be made from a material configured to allow a user to grasp the shield 414,” para 0095; construed such that heat is limited because a user can safely grasp the shield without being burnt) surrounding the overtube arrangement (housing 12, fig. 13A; housing 12, fig. 3).
Reddy, fig. 13A
PNG
media_image8.png
976
688
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Reddy, by placing a shield, as taught by Reddy, around the tubes 13a, as taught by Watanabe, in order to allow the gas filter to be hand-held permitting a user to touch the filter, so that a user does not experience injury when accidentally touching the filter during the operation of the heater (Reddy, para 0013).
Regarding claim 27, Watanabe teaches further comprising: transporting the fluid from the first port (port 23, fig. 2) in a first direction (from bottom to top, fig. 2) through the heater (filter 10, fig. 2) along a flowpath (introduction path 28a, fig. 2; para 0054) between the vessel shell and the overtube arrangement (path 28a is between the left side of the housing for the filter 10 and the right tube 13a, fig. 2), wherein the first direction is opposite a second direction (from top to bottom, fig. 2) the fluid travels when passing through the annular space (“the process gas PG flows into the gap between the heater 13 and the tubular member 13 a from above the tubular member 13 a and flows downward,” para 0055).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a radiation shield surrounding the overtube arrangement.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fluid heaters, Reddy teaches a radiation shield (shield 414, fig. 13A) surrounding the overtube arrangement (housing 12, fig. 13A; housing 12, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Watanabe, in view of the teachings of Reddy, by placing a shield, as taught by Reddy, around each of the tubes 13a, as taught by Watanabe, in order to allow the gas filter to be hand-held permitting a user to touch the filter, so that a user does not experience injury when accidentally touching the filter during the operation of the heater (Reddy, para 0013).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cartinhour et al. (US-2619579-A) teach an electric air heater.
Vissa et al. (US-20070145038-A1) teach an invention similar to that of US-20100129157-A1.
Lewin et al. (US-20070235444-A1) teach a method for changing the locations of spacers within a tube.
Liang et al. (CN-108444092-A) teach a method for modifying the length of a cylinder and a heating rod.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights