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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed 19 May, 2025. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 19-23, 26, 29-31 are pending.
Claims 12, 18, 24-25, 27-28, 32 have been cancelled.
Specification
Applicant submits at page 2 and 8 that a substitute abstract has been enclosed with the reply filed 19 May, 2025. No substitute abstract has been submitted.
Furthermore, it will be noted, in order to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(2), the specification, other than the claims, may also be amended by submitting: (i) An instruction to replace the specification; and (ii) A substitute specification in compliance with §§ 1.125(b) and (c). 37 CFR 1.125 (c) states, “A substitute specification submitted under this section must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown pursuant to this paragraph.” Applicant, in light of failing to supply any substitute abstract with the reply filed on 19 May, 2025, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.125, and, by virtue, 37 CFR 1.121. For this, the abstract remains objected for the reasons submitted within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 21 November, 2024 at pages 2-3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 11, see page 4 of the Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments, filed 19 May, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-17, 19-23, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAIN (US 2016/0222761 A1 – published 4 August, 2016), in view of EZZELL (US 4,577,677 – published 25 March, 1986).
As to claim 1, CAIN discloses a method of cooling a fluid (par. 26-28) using a cooler (100; par. 28) having at least one heat exchange conduit (140) passing through a cooling medium (par. 34 and 53; figure 8), the method comprising:
flowing a fluid to be cooled (par. 28; figure 9-11) through the at least one heat exchange conduit from a first cooler inlet (101; par. 28) to a first cooler outlet (102; par. 28), to cool the fluid from an inflow temperature to an exit temperature by heat exchange with the cooling medium (par. 48); and
controlling the flow of the cooling medium (figure 12; par. 59 and 62).
However, CAIN does not expressly disclose controlling the flow of the fluid through the at least one heat exchange conduit and the flow of the cooling medium, to cause a local increase in a temperature in a selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit, thereby releasing deposits of solids from an inner surface of the selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit into the flowing fluid.
EZZELL, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a method for cooling a fluid (abstract) using a cooler apparatus (col. 2, lines 63-65). EZZELL teaches controlling the flow of the fluid through at least one heat exchange conduit and the flow of the cooling medium (figure 2 – col. 4, line -54; figure 3 – col. 4, line 60- col. 5, line 20; figure 4 – col. 5, lines 21-42), to cause a local increase in a temperature in a selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit (col. 4, line 4-54, in view of col. 3, lines 29-33), thereby releasing deposits of solids from an inner surface of the selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit into the flowing fluid (figure 2, such as of heat exchange conduits 10f-10j, in view of col. 3, lines 26-28; figure 3, such as heat exchange conduits 10a and 10b, in view of col. 4, line 60- col. 5, line 20; figure 4, such as heat exchange conduits 10a-10e, in view of col. 5, lines 21-42). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 2, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, EZZELL, further, teaches changing the flow of the fluid and/or the flow of the cooling medium cyclically, to cause a cycle of local increases in temperature in a plurality of selected portions of the at least one heat exchange conduit (col. 4, lines 50-59, col. 5, lines 12-14 and lines 42-48). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 3, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, EZZELL, further teaches comprising restricting or containing the cooling medium around the selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit (figure 2 – col. 4, line -54; figure 4 – col. 5, lines 21-42). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 4, CAIN, as modified, discloses wherein the cooler apparatus comprises a plurality of compartments (130), each compartment at least partially surrounded (figure 8) a portion of the cooler apparatus (sections of 140).
However, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, EZZELL, further teaches comprising controlling the flow of the cooling medium into and/or out of a selected compartment to cause local increases in a temperature in a selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit(figure 2 – col. 4, line -54; figure 4 – col. 5, lines 21-42). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 5, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, EZZELL, further teaches comprising restricting or containing the convection throughflow of the cooling medium through the compartments by closing one or more valves of a flow control system (valves of figures 2 and 4, which change from open positions, white, to closed positions, black). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 6, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising regulating flow of the cooling medium (par. 49) through the compartments by controlling a pump (210).
As to claim 7, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising flowing the cooling medium through a first compartment to a second compartment (one section of 130 to a downstream section of 130; figure 8).
As to claim 8, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising circulating the cooling medium between a first compartment and a second compartment (one section of 130 to a downstream section of 130; figure 8).
As to claim 9, CAIN, as modified, previously taught the inclusion of controlling the flow of the cooling medium, in addition to the flow of fluid, to cause removal of deposits of solids of the at least one heat exchange conduit (see rejection of claim 1), and wherein the at least one heat exchange conduit is passed by a cooling medium (see rejection of claim 1, wherein the cooling medium flows external to the at least one heat exchange conduit; figure 8). As such, the device of CAIN, as modified, in its normal and usual operation would necessarily perform the method of removing material or debris from an external surface of the heat exchange conduit by operation of the cooling medium passing along the external surface of the at least one heat exchange conduit. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See MPEP § 2112.02 – I. As such, the combination of CAIN, as modified by EZZELL, for the reasons previously discussed necessarily would provide the method required by the claim in the normal and usual operation of the prior art device.
As to claim 11, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claim.
However, EZZELL, further, teaches comprising controlling the flow of the fluid to be cooled (stabilized crude) by re-routing the flow path of the fluid through a selected inlet (figures 1-2 versus figures 3-4, and in particular, figures 2 which includes entry at heat exchanger conduit 10j and figure 4 which includes entry at heat exchanger conduit 10a), wherein the selected inlet is at or near the selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit to be cleaned (figure 2, in view of col. 4, lines 15-28; figure 4, in view of col. 5, lines 34-39), and the method comprises directing uncooled fluid to the selected portion to deliver thermal energy to the selected portion (figure 2, in view of col. 4, lines 15-28 and figure 4, in view of col. 5, lines 34-39; col. 3, lines 29-31). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 13, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claim.
However, EZZELL, further, teaches comprising controlling the flow of the fluid to be cooled (stabilized crude) by re-routing the fluid flowing in the cooler apparatus to flow through a selected outlet (figures 1-2 versus figures 3-4, and in particular, figures 2 which includes exit at heat exchanger conduit 10a and figure 4 which includes entry at heat exchanger conduit 10j) of the at least one heat exchanger conduit. EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 14, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claim.
However, EZZELL, further, teaches selecting the outlet to maintain the exit temperature within a desired temperature range (figure 2, in view of col. 4, lines 15-28; figure 4, in view of col. 5, lines 34-39, for the purposes of the effective dewaxing by providing the temperature range to be at the inlet temperature of the stabilized crude to effectively dewax). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 15, CAIN, as modified, further discloses wherein the cooler apparatus comprises a plurality of heat exchange conduits (plurality of heat exchange conduits, 140, as shown in figure 8) operating in parallel (figure 8, wherein the fluid flows along different runs of heat exchange conduits, 140, in a parallel manner to adjacent runs of heat exchanger conduits).
However, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose wherein the selected portion is a selected heat exchange conduit of the plurality of heat exchange conduits, and wherein the method comprises directed fluid from the selected heat exchange conduit to a second inlet, to flow into another of the plurality of heat exchange conduits.
However, EZZELL, further, teaches wherein the selected portion is a selected heat exchange conduit of the plurality of heat exchange conduits(figure 2, in view of col. 4, lines 15-28; figure 4, in view of col. 5, lines 34-39), and wherein the method comprises directed fluid from the selected heat exchange conduit to a second inlet, to flow into another of the plurality of heat exchange conduits (figures 1-4). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 16, CAIN discloses a cooler apparatus comprising:
at least one heat exchange conduit (140) passing through a cooling medium(par. 34 and 53; figure 8), the at least one heat exchange conduit comprising a first cooler inlet (101; par. 28) and a first cooler outlet (102; par. 28), arranged to cool a process fluid from an inflow temperature to an exit temperature by heat exchange with the cooling medium (par. 48); and
controlling the flow of the cooling medium (figure 12; par. 59 and 62).
However, CAIN does not expressly disclose a flow control system for controlling the flow of the process fluid and the flow of the cooling medium to cause a local increase in a temperature in a selected portion of the cooler apparatus, thereby releasing deposits of solids from an inner surface of the selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit into the flowing fluid.
EZZELL, however, is within the field of endeavor provided cooling a process fluid (abstract) using a cooler apparatus (col. 2, lines 63-65). EZZELL teaches a flow control system for controlling the flow of the process fluid through at least one heat exchange conduit and the flow of the cooling medium (figure 2 – col. 4, line -54; figure 3 – col. 4, line 60- col. 5, line 20; figure 4 – col. 5, lines 21-42), to cause a local increase in a temperature in a selected portion of the cooler apparatus (col. 4, line 4-54, in view of col. 3, lines 29-33), thereby releasing deposits of solids from an inner surface of the selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit into the flowing process fluid (figure 2, such as of heat exchange conduits 10f-10j, in view of col. 3, lines 26-28; figure 3, such as heat exchange conduits 10a and 10b, in view of col. 4, line 60- col. 5, line 20; figure 4, such as heat exchange conduits 10a-10e, in view of col. 5, lines 21-42). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 17, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising a plurality of pipe sections (plurality of sections of 140) defining at least one heat exchange conduit (total of each pipe section, 140), wherein at least some of the plurality of pipe sections are configurable to be fluidly connected in series to form a heat exchange conduit from the plurality of pipe sections (figure 8).
As to claim 19, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising a plurality of pipe sections (plurality of sections of 140) defining at least one heat exchange conduit (total of each pipe section, 140, in a horizontal run, shown in figure 8), wherein at least some of the plurality of pipe sections are operable in parallel(each of the horizontal runs are provided to run fluid in parallel to adjacent runs) to form a plurality of a heat exchange conduits from the plurality of pipe sections (figure 8).
As to claim 20, CAIN, as modified, discloses wherein the cooler apparatus comprises a plurality of compartments (130), each compartment at least partially surrounded (figure 8) a portion of the cooler apparatus (sections of 140).
However, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, EZZELL, further teaches comprising wherein the flow control system is configured to control the flow of the cooling medium into and/or out of a selected compartment to cause local increases in a temperature in a selected portion of the at least one heat exchange conduit(figure 2 – col. 4, line -54; figure 4 – col. 5, lines 21-42). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 21, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, EZZELL, further teaches comprising the flow control system to be operable to restrict or contain the convection throughflow of the cooling medium through the compartments by closing one or more valves (valves of figures 2 and 4, which change from open positions, white, to closed positions, black). EZZELL, particularly, teaches the method steps, as required by the claim, for the purpose of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system, without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve settings to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col. 2, line 6; col. 6, lines 37-50). More so, such operation provides maintaining the heat exchanger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, for the purpose of maintaining the heat exchanger system for the reasons provided.
As to claim 22, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising the flow control system to be operable to regulate the flow of the cooling medium (par. 49) through the compartments by controlling a pump (210).
As to claim 23, CAIN, as modified, further discloses comprising wherein the plurality of compartments is arranged to enable the cooling medium to flow between a first compartment and a second compartment (one section of 130 to a downstream section of 130; figure 8).
As to claim 30, CAIN, as modified, previously taught as modified, previously taught the cooler system of claim 16 to cool the process fluid(see rejection of claim 16).
As such, providing a plurality of cooler apparatuses according to claim 16 is merely a duplication of parts that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 – VI(B). Looking at the instant application, page 10, lines 25-27 provides evidence of the claimed features, but the specification fails to set forth any significance to including a plurality of cooler apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, to provide a plurality of cooler apparatuses according to claim 16, in view of the holdings of the courts that such modification is merely a duplication of parts.
More so, CAIN discloses wherein the system of the plurality of cooler apparatuses is intended to be modular, such that adding more cooler apparatuses (through a plurality of additional heat exchanger units, 120) can be accomplished to modify the heat transfer performance to optimize the operation of the cooler apparatuses for the needs and specifications of the application(par. 56). Furthermore, CAIN discloses wherein the system operates in series to cool the process fluid (figure 8), such that adding additional cooler apparatuses would be implemented within the same manner of series flow. Therefore, the combination set forth provides the claimed invention for the reasons provided within the rejection of claim 16 and within this rejection of claim 30.
As to claim 31, CAIN, as modified, previously taught the at least one cooler apparatus according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16).
Furthermore, CAIN discloses a subsea flow system comprises a source of hydrocarbon fluids (14; par. 26), wherein the at least one cooler apparatus is fluidly connected to the source for receiving hydrocarbons to be cooled (figure 1; par. 26-28), and an exit flow line for receiving cooled hydrocarbon fluids from the at least one cooler apparatus (17; par. 26-28; figure 1).
Claim(s) 10, 26, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAIN (US 2016/0222761 A1 – published 4 August, 2016), in view of EZZELL (US 4,577,677 – published 25 March, 1986) and LUND (GB 2548096 A – published 13 September, 2017 in English).
As to claim 10, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, LUND is within the field of endeavor provided a method for cooling a fluid(abstract) using a cooler apparatus (abstract). LUND further teaches wherein it is known to provide an external cleaning system for cleaning the external surface of the cooler apparatus by flushing, scraping, brushing, or other techniques, which would remove material or debris from the external surface of the cooler apparatus (pg. 29, lines 23-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN further with the teachings of LUND to include the exterior cleaning system, as claimed, for the purposes of cleaning the external surface of the cooler apparatus through known techniques.
As to claim 26, CAIN, as modified, does not further disclose the requirements of the claimed invention.
However, LUND is within the field of endeavor provided a method for cooling a fluid(abstract) using a cooler apparatus (abstract). LUND further teaches wherein it is known to provide an external cleaning system for cleaning the external surface of the cooler apparatus by flushing, scraping, brushing, or other techniques (pg. 29, lines 23-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN further with the teachings of LUND to include the exterior cleaning system, as claimed, for the purposes of cleaning the external surface of the cooler apparatus through known techniques.
As to claim 29, CAIN, as modified, previously taught the cooler system of claim 16 to cool the process fluid(see rejection of claim 16).
As such, providing a plurality of cooler apparatuses according to claim 16 is merely a duplication of parts that has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 – VI(B). Looking at the instant application, page 10, lines 18-20 and page 11, lines 4-6 provide evidence of the claimed features, but the specification fails to set forth any significance to including a plurality of cooler apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN, in view of the teachings of EZZELL, to provide a plurality of cooler apparatuses according to claim 16, in view of the holdings of the courts that such modification is merely a duplication of parts.
However, CAIN, as presently modified, does not further disclose wherein the cooler apparatuses are arranged to operate in parallel.
LUND is within the field of endeavor provided a method for cooling a fluid(abstract) using a cooler apparatus (abstract). LUND further teaches wherein a cooler apparatus having a plurality of parallel smaller cooling systems with smaller pipes is more efficient than a single cooling system with a larger diameter pipe and the same capacity as the plurality of smaller cooling systems (pg. 19, lines 14-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify CAIN further with the teachings of LUND to provide the plurality of cooler systems operated in parallel to achieve a higher efficiency system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 10, Applicant alleges, “Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would never have thought to modify Cain’s system based on the disclosure of Ezzell because it would be extremely difficult and expensive to modify Cain’s system to include the complex control valve system needed to operate as disclosed in Ezzell.”. First, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 2145 – I. Aside from merely conclusory statements, Applicant fails to provide any objective evidence to support the conclusion that such a combination would result in difficult and expensive redesign. Second, "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). See MPEP § 2145 – III. The requirement is the suggestion of the modification and articulated reasoning, with rational underpinning, to suggest to one having ordinary skill within the art to modify CAIN with the teachings of EZZELL. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2143.01. In this case, the teachings of EZZELL suggest incorporating controlling the fluid flow through the sections of the heat exchanger of CAIN to provide for localized increases in temperature to melt and remove deposits of solids formed within the inner surfaces of the heat exchanger. This is provided for within the teachings of EZZELL, as set forth previously and herein. For these reasons, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive.
At page 11, Applicant argues, “there is no indication that Cain’s system would even benefit from a system as disclosed in Ezzell.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis). See MPEP § 2143 and § 2143.01. There is no requirement to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness that makes it known the prior art would benefit from the modification. EZZELL provides the teaching and suggestion to modify a flow path within a heat exchange system, such as cooling a fluid using a cooler apparatus (abstract; col.2, lines 63-65).Stated at page 5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 21 November, 2024. EZZELL provides the motivation with articulated reasoning and rational underpinning to provide such modification for the reason of periodically melting wax or other deposits within the heat exchange system without expensive solvents or warming equipment and with simplicity by only requiring changing the valve setting to change and convert between cleaning modes (col. 1, line 64- col.2, line 6; col. 6, line 37-50). Stated at page 5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 21 November, 2024. As such, for these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
At page 11, Applicant suggests “Because the hydrocarbons passing through the conduits of Cain’s heat exchanger are already at highly elevated temperatures, no hydrocarbon deposits are likely to occur inside the conduit in the first place. Also, the cooling fluid passing through the shell of Cain’s heat exchangers is sea water, which is unlikely to leave any deposits in the shell parts of the heat exchanger that could be removed via heating. Thus, the benefits of Ezzell’s system do not seem to be relevant to Cain’s subsea heat exchanger system, when operating as a cooling system, as claimed in the present invention.” First, the seawater, suggested by the Applicant, is only one exemplary solution for a heat transfer fluid described by CAIN. See paragraph 34 of CAIN which states, “Thermal transfer fluid may comprise any suitable fluid for facilitating heat transfer (e.g., convective heat transfer) with another fluid or body. For example, thermal transfer fluid may comprise, for example, seawater, fresh water, corrosion inhibitors, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, organic acid technology fluid (e.g., DEX-COOL® or ZEREX™), water-soluble oil, mineral oil or combinations thereof.”, which is fully capable of being inclusive a thermal transfer fluid such as other fluids taught by EZZELL. See EZZELL col.1, lines 8-22. More so, seawater is known to have 2.5 percent salinity, in addition to other dissolved inorganic and organic materials and particulates, such that it would cause deposits thereon, as known through the teachings of EZZELL (col.1, lines 25-29 – “During the operation of the heat exchangers, the exchangers usually begin to foul through the deposition of carbonaceous material (usually paraffin waxes) and other solid deposits such as salt). See NPL (Seawater – Britannica Academic April 2008). Second, EZZELL teaches a difference in temperature among the fluids, similarly to that of CAIN, such that due to the differences in temperature, known to be required for the operation of heat exchange, deposits would likely form on the surfaces of the heat exchanger, as taught by EZZELL. Again, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 2145 – I. For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at page 11, “Both of those claims [claims 1 and 16] recite that the deposits of solid are released from an inner surface of a selected portion of a heat exchange conduit in to the fluid flowing through the conduit.”, and alleges, “Even if those deposits were inside the conduits of the heat exchangers, which is not disclosed in Ezzell, the melted deposits would not be released into a flow of fluid moving through the conduit because Ezzell teaches that the flow must be cut off to cause the deposits to melt.” However, the evidence of record suggests the combination of teachings meets the requirements of the claim. First, EZZELL provides build up along the surfaces of the heat exchangers, in view of the build-up occurring within the flow path of the unstabilized crude that flows through the tube side of the heat exchanger (see col.3, lines 50-56 of EZZELL), which results in build-up of material along the inner surfaces of the tube side of the heat exchanger (col. 2, lines 41-44; col.4, lines18-35 and 53-59; col. 4, line 68-col.5, line 20; col.5, lines25-29 and 34-42). More so, the melted/released deposits of this cleaning method would be provided to the flow of the fluid, upon reactivation of the flowing within the dewaxed/cleaned heat exchangers, as the heat exchangers are not physically removed from serviced or the like. As such, upon the changing between modes one and four continuously, as exemplified within figure 5 and column 5, line 49- col. 6, line 36, the melted/released deposits of this cleaning method would be provided to the flow of the fluid. Therefore, while the heat exchangers, at issue, do not receive unstabilized crude fluid flow during cleaning of the heat exchangers in a particular mode, the fluid flow is understood to be reactivated at a later time to cause the melted wax/released build up to be provided to the fluid flow. Further, this necessarily provide locally heating a selected portion of a heat exchanger, e.g., cooler, as the fluid flowing within the heat exchanger necessarily is intended to cool one fluid and heat another fluid, and release the deposits into the fluid flow from the inner surfaces of the heat exchanger, as taught by the combination of CAIN, in view of EZZELL, at least. For these reasons, the evidence of record, as taught by the combination, provides the requirements of the claims for the reasons provided within the rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 10/27/2025
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763