DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 8, 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20170116704A) in view of Akhanov (SU771909A1), Suk Lee (US3400758) and Qu (CN205784743U).
Regarding claim 1/8, Kim teaches an electric process heater (see Fig. 1) having a fluid-containment vessel (10) defining a central axis and a heating element (22) extending inside the vessel, a baffle (30) comprising a plurality of segments, wherein the elongated heating element defines a hairpin configuration with in the vessel.
Kim does not teach having a plurality of elongated heating elements extending inside the vessel, and wherein the stepped segments are spaced apart from each other by a varying axial distance.
Akhanov teaches (see Fig. 1-3) a plurality of elongated heating (heating elements 2) elements extending inside the vessel, and wherein the segments (4) are spaced apart from each other by a varying axial distance (fin pitch…decreases towards the outlet, Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include a plurality of heating elements in light of the teachings of Akhanov, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.) and to provide the stepped segments are spaced apart from each other by a varying axial distance in light of the teachings of Akhanov, in order to intensify heat transfer and prevent overheating (Page 1).
Kim does not teach does not teach the baffle comprises a plurality of stepped segments, wherein each of the stepped segments is a flat structure having a plurality of perforations through which elongated heating elements extend; wherein the stepped segments are disposed orthogonally relative to the central axis; and wherein the stepped segments are spaced apart from each other by an axial distance, the plurality of stepped segments comprises a first stepped segment, a second stepped segment and a third stepped segment, wherein the first stepped segment, the second stepped segment and the third stepped segment have identical shapes, wherein the first stepped segment, the second stepped segment and the third stepped segment each define 120-degree sectors.
Suk Lee teaches the baffle (17, see Fig. 1-4) comprises a plurality of stepped segments
(lands 18/24 stepped via extremities 22), wherein each of the stepped segments is a flat
structure having a plurality of perforations (see perforations thereof) through which elongated
heating means (tubes 13) extend; wherein the stepped segments are disposed orthogonally
relative to the central axis; and wherein the stepped segments are spaced apart from each
other by an axial distance, the plurality of stepped segments comprises a first stepped segment, a second stepped segment and a third stepped segment (see three lands 18/24), wherein the first stepped segment, the second stepped segment and the third stepped segment have identical shapes (see three lands 18/24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include the stepped
baffle of Suk Lee, in order to improve heat transfer efficiency (Col. 1, lines 40-45).
Suk Lee further teaches wherein each stepped segment have identical shapes and define 90 degree sectors (Fig. 1-4). Qu teaches wherein each stepped segment have identical shapes and define 270 degree sectors (see Fig. 1-2).
Accordingly, a range of 90-270 is disclosed in the prior art, with the claimed 120 degrees falling within the disclosed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include wherein the segment is 120 degrees, where there is a range disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range, there is a presumption of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 8/17, Kim as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1/10, and Kim as modified further teaches the first stepped segment, the second stepped segment and the third stepped segment have the same number of perforations (see three bottom most segments as seen in Fig. 3, or three bottom left-most segments in Fig. 2, Suk Lee).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20170116704A) in view of Akhanov (SU771909A1), Suk Lee (US3400758) and Qu (CN205784743U) and Streiff (US20220236014).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Kim does not teach the first stepped segment has a first perpendicularly disposed segment support defining a first edge and wherein the second stepped segment has a second perpendicularly disposed segment support defining a second edge that is connected to the first edge.
Streiff teaches the first stepped segment has a first perpendicularly disposed segment support defining a first edge and wherein the second stepped segment has a second perpendicularly disposed segment support defining a second edge that is connected to the first edge (see perpendicular segment supports 10’ and 11, Fig. 1-2 of deflection surfaces 8), in order to firmly connect the elements (¶[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include the perpendicular support configuration of Streiff, in order to firmly connect the elements (¶[0025]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR20170116704A) in view of Akhanov (SU771909A1), Suk Lee (US3400758) and Qu (CN205784743U) and Morgan (US3446939A).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 10, and Kim does not teach a piping flange attached to the vessel and a wiring junction box, wherein heating element connections of the heating elements extend through the piping flange into the wiring junction box.
Morgan teaches (see Fig. 1) a piping flange (header 18) attached to the vessel (shroud 15) and a wiring junction box (cover 44), wherein heating element connections (terminal pins) of the heating elements (heating elements 20) extend through the piping flange into the wiring junction box.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to include the electrical junction box and terminal pins of Morgan, in order to provide a detachable cover for the electrical connections to the heating elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues one having ordinary skill in the art would not look to segmental baffles to modify Kim, as they are more likely to deflect or vibrate.
Examiner contends arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (see MPEP 2145 I).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that Kim is not relied upon for teaching a segmental baffle, and thus arguments directed thereto are found unpersuasive.
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 ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights