DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species 5 (Figs. 9 and 10) which is drawn to claims 1-3, 9-11 and 16-17 is acknowledged. Claims 4-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/01/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an 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.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, claim 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: heating elements.
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.
In this case, the limitation “heating elements” being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents as disclosed para 0022 “The elongated heating elements 300 may be electrical heating elements, i.e. electrically resistive heating elements that generate heat when electric current flows through a resistor, wire, ribbon, or equivalent.”.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3, 9-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tatavarthy (US 20190063853 A1) in view of Wang (US 20110094720 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tatavarthy discloses, an electric process heater (see heat exchanger 80 in Fig. 16) comprising:
a vessel (see shell or vessel body 82 in Fig. 16) containing a fluid (disclosed in para 0075 “a heater assembly 10 constructed in accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure is configured to be disposed inside a tubular body 82 or shell of a heat exchanger 80 (shown in FIGS. 16 and 17) to heat a working fluid flowing through the electric heat exchanger 80”);
a plurality of elongated heating elements (see heating elements 16 in Fig. 16 and Fig. 6) extending inside the vessel (see Fig. 16) parallel to a central axis (see axis X in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) of the electric process heater (80);
a plurality of baffles (see baffles 18 in Figs. 16 and 6) disposed at axial intervals inside the electric process heater (see Fig. 16) to redirect a flow of the fluid over the elongated heating elements to provide improved heat transfer between the elongated heating elements and the fluid inside the vessel (disclosed in para 0085 “the working fluid is guided by the perforated helical members 18 in the flow guiding channel 22 to flow in a helical direction F and is continuously heated by the heating elements 16. By using the flow guiding channel 22, the working fluid can be guided to flow transversely across the heating surface of the heating elements 16. Therefore, the working fluid can be more efficiently heated by the heating elements 16 within a predetermined length of the heat exchanger 80, as opposed to a typical heat exchanger (not shown) where the working fluid flows in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis X of the heat exchanger”); and
wherein each of the plurality of baffles (18) includes flow-through heating element support holes (see perforations 30 in Fig. 6) for receiving and supporting the elongated heating elements (see Fig. 6).
However, Tatavarthy does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes has a plurality of element-contacting tabs that protrude radially inwardly to support the heating elements within the baffles, wherein the tabs define a plurality of gaps through which the fluid flows between the baffles and the heating elements to reduce a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, each of the plurality of baffles (see baffles 25i in Fig. 14C) includes flow-through heating element support holes (see annotated Fig. 14C) for receiving and supporting the elongated heating elements (see Fig. 6) wherein each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes (see annotated Fig. 14C) has a plurality of element-contacting tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) that protrude radially inwardly to support heat exchanging tube bundles (see heat exchanging tube bundles 23 in the same configuration of Fig. 7) within the baffles (25i), wherein the tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) define a plurality of gaps (see annotated Fig. 14C) through which the fluid flows between the baffles (25i) and the heat exchanging tube bundles (see heat exchanging tube bundles 23 in the same configuration of Fig. 7) to reduce a thermal differential at a heat exchanging tube bundles-baffle interface (disclosed in para 0076 “holes in these multi-hole circular baffles 25g, 25h, and 25i may have various shapes. These holes allow heat exchanging tube bundles 23 to insert therethrough, and allow fluid outside of the heat exchange tube bundles to pass through”).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to modify shape of each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes of Tatavarthy such that each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes has a plurality of element-contacting tabs that protrude radially inwardly to support the heating elements within the baffles, wherein the tabs define a plurality of gaps through which the fluid flows between the baffles and the heating elements as taught/suggested by Wang in order to allow the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allow fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface.
Regarding claim 2, Tatavarthy in view of Wang discloses, the electric process heater of claim 1.
However, Tatavarthy in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the flow-through heating element support holes comprises three equally spaced tabs.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, wherein each of the flow-through heating element support holes comprises five equally spaced tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have three equally spaced tabs instead of five equally spaced tabs, because applicant has not disclosed that the three equally spaced tabs provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with five equally spaced tabs or three equally spaced tabs, because both shapes perform the function of allowing the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allowing fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Moreover, three tabs are simpler and faster to install than five tabs.
Regarding claim 3, Tatavarthy in view of Wang discloses, the electric process heater of claim 2.
However, Tatavarthy in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose, wherein the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, wherein the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps (see annotated Fig. 14C).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps instead of the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps, because applicant has not disclosed that the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps, because both shapes perform the function of allowing the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allowing fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding independent claim 9, Tatavarthy discloses, a baffle (see baffles 18 in Figs. 16 and 6) comprising:
a plurality of flow-through heating element support holes (see perforations 30 in Fig. 6) for receiving and supporting elongated heating elements (see heating elements 16 in Fig. 16 and Fig. 6) that transfer heat to a fluid (disclosed in para 0085 “the working fluid is guided by the perforated helical members 18 in the flow guiding channel 22 to flow in a helical direction F and is continuously heated by the heating elements 16. By using the flow guiding channel 22, the working fluid can be guided to flow transversely across the heating surface of the heating elements 16. Therefore, the working fluid can be more efficiently heated by the heating elements 16 within a predetermined length of the heat exchanger 80, as opposed to a typical heat exchanger (not shown) where the working fluid flows in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis X of the heat exchanger”);
However, Tatavarthy does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes has a plurality of element-contacting tabs that protrude radially inwardly to support the heating elements within the baffles, wherein the tabs define a plurality of gaps through which the fluid flows between the baffles and the heating elements to reduce a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, each of the plurality of baffles (see baffles 25i in Fig. 14C) includes flow-through heating element support holes (see annotated Fig. 14C) for receiving and supporting the elongated heating elements (see Fig. 6) wherein each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes (see annotated Fig. 14C) has a plurality of element-contacting tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) that protrude radially inwardly to support heat exchanging tube bundles (see heat exchanging tube bundles 23 in the same configuration of Fig. 7) within the baffles (25i), wherein the tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) define a plurality of gaps (see annotated Fig. 14C) through which the fluid flows between the baffles (25i) and the heat exchanging tube bundles (see heat exchanging tube bundles 23 in the same configuration of Fig. 7) to reduce a thermal differential at a heat exchanging tube bundles-baffle interface (disclosed in para 0076 “holes in these multi-hole circular baffles 25g, 25h, and 25i may have various shapes. These holes allow heat exchanging tube bundles 23 to insert therethrough, and allow fluid outside of the heat exchange tube bundles to pass through”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to modify shape of each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes of Tatavarthy such that each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes has a plurality of element-contacting tabs that protrude radially inwardly to support the heating elements within the baffles, wherein the tabs define a plurality of gaps through which the fluid flows between the baffles and the heating elements as taught/suggested by Wang in order to allow the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allow fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface.
Regarding claim 10, Tatavarthy in view of Wang discloses, the baffle of claim 9.
However, Tatavarthy in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the flow-through heating element support holes comprises three equally spaced tabs.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, wherein each of the flow-through heating element support holes comprises five equally spaced tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have three equally spaced tabs instead of five equally spaced tabs, because applicant has not disclosed that the three equally spaced tabs provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with five equally spaced tabs or three equally spaced tabs, because both shapes perform the function of allowing the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allowing fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Moreover, three tabs are simpler and faster to install than five tabs.
Regarding claim 11, Tatavarthy in view of Wang discloses, the baffle of claim 10.
However, Tatavarthy in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose, wherein the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, wherein the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps (see annotated Fig. 14C).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps instead of the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps, because applicant has not disclosed that the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps, because both shapes perform the function of allowing the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allowing fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding independent claim 16, Tatavarthy discloses, an electric process heater (see heat exchanger 80 in Fig. 16) comprising:
a vessel (see shell or vessel body 82 in Fig. 16) containing a fluid (disclosed in para 0075 “a heater assembly 10 constructed in accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure is configured to be disposed inside a tubular body 82 or shell of a heat exchanger 80 (shown in FIGS. 16 and 17) to heat a working fluid flowing through the electric heat exchanger 80”);
a plurality of elongated heating elements (see heating elements 16 in Fig. 16 and Fig. 6) extending inside the vessel (see Fig. 16) parallel to a central axis (see axis X in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) of the electric process heater (80), wherein the heating elements comprise fins (disclosed in para 0100 “the perforated helical members 18 may be connected to the heating elements 16 (e.g., via welds 46 shown in FIG. 7), they may be considered to be an extension of the heating elements 16 to function as extended heating surfaces or heat spreaders or fins to distribute the heat to the working fluid, thereby increasing heat transfer from the heating elements 16 to the working fluid”);
a plurality of baffles (see baffles 18 in Figs. 16 and 6) disposed at axial intervals inside the electric process heater (see Fig. 16) to redirect a flow of the fluid over the elongated heating elements to provide improved heat transfer between the elongated heating elements and the fluid inside the vessel (disclosed in para 0085 “the working fluid is guided by the perforated helical members 18 in the flow guiding channel 22 to flow in a helical direction F and is continuously heated by the heating elements 16. By using the flow guiding channel 22, the working fluid can be guided to flow transversely across the heating surface of the heating elements 16. Therefore, the working fluid can be more efficiently heated by the heating elements 16 within a predetermined length of the heat exchanger 80, as opposed to a typical heat exchanger (not shown) where the working fluid flows in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis X of the heat exchanger”); and
wherein each of the plurality of baffles (18) includes flow-through heating element support holes (see perforations 30 in Fig. 6) for receiving and supporting the elongated heating elements (see Fig. 6).
However, Tatavarthy does not explicitly disclose, wherein each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes has a plurality of element-contacting tabs that protrude radially inwardly to support the heating elements within the baffles, wherein the tabs define a plurality of gaps through which the fluid flows between the baffles and the heating elements to reduce a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, each of the plurality of baffles (see baffles 25i in Fig. 14C) includes flow-through heating element support holes (see annotated Fig. 14C) for receiving and supporting the elongated heating elements (see Fig. 6) wherein each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes (see annotated Fig. 14C) has a plurality of element-contacting tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) that protrude radially inwardly to support heat exchanging tube bundles (see heat exchanging tube bundles 23 in the same configuration of Fig. 7) within the baffles (25i), wherein the tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) define a plurality of gaps (see annotated Fig. 14C) through which the fluid flows between the baffles (25i) and the heat exchanging tube bundles (see heat exchanging tube bundles 23 in the same configuration of Fig. 7) to reduce a thermal differential at a heat exchanging tube bundles-baffle interface (disclosed in para 0076 “holes in these multi-hole circular baffles 25g, 25h, and 25i may have various shapes. These holes allow heat exchanging tube bundles 23 to insert therethrough, and allow fluid outside of the heat exchange tube bundles to pass through”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to modify shape of each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes of Tatavarthy such that each of the plurality of flow-through heating element support holes has a plurality of element-contacting tabs that protrude radially inwardly to support the heating elements within the baffles, wherein the tabs define a plurality of gaps through which the fluid flows between the baffles and the heating elements as taught/suggested by Wang in order to allow the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allow fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface.
Regarding claim 17, Tatavarthy in view of Wang discloses, the electric process heater of claim 16.
However, Tatavarthy in view of Wang does not explicitly disclose, each of the flow-through heating element support holes comprises three equally spaced tabs and wherein the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches, wherein each of the flow-through heating element support holes comprises five equally spaced tabs (see annotated Fig. 14C) and wherein the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps (see annotated Fig. 14C).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have three equally spaced tabs instead of five equally spaced tabs, because applicant has not disclosed that the three equally spaced tabs provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with five equally spaced tabs or three equally spaced tabs, because both shapes perform the function of allowing the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allowing fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Moreover, three tabs are simpler and faster to install than five tabs. Moreover, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious mater of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps instead of the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps, because applicant has not disclosed that the tabs define an angular arc that is less than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps provides an advantage is used for particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the tabs define an angular arc that is larger than an angular arc defined by each of the gaps, because both shapes perform the function of allowing the heating elements to insert therethrough, and allowing fluid outside of the heating elements to pass through so as reducing a thermal differential at a heating element-baffle interface equally well (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights