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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/23 and 11/14/23 are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/13/25. Applicant elected species A-I and believes no claims currently are directed to the non-elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig.2 text is illegible, per MPEP 608.2(V) text must be clear and legible, applicant should review the text when correcting the drawing. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1” and “14" appear to identify the same structure but give it different names, per the figures it is unclear what her difference is between “heat exchange base plate” and the thermal insulation layer inner wall” is. 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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The term “high-temperature” in the claim will be interpreted to mean relative to the heat receiving fluid and not a specific range or limit. Examiner notes that applicants’ specification provides such a statement at para. 0063, and while a range is mentioned the range seems to be merely for example as it is based on the heat-receiving fluid as stated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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 1 is indefinite for the limitation of “heat exchange base plate” and the “thermal insulation layer inner wall” specifically are. The figures and specification do not make it clear if these are separate elements or if the inner wall element is part of the base plate. The claim will be examined as the base plate being the inner tube running from elements 3 to 4, and the “thermal insulation layer inner wall” will be the inner surface of this tube (facing element 12).
Claim 3 is indefinite for the limitation of “there is a defined space between adjacent tubular channels for forming a fluid path for the heat-receiving fluid to flow along the tubular channels”, specifically for the fluid path being the space adjacent the tubular channels as claimed. It is unclear if applicant is having the fluid flow out of and around the channels or wants a different fluid there as opposed to in the channels claimed which matches applicants’ figures. The claim will be examined as “there is a defined space between adjacent tubular channels”
Claim 9 is directed as the claim limitation of “the auxiliary fluid comprises air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide”. This language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The claim will be examined as requiring the structure to be capable of the use.
Claim 10 is directed as the claim limitation of “the heat-receiving fluid comprises a fuel gas or an oxidant gas”. This language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The claim will be examined as requiring the structure to be capable of the use.
Claim 11 is directed as the claim limitation of “the high-temperature fluid has a temperature in the range of 500°C-1200°C, and the heat-receiving fluid has a temperature in the range of 300°C-600°C”. This language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The claim will be examined as requiring the structure to be capable of the use.
Claim 12 is directed as the claim limitation of “the heat-receiving fluid has a flow speed in the range of 5-60 m/s”. This language makes it impossible to determine if the claimed apparatus is being read on until it is applied to system which makes the claim indefinite as it makes it unclear when infringement occurs (when system is made or when system used) MPEP 2173.05 (p). The claim will be examined as requiring the structure to be capable of the use, note that as claim 1 does not require a specific fluid/pressure/etc. this will be treated extremely broadly.
Claims 2-12 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vogel (U.S. Patent 4,243,097).
Regarding claim 1, Vogel teaches a heat exchanger (Fig. 1-2), configured to exchange heat between a high-temperature fluid and a heat-receiving fluid (Col. 1, ln 48-67, examiner further notes that It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II) – see below), wherein the heat exchanger forms a part of a high-temperature fluid transport pipeline (Col. 1, ln 48-67, examiner further notes that It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II) – see below), the heat exchanger comprising: a housing (created by elements 1 and 2) comprising a thermal insulation layer outer wall and a thermal insulation layer inner wall (outer sides of element 1 and 2, examiner notes the structure inherently has an insulating value, as all materials do, and the claim does not require a specific level/degree of such thus it is read on by the taught structure), an axis of the housing being parallel to a flow direction of first fluid flow (note the limitation of the high-temperature fluid is intended use and treated as mentioned below, see MPEP 2214 (II) – see below); a first fluid inlet and a first fluid outlet formed in the housing (created by the respective top and bottom open of the tube created by element 2 of Vogel); a heat exchange base plate (element 2), which is in contact with the first fluid (per fig. 1-2), at least one heat exchange region being formed between the housing and the heat exchange base plate (per fig. 1-2 as heat transfer occurs between the two fluids as taught), and a second fluid coil (element 4) for delivering the second fluid passing through the heat exchange region (per fig. 1-2); and a second fluid inlet per fig. 1, arrow going into 4) and a first fluid outlet (element 17 for that inlet); and the first fluid transport pipeline is vertically arranged (per fig. 1).
Note the claim terms of “high temperature fluid” and “heat-receiving fluid” are recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II). This is merely reversing the fluid types applied in Vogel, Vogel is capable of such use thus reads on the limitation. The “high-temperature fluid” is treated as a first fluid above and in all dependent claims below; and “heat-receiving fluid” is treated as a second fluid above and in all dependent claims below.
Regarding claim 2, Vogel teaches the second fluid coil comprises at least one spirally wound tubular channel (per fig. 1-2 element 4 is spirally wound).
Regarding claim 3, Vogel teaches there is a defined space between adjacent tubular channels (per fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Vogel taches the second fluid inlet and the second fluid outlet are arranged on the thermal insulation layer outer wall (per fig. 1-2).
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel (U.S. Patent 4,243,097) in view of Reid (U.S. Patent 3,630,175).
Regarding Claim 4, Vogel does not teach the thermal insulation layer inner wall comprises at least partially a heat reflecting plate.
Reid taches the inner wall (support wall crated by 230) comprises at least partially a heat reflecting plate (element 230). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Vogel such that the thermal insulation layer inner wall includes reflecting plate as taught by Reid, the motivoant for such is to fully utilize the thermal energy (col. 6, ln 1-14).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel (U.S. Patent 4,243,097) in view of Bodhaine et al. (U.S. Patent 6,345,508).
Regarding claim 6, Vogel does not teach an auxiliary fluid coil passing through the heat exchange region.
Bodhaine teaches an auxiliary fluid coil (element 38) passing through the heat exchange region (per fig. 2). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Vogel to have additional coils as claimed, the motivation would be to heat additional fluids (per fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Bodhaine further teaches the auxiliary fluid coil comprises at least one spirally wound tubular channel (per fig. 2). This would be done for the same motivation of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Bodhaine further teaches the auxiliary fluid coil is provided with an auxiliary fluid inlet (element 40) and an auxiliary fluid outlet (element 46).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogel (U.S. Patent 4,243,097) in view of Jarry et al. (U.S. PGPub 2019/0331423).
Regarding claim 9, Vogel does not expressly teach the auxiliary fluid comprises air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II). Vogel would be capable of this use thus reading on limitation.
Examiner also notes that the use of air, nitrogen or carbon dioxide are well known in the art as shown by Jarry (para. 0046). Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to use such fluids for their known qualities.
Regarding claim 10, Vogel does not expressly teach the second fluid comprises a fuel gas or an oxidant gas. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II). Vogel would be capable of this use thus reading on limitation.
Examiner also notes that the use of the second fluid comprises a fuel gas or an oxidant gas are well known in the art as shown by Jarry (para. 0004). Thus it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to use such fluids for their known qualities.
Regarding claim 11, Vogel does teach high-temperature fluid has a temperature in the range of 500°C-1200°C (col. 1, ln 21-24). Vogel does not expressly teach the
second fluid has a temperature in the range of 300°C-600°C. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II). Vogel would be capable of this use thus reading on limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Vogel does not expressly teach the second fluid has a flow speed in the range of 5-60 m/s. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 MPEP 2214 (II). Vogel would be capable of this use thus reading on limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (571) 270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763