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
Newly submitted claims 24-29 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions I (base claims 1 and 17), classified in F22B37/103 and B23P15/26 and II (claims 24-29), classified in F28F1/185, are related as process of making, process of using and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process, namely, for example, via 3D CNC milling or the like, and the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process, namely for cooling flue gas or the like. A serious search burden is presented, as the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 24-29 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 3-4, 6 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.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “wherein the specified depth of the helix pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 millimeters (mm) to about 0.3 mm” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how the specified depth is both “0.05 millimeters” as specified in claim 1, and also between 0.05 mm and 0.3 mm. Claims 4 and 6 are similarly rejected as well as for their dependency. It is suggested to clarify “at least a portion of the specified depth” or the like “is about 0.05 mm.” in claim 1, to preclude this indefiniteness.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A) and Qi (CN202057241U).
Regarding claim 1, Master teaches a method (see Fig. 1-3) comprising: providing a groove pattern (surface 40 with helical ribs 44) an inner surface of a thermosyphon reboiler (¶[0016]), wherein the thermosyphon reboiler comprises a first side (tube side of Fig. 1) configured to receive a liquid (via liquid inlet 16) and a second side (shell side of Fig. 1) configured to receive a heating fluid (via 12 & heating medium…remains in a liquid state - ¶[0015]), wherein the thermosyphon reboiler is configured to transfer heat from the heating fluid at the second side to the liquid at the first side to boil the liquid at the first side (boiling - ¶[0022-0023]), wherein providing a pattern the inner surface of the thermosyphon reboiler comprises providing a pattern (see pattern of helical ribs 44) across at least a portion of an inner surface of the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler, wherein the pattern has a specified depth that increases a heat transfer surface area of the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler; and preventing, by the provided pattern, film boiling from occurring at the inner surface of the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler (preventing…film boiling, abstract, claim 13). Master further teaches wherein the helix has a pitch, and a ratio of the pitch of the helix to the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 3:1 to about 10:1, (see pitch at 46 and 50, Fig. 3B & ¶[0021], which results in a ratio of 3.3:1 to 10:1 using 0.5 mm & 6 and 2 fins per cm).
Master is silent to wherein the groove pattern is provided by engraving.
Creighton teaches the groove pattern is provided by engraving (forming said groove with a cutting tool – Col. 8, line 40-45).
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 Master to include the engraving of Creighton, in order to provide a consistent and uniform groove manufacturing (Col. 2, lines 50-60).
Master does not teach wherein the specified depth is 0.05 mm.
Qi teaches wherein the specified depth is 0.05 mm (¶[0006]).
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 Master to include the depth of Qi, in order to improve heat exchange (¶[0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Master teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Master further teaches the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler is tubular (24) and defines a first longitudinal axis, wherein engraving the pattern (44) comprises forming the pattern as a helix defining a second longitudinal axis, wherein the first longitudinal axis of the first side and the second longitudinal axis of the helix are coaxial.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A), Qi (CN202057241U), and Wang (CN105202961A).
Regarding claims 3-4, Master teaches the limitations of claim 2/18, and Master does not teach the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 millimeters (mm) to about 0.3 mm, wherein the specified depth of the pattern varies along the second longitudinal axis.
Wang teaches the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 millimeters (mm) to about 0.3 mm, wherein the specified depth of the pattern varies along the second longitudinal axis (see range, 0.15-0.35 mm, which varies between the first and second section – Page 2).
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 Master to include the pattern dimensions and varying depth as taught by Wang, in order to improve heat exchange (Page 3).
Regarding claim 6, Master teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Master further teaches wherein the pitch of the helix varies along the second longitudinal axis
Wang teaches wherein the pitch of the helix varies along the second longitudinal axis (see range, 0.15-0.35 mm, which varies between the first and second section – Page 2).
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 Master to include the varying depth as taught by Wang, in order to improve heat exchange (Page 3).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A), Qi (CN202057241U) and Koch (US3088494A).
Regarding claim 7, Master teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Master does not teach the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler is tubular and defines a first longitudinal axis, the pattern has a form of a double helix defining a second longitudinal axis, and the first longitudinal axis of the first side and the second longitudinal axis of the double helix are coaxial.
Koch teaches the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler is tubular and defines a first longitudinal axis, the pattern has a form of a double helix defining a second longitudinal axis, and the first longitudinal axis of the first side and the second longitudinal axis of the double helix are coaxial (“pair of parallel continuous helical grooves” – Col. 3, lines 35-45 & Fig. 2).
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 Master to include a double helix configuration as taught by Koch, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A).
Regarding claim 17, Master teaches a method (see Fig. 1-3) comprising: providing an inner surface (40 with 44) of a thermosyphon reboiler (¶[0016]), wherein the thermosyphon reboiler comprises a first side and a second side (see tube and shell side of Fig. 1), wherein providing the inner surface of the thermosyphon reboiler comprises providing groove pattern (44) across at least a portion of an inner surface of the second side of the thermosyphon reboiler, the specified depth and the specified width in a same range, wherein the pattern has a specified depth (depth of ribs 44) and a specified width (width of ribs 44) that increases a heat transfer surface area of the second side of the thermosyphon reboiler; flowing a heating fluid (via 12 & heating medium…remains in a liquid state - ¶[0015]) to the first side of the thermosyphon reboiler; flowing a liquid (via liquid inlet 16) to the second side of the thermosyphon reboiler; in response to flowing the heating fluid to the first side and the liquid to the second side, transferring heat from the heating fluid at the first side to the liquid at the second side, thereby boiling (boiling - ¶[0022-0023]) the liquid at the second side; and while boiling the liquid at the second side, preventing, by the groove pattern, film boiling (preventing…film boiling, abstract, claim 13) from occurring at the inner surface of the second side of the thermosyphon reboiler.
Master is silent to wherein the groove pattern is provided by engraving.
Creighton teaches the groove pattern is provided by engraving (forming said groove with a cutting tool – Col. 8, line 40-45).
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 Master to include the engraving of Creighton, in order to provide a consistent and uniform groove manufacturing (Col. 2, lines 50-60).
Regarding 18, Master teaches the limitations of claim 17, and Master further teaches the second side of the thermosyphon reboiler is tubular (tubes 24) and defines a first longitudinal axis (axis thereof), and the pattern (44) is formed as a helix defining a second longitudinal axis (axis thereof).
Regarding 20, Master teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Master further teaches the helix has a pitch, and a ratio of the pitch of the helix to the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 3:1 to about 10:1, (see pitch at 46 and 50, Fig. 3B & ¶[0021], which results in a ratio of 3.3:1 to 10:1 using 0.5 mm & 6 and 2 fins per cm).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A) and Wang (CN105202961A).
Regarding claim 19, Master teaches the limitations of claim 18, and Master does not teach the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 millimeters (mm) to about 0.3 mm, wherein the specified depth of the pattern varies along the second longitudinal axis.
Wang teaches the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 millimeters (mm) to about 0.3 mm, wherein the specified depth of the pattern varies along the second longitudinal axis (see range, 0.15-0.35 mm, which varies between the first and second section – Page 2).
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 Master to include the pattern dimensions and varying depth as taught by Wang, in order to improve heat exchange (Page 3).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A) and Rieger (US5690167A).
Regarding claim 21, Master teaches the limitations of claim 17, and Master does not teach the specified depth of the pattern is substantially similar to the specified width of the pattern.
Rieger teaches wherein the specified depth of the pattern is substantially similar to the specified width of the pattern (col. 5, lines 0-10).
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 Master to include the equal depth and width of Rieger, as it has been held obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Master (US20110083619A1) in view of Creighton (US3213525A) and Rieger (US5690167A) and Qi (CN202057241U).
Regarding claims 22-23, Master teaches the limitations of claim 17, and Master does not teach the specified depth of the pattern and the specified width of the pattern is 0.05 millimeters; or wherein the specified depth of the pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 millimeters (mm) to about 0.3 mm and the specified width of the pattern is in a range of from about 0.05 mm to about 0.3 mm.
Rieger teaches wherein the specified depth of the pattern is substantially similar to the specified width of the pattern (col. 5, lines 0-10). Qi teaches wherein the depth dimension is .05 mm (¶[0006]).
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 Master to include the equal depth and width of Rieger, and the dimension of Qi of .05 mm, as it has been held obvious to try when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP 2143).
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.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues the specified depth and specified width in a same range is not taught.
Examiner contends that the depth and width are inherently taught to be within a same range, as the range is not specified, and thus open ended.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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