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 Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated March 2, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated December 15, 2025.
Cancelation of claims 12-14 and 16 is acknowledged.
Addition of new claims 21-24 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-2 is maintained as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting at the bottom of page 8 of the Amendment, the obviousness statement made in numbered paragraph 24 of the previous Office action would not have led to a predictable result, and Withers (U.S. Patent No. 3,277,959) does not disclose or suggest spacers 25 are made of crushable material. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While it is true Withers discloses spacers 25 may be made of the material quoted by applicant, the very next sentence of Withers states, “They may be made of any material that will withstand the conditions of operation, i.e., the temperature and fluid used on the outside of the tube bundle, etc.” This sentence is followed by, “Hence, although polymeric materials are preferred and specifically the polymers of fluorocarbons, amides, acetals, olefins, vinyl halides, styrene, etc., metals, textile materials and cellulosic materials may also be used.” Therefore, Withers does specifically disclose spacers 25 may be made of material other than what is argued by applicant. Examiner points out this argument made by applicant does not apply to claim 1 as now amended.
Claim 1 has been amended to include only a portion of claim 4 in a manner in which Withers may be reasonably be interpreted as anticipating amended claim 1. See the rejection below. The rejection of claim 4 as amended has been stated in an different way to explain how the combination of references renders the claim unpatentable.
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 and 8 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.
The scope of claims 3 and 8 are unclear because conjunctions between the limitation clauses are not claimed. Each of claims 3 and 8 have been amended to end with the phrase “or a combination thereof”, implying the previously recited limitation clauses are intended to be claimed in the alternative with an “or” conjunction between them. However, this is not expressly claimed. Claims 3 and 8 will be interpreted as each limitation clause is in the alternative with an “or” conjunction after each limitation clause for examination purposes.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 11 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,277,959 to Withers, hereinafter “Withers”.
Regarding claim 1, Withers discloses a method of forming a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger (title), wherein the tube bundle comprises multiple tube layers, each layer comprises at least one tube (the tube bundle shown in Fig. 6 comprises multiple tube layers with each layer comprising at least one tube; col. 2, line 68-69), and the method comprises:
(a) providing a mandrel that extends along a mandrel longitudinal axis (Fig. 11 shows providing mandrel 42; col. 3, line 66-67);
(b) forming a first tube layer by winding at least one of the at least one tubes around the mandrel, the at least one tube having a tube height H (Fig. 11 shows a first tube layer is wound around mandrel 42);
(c) placing a plurality of first layer supports and a plurality of first layer spacers on an outer tube surface of the first tube layer (Fig. 11 shows a plurality of spacers 25 being placed on an outer tube surface of a tube layer. Col. 3, line 52-56. Spacers 25 serve as supports for tubes 21. Col. 5, line 9-12.), each of the first layer supports having a support longitudinal axis, an inner support surface that is in contact with the outer tube surface and an outer surface that is distal to the inner support surface, each of the plurality of first layer spacers having a spacer height S;
(d) forming a second tube layer by winding at least one of the at least one tubes around the mandrel, the first tube layer, and the plurality of first layer supports (Fig. 11 shows tube layers being wound around one another over the mandrel and spacer supports 25); and
(e) applying at least one deforming force to the second tube layer in a direction normal to the outer support surface of each of the plurality of first layer supports sufficient to cause the at least one tube forming the second tube layer to deform at least one of the outer support surface and the inner support surface of each of the plurality of first layer supports without deforming the at least one tube forming the second tube layer (Fig. 11 shows guide rolls 46 applying deforming force to each successive tube layer in a direction normal to the outer support surface of each spacer support 25 to tightly wrap each successive tube layer which causes the tubes of each layer to press inwardly against previously-wound tube layers, deforming the outer support surface of previously wound spacer supports 25; Col. 3, line 67-68),
wherein the application of the deforming force moves at least one of the outer support surface or the inner support surface of at least one of the plurality of first layer supports from an initial contact position to a recessed position (the deforming force applied by guide rolls 46 in Fig. 11 to the outer support surface of spacer support 25 moves at least the outer support surface of spacer support 25 from an initial contact position where a tube layer is initially placed into contact with and previously wound layer and is not tightly wrapped therearound to a recessed position where the successive tube layer is tightly wrapped against a previously wound layer).
Regarding claim 2, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses a radial layer spacing between the first tube layer and the second tube layer is greater than the spacer height S prior to performing step (e) and is equal to the spacer height S after performing step (e). Each tube layer in Fig. 11 is loosely introduced from supporting plate 45 to mandrel 42 prior to being tightly wrapped by guide rolls 46, resulting in in the radial layer spacing being greater prior to the tightening performed by guide rolls 46. See col. 3, line 47-68.
Regarding claim 6, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses the deforming force of step (e) is a result of applying tension to the second tube layer during step (d). Tension is applied to each successive tube layer between nip rolls 43 and 44 and mandrel 42 as each successive tube layer is wound around mandrel 42 which contributes to the deforming force that winds each successive tube layer around mandrel 42 tightly.
Regarding claim 7, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses at least a portion of the deforming force of step (e) is applied by an external device (external device guide rolls 46 in Fig. 11) that is passed over the second tube layer during or after the performance of step (d) (guide rolls 46 passes over each successive tube layer as it winds each layer around mandrel 42).
Regarding claim 8, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers at least further discloses step (b) further comprises winding the at least one first layer tube around the mandrel at a winding angle α relative to the mandrel longitudinal axis and step (d) further comprises winding the at least one second layer tube at a winding angle -α relative to the mandrel longitudinal axis. The winding angle of each successive layer relative to mandrel 42 in Fig. 11 changes as each successive layer is wound around previously-wound layers.
Regarding claim 11, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses each of the plurality of first layer supports comprises a non-deformable spacer portion that does not substantially deform during the performance of step (e). The cross-sectional portion of spacer supports 25 are not substantially deformed during application of the deforming force by guide rolls 46 in Fig. 11 as shown in Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 21, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses a distance E between the initial contact position and the recessed position is at least 25% of the tube height H. Fig. 6 discloses a deforming force is used to deform trailing tab 33 of spacer supports 25 from an initial contact position where tab 33 is not welded to a previous spacer support outer surface and a recessed position where tab 33 is welded to a previous spacer support outer surface to restrain the tube bundle, thus being moved at least 100% of the tube height. See column 3, line 43-46.
Regarding claim 22, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses wherein each of the plurality of supports comprises a hollow cell material. Column 4, line 58-63 discloses support spacers 25 may be made of many different materials with one or more of those materials having a hollow cell structure.
Regarding claim 23, Withers anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Withers further discloses wherein the hollow cell material of each of the plurality of supports comprises at least one open cell. Column 4, line 58-63 discloses support spacers 25 may be made of many different materials with one or more of those materials having a hollow open-cell structure.
Regarding claim 24, Withers anticipates the method of claim 22 as explained above. Withers further discloses wherein the hollow cell material of each of the plurality of supports comprises at least one open cell and at least one closed cell. Column 4, line 58-63 discloses support spacers 25 may be made of many different materials with one or more of those materials having a hollow open and/or closed cell structure.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,685,330 to Funke, hereinafter “Funke”.
Regarding claim 3, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Withers does not disclose
(f) placing a plurality of mandrel layer supports on the mandrel prior to performing step (b), so that the mandrel layer supports are positioned between the mandrel and the first tube layer; or
g) prior to performing step (d), applying a pre-winding force to each of the plurality of first layer supports that results in a deformation of each of the plurality of first layer supports on only the inner support surface; or
forming one or more additional tube layers in the tube bundle by repeating steps (c) through (e) for each additional tube layer in the tube bundle; or
a combination thereof.
In the same field of coiling pipe around a mandrel, Funke teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a plurality of supporting spacers 4 on mandrel drum 2 in Fig. 2 prior to forming a first tube layer around the mandrel to reduce friction forces between the inner-most tube layer and the mandrel when the tube bundle is removed from the mandrel. See column 4, line 5-10.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place a plurality of spacer supports 25 on mandrel 42 in Fig. 11 of Withers prior to forming a first tube layer therearound to reduce friction between the inner-most tube layer and the mandrel when the tube bundle is removed from mandrel 42 in the same way Funke teaches. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teaching of Funke to the method of Withers would improve the method by making it easier to remove the resulting tube bundle from mandrel 42 when the bundle is completed.
Claims 4-5, 9-10, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers in view of German Patent Publication No. DE 103 43 581 B4 by Laak et al., hereinafter “Laak”.
Regarding claim 4, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Withers does not disclose the application of the deforming force moves at least one of the outer support surface or the inner support surface of at least one of the plurality of first layer supports from an initial contact position to a recessed position, and wherein the distance E between the initial contact position and the recessed position is at least 5% of the tube height H.
In the same field of making a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger, Laak teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elastically deformable support elements in tube bundles which deform to the surface of the tubes when a clamping force is applied normal thereto. See Figs. 13 and 14 with their written description at paragraph [0067].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Wither’s spacer supports 25 of elastically deformable material such that the wrap-tightening force exerted by Withers’ guide rolls 46 in Fig. 11 crushes spacer supports 25 to embed tubes 21 into the surfaces of spacer supports 25 in the same way Laak teaches. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teaching of Laak to the method of Withers would achieve the predictable result of recessing tubes 21 into the surfaces of spacer supports 25 by at least 5% of the height of the tubes.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Withers in view of Laak renders the method of claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Laak further teaches using support elements 80 in Fig. 14 with pre-formed recess bulges 87 which encompass half of the tube height in conjunction with deformable support elements 90, establishing the teaching deformable support elements 90 would be used in instances where deformation of less than 50% of the tube height is needed.
Regarding claim 9, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Withers does not expressly disclose each of the at least one tubes has a tube radial crush strength and each of the plurality of first layer supports has a support outer layer having a support outer layer radial crush strength that is less than the tube radial crush strength.
In the same field of making a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger, Laak teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elastically deformable support elements in tube bundles which deform to the surface of the tubes when a clamping force is applied normal thereto. See Figs. 13 and 14 with their written description at paragraph [0067]. This would require tubes 2 to have a tube radial crush strength greater than the crush strength of the outer layer of deformable support elements 90.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the radial crush strength of Withers’ tubes 21 to be greater than the crush strength of the surface layers of Withers’ spacer supports 25 so that spacer supports 25 are deformed when each successive tube layer is tightly wound around mandrel 42 instead of tubes 21. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Laak to the method of Withers would achieve the predictable result of causing the radial crush strength of the tube greater than the crush strength of the spacer supports.
Regarding claim 10, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. However, Withers does not disclose the outer support surface of each support of the plurality of first layer supports is adapted to deform via the deforming force to create a tube seat oriented at an angle corresponding to either of the winding angle a or the winding angle -a during the performance of step (b).
In the same field of making a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger, Laak teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elastically deformable support elements in tube bundles which deform to the surface of the tubes when a clamping force is applied normal thereto. See Figs. 13 and 14 with their written description at paragraph [0067].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Wither’s spacer supports 25 of elastically deformable material such that the wrap-tightening force exerted by Withers’ guide rolls 46 in Fig. 11 crushes spacer supports 25 to embed tubes 21 into the surfaces of spacer supports 25 in the same way Laak teaches. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying the teaching of Laak to the method of Withers would achieve the predictable result of tubes 21 deforming spacer supports 25 to create a tube seat oriented at an angle corresponding to the winding angle.
Regarding claim 15, Withers anticipates the method of claim 1 as explained above. Withers further discloses each of the plurality of first layer supports placed in step (c) is also one of the plurality of first layer spacers. Spacers 25 also serve as supports. Col. 5, line 9-12. However, Withers does not disclose each of the plurality of first layer supports comprises an inner layer and at least one outer layer, the inner layer having a maximum inner layer radial crush strength that is greater than an outer layer maximum radial crush strength of each of the at least one outer layers.
In the same field of making a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger, Laak teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elastically deformable support elements in tube bundles with an inner layer having a greater maximum radial crush strength greater than that of an out layer. Deformable support element 90 in Fig. 14 is shown with an inner layer support holding element 81 which has resisted radial crushing while outer layer 90 has been deformed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use deformable support elements of varying degrees of crush resistance in Withers’ method in the same way Laak teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Laak to the method Withers’ would achieve the predictable result of Withers’ method employing supports of multiple layer of varying degree of crush resistance.
Regarding claim 17, Withers discloses a method of forming a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger (title), wherein the tube bundle comprises multiple tube layers, each layer comprises at least one tube (the tube bundle shown in Fig. 6 comprises multiple tube layers with each layer comprising at least one tube; col. 2, line 68-69), and the method comprises:
(a) providing a mandrel that extends along a mandrel longitudinal axis (Fig. 11 shows providing mandrel 42; col. 3, line 66-67);
(b) forming a first tube layer by winding at least one of the at least one tubes around the mandrel, the at least one tube having a tube height H (Fig. 11 shows a first tube layer is wound around mandrel 42);
(c) placing a plurality of first layer supports and a plurality of first layer spacers on an outer tube surface of the first tube layer in a circumferentially-alternating arrangement (Fig. 11 shows a plurality of spacers 25 being placed on an outer tube surface of a tube layer. Col. 3, line 52-56. Spacers 25 serve as supports for tubes 21. Col. 5, line 9-12. Figs. 7 and 8 disclose spacers 25 may be arranged in a circumferentially-alternating arrangement. See column 5, line 53-68.);
(d) forming a second tube layer by winding at least one of the at least one tubes around the mandrel, the first tube layer, and the plurality of first layer supports (Fig. 11 shows tube layers being wound around one another over the mandrel and spacer supports 25); and
(e) applying at least one deforming force to the second tube layer (Fig. 11 shows guide rolls 46 applying deforming force to each successive tube layer in a direction normal to the outer support surface of each spacer support 25 to tightly wrap each successive tube layer; Col. 3, line 67-68)
wherein each of the first layer supports has an inner support surface that is in contact with the outer tube surface (col. 3, line 52-56 discloses an inner support surface of spacer supports 25 are in contact with the outer surfaces of tubes 21) and an outer surface that is distal to the inner support surface (the opposite side of spacer supports 25 are outer surfaces distal to the inner side support surface), and
wherein the application of the deforming force moves at least one of the outer support surface or the inner support surface of at least one of the plurality of first layer supports from an initial contact position to a recessed position (the deforming force applied by guide rolls 46 in Fig. 11 to the outer support surface of spacer support 25 moves at least the outer support surface of spacer support 25 from an initial contact position where the tube layer is not tightly wrapped around previously wound tube layers to a recessed position where the successive tube layer is tightly wrapped around a previously wound layer).
Withers does not disclose from claim 17:
in step (c), the first layer of supports have an undeformed support height H2 and each of the plurality of first layer spacers have a spacer height H1; and
in step (e), the deforming force is sufficient to deform each of the plurality of first layer supports without deforming the at least one tube forming the second tube layer;
wherein the first and second tube layers have an initial layer spacing at each of the plurality of first layer supports prior to performing step (e) and a final layer spacing at each of the plurality of first layer supports after performing step (e), the final layer spacing being less than the initial layer spacing.
In the same field of making a tube bundle for a coil wound heat exchanger, Laak teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use elastically deformable support elements 90 in tube bundles which deform to the surface of tubes 2 when a clamping force is applied such that the layer spacing between tube layers is reduced. See Figs. 13 and 14 with their written description at paragraph [0067]. Laak further teaches using support elements 80 in Fig. 14 with a height different from deformable support elements 90 which do not deform but are provided with pre-formed seats which establish a set spacing between tube layers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Laak to the method disclosed by Withers to provide a method using deformable supports and spacers of differing height as Withers’ spacer 25 where the deformable supports are crushed to embed tubes 21 into the deformable spacers during wrap tightening by guide rolls 46 to achieve the predictable result of a final layer spacing being less than the initial layer spacing.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art reference combination of Withers in view of Laak renders the method of claim 17 unpatentable as explained above. Withers further discloses each spacer support 25 is a separate support structure such that they are discontinuous along the axial direction of the tube bundle.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art reference combination of Withers in view of Laak renders the method of claim 17 unpatentable as explained above. When guide rolls 46 applies wrap-tightening force to each successive tube layer where Withers’ spacers 25 are configured as taught by Laak, the wrap-tightening force embeds tubes 21 into the deformable support elements such that the non-deformable support elements, 90 in Laak, define the final layer height.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art reference combination of Withers in view of Laak renders the method of claim 17 unpatentable as explained above. The initial layer spacing, prior to guide rolls 46 exerting wrap-tightening force on the initial layer, is substantially equal to the undeformed support height H2 in the areas of the tube layer adjacent the undeformed deformable support elements prior to being tightly wrapped about the mandrel.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights