DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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, last two lines – it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “wherein deviation of
the grooves from the circumference of the inner surface of the tube is up to 10 degrees”.
The phrase “up to” makes it unclear if the deviation can be a range that goes up to 10
degrees and if so, it is unclear what the range would be, for example if the range is from 0 to 10 degrees, or is the deviation at least up to 10 degrees. Therefore clarification is needed.
Claim 3, last two lines – it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “wherein deviation of
the grooves from the circumference of the inner surface of the tube is up to 5 degrees”.
The phrase “up to” makes it unclear if the deviation can be a range that goes up to 5
degrees and if so, it is unclear what the range would be, for example if the range is from 0 to 10 degree, or is the deviation at least up to 5 degrees. Therefore clarification is needed.
Claim 8, it is unclear if “up to” means a range and it is unclear what the range includes.
Claim 11, it is unclear how the crown can have both sharp edges and edges with a radius of curvature.
Claim 19, last two lines – it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “wherein deviation of
the grooves from the circumference of the inner surface of the tube is up to 10 degrees”.
The phrase “up to” makes it unclear if the deviation can be a range that goes up to 10
degrees and if so, it is unclear what the range would be, for example if the range is from 0 to 10 degrees, or is the deviation at least up to 10 degrees. Therefore clarification is needed.
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 (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.
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) 1-6, 8 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caddell 2015/0235719 in view of Takeishi et al. 2009/0158799.
In regard to claims 1-3 and 19, Caddell discloses an axial reformer tube 102 and reformer system 800, wherein the axial reformer tube extends along an axial length and that the inner surface comprises a pattern of grooves 104, and
wherein a deviation of the grooves from the circumference of the inner surface of the tube is up to 10 degrees (the grooves 512 shown in fig. 5 would be at 0 degrees, which is less than 5 degrees).
Caddell discloses a grooved tube as described above for efficiently transporting water or oil (see paragraph 26), but is silent as to the surface roughness of the inner surface of the tube.
Takeishi et al. teaches that providing similarly shaped interior tubes with a Ra roughness value between 1µm to 100µm, in order to reduce fluid friction (see paragraph 28) of the fluid passing through the tube, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the tube of Caddell with an interior surface that has a roughness Ra roughness value of between 12.5µm and 500µm and more specifically 25µm, in order to reduce fluid friction and improve the efficiency of fluid flow through the tube.
In regard to claim 4, wherein the pattern of grooves is formed as one or more helical grooves (see fig. 7 of Caddell).
In regard to claim 5, wherein side faces of the grooves are angled relative to a plane perpendicular to the axial length by a side face angle of 0 degrees (see fig. 9).
In regard to claim 6, wherein side faces of the grooves are angled relative to a plane perpendicular to the axial length by a side face angle of 0 (see fig. 9).
In regard to claim 8, wherein the side face angle is up to 25 degrees (see fig. 9 where the angle is 0, which is less than 25 degrees).
In regard to claim 12, wherein the rough portion extends along the full axial length of the tube 102.
In regard to claim 13, wherein the tube comprises a smooth portion having a Ra roughness of up to 3.2µm, coupled to the rough portion (Takeishi et al. teaches providing the inner surface of the tube with a Ra roughness in the range of 1 µm and 100µm along the entire interior length of the tube, see paragraph 28).
In regard to claim 14, the rough portion is coupled between two smooth portions (Takeishi et al. teaches providing the inner surface of the tube with a Ra roughness in the range of 1 µm and 100µm along the entire interior length of the tube, see paragraph 28).
In regard to claims 15-18, Caddell in view of Takeishi et al. does not disclose the exact length and internal diameter of tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tube of Caddell in view of Takeishi et al. to include the dimensions recited by the Applicant because supplying tubes with varying lengths and sizes is common and well known and a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caddell 2015/0235719 in view of Takeishi et al. 2009/0158799 and further in view of Shinohara et al. 4,658,892.
In regard to claim 7, Caddell in view of Takeishi et al. discloses a groove with a side face
at an angle, but it is unclear as to the exact value of the side face angle. Shinohara et al. teaches that providing interiorly grooved pipes with side faces of at least a 10 degree angle (see fig. 3) is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the side face of the groove of Caddell in view of Takeishi et al. with an angle of at least 10 degrees.
In regard to claims 9-10, Caddell in view of Takeishi et al. disclose a grooved tube as
described above, but do not disclose the grooves as having roots or crowns with axial lengths. Shinohara et al. teaches that providing similarly shaped tubes either with roots and crowns having axial lengths (see figs. 7b, 7c, and fig. 8) or without roots and crowns having axial lengths (fig. 2a, fig. 7a) is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the grooves of Caddell in view of Takeishi et al. with roots and crowns that have axial lengths because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Takeishi et al. is silent as to the ratio of the crown axial length and root axial width relative to the groove height. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make it with the ratios recited by the Applicant because the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961).
In regard to claim 11, Takeishi et al. teaches providing a crown with edges that include a radius of curvature (see fig. 2b), but is silent as to the exact value of the radius of curvature. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the crown edges of Takeishi et al. with a radius of curvature of up to 20 µm because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Olesen, Parenti, Jr., Leterrible, Mao, Naunheimer, Loveday, Carr and Harata disclose similar tubes and reformer systems that are common and well known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679