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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 12, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Atkinson (US2119091A).
Regarding claim 1, Atkinson discloses an apparatus (see Fig. 1) comprising: a closed vessel (comprising elements 1, 2, 3) having an upper section (2) and a lower section (1); a pool (auxiliary medium) of a heat-receiving fluid located in the lower section; at least one product (hot medium) circulation conduit (respective conduit 5) located in the lower section and at least partially immersed in the pool of the heat-receiving fluid; wherein the at least one product circulation conduit is configured to circulate a liquified solid (Atkinson is capable of receiving a liquefied solid), wherein the heat-receiving fluid in the closed vessel is configured to regulate a temperature of the closed vessel to maintain the liquified solid in a liquid state by absorbing heat from the liquefied solid causing vaporization of a portion of the heat-receiving fluid, forming a vaporized heat-receiving fluid; and a cooling fluid (cold medium) conduit (respective conduit 5) located in the upper section and spaced apart from the pool of the heat- receiving fluid, the cooling fluid conduit being in thermal communication with the vaporized heat-receiving fluid; wherein a cooling fluid (cold medium) is present in the cooling fluid conduit, and wherein the cooling fluid is configured to condense the vaporized heat receiving fluid (see Page 1, right column, lines 10-20 & Claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Atkinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson further discloses the at least one product circulation conduit and the cooling fluid conduit each comprise a plurality of tube bundles (see respective bundles of tubes 5) having an inlet port and an outlet port (9/10).
Regarding claim 3, Atkinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson further discloses wherein the cooling fluid comprises water.
The recitations: “the cooling fluid comprises water” are considered to be statements of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a 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 structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, Atkinson is capable of receiving water, and thus reads on the limitation at issue.
Regarding claim 7, Atkinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson further discloses the heat-receiving fluid consists essentially of a single organic compound (diphenyl – Page 2).
Regarding claim 9, Atkinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson further discloses the at least one product circulation conduit (respective tube 5) and the cooling fluid conduit (respective tube 5) are both oriented substantially horizontally within the closed vessel.
Regarding claim12, Atkinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson further discloses the at least one product circulation conduit comprises two or more product circulation conduits (respective tubes 5) in the lower section that are at least partially immersed in the pool of the heat-receiving fluid.
Regarding claim 31, Atkinson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to regulate a rate of condensation of the vaporized heat-receiving fluid at least by regulating a fluid flow rate and a temperature of the cooling fluid conduit (Atkinson is capable of being operated in such a manner).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US2119091A) in view of Garland (US4100757A).
Regarding claim 4, Atkinson the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson does not teach a liquid level gauge or sensor, a temperature gauge or sensor, a pressure gauge or sensor, or any combination thereof.
Garland teaches a pressure gauge (36; Fig. 1).
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 Atkinson to include the pressure gauge of Garland, in order to monitor the system for non-condensables (Col. 3, lines 30-40).
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US2119091A) in view of Sotani (US4803343).
Regarding claim 5-6, and 8, Atkinson the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson does not teach the heat-receiving fluid is an optionally substituted C.sub.2-C.sub.40 hydrocarbon, wherein the heat-receiving fluid is toluene, or wherein the heat-receiving fluid has an ASTM D86 range between initial boiling point and dry point of about 10° C. or less.
Sotani teaches the heat-receiving fluid is an optionally substituted C.sub.2-C.sub.40 hydrocarbon, wherein the heat-receiving fluid is toluene, or wherein the heat-receiving fluid has an ASTM D86 range between initial boiling point and dry point of about 10° C. or less (toluene – Col. 3, 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 Atkinson to include the heat receiving fluid of Sotani, in order to provide a working fluid with excellent thermal stability and high heat transfer rate (Col. 3, lines 0-10).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US2119091A) in view of DE202015008836U1, hereinafter FOR1.
Regarding claim 10, Atkinson the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson does not teach the at least one product circulation conduit and the cooling fluid conduit are both oriented substantially vertically within the closed vessel.
FOR1 teaches the at least one product circulation conduit and the cooling fluid conduit are both oriented substantially vertically within the closed vessel (see orientation of 6 and 7 in Fig. 1).
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 Atkinson to include the vertical orientation of FOR1, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In the instant case, a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation of the conduits are functional equivalents, as taught by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Atkinson the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson does not teach wherein the cooling fluid conduit is a single cooling fluid conduit.
FOR1 teaches the cooling fluid conduit is a single cooling fluid conduit (7 in Fig. 1).
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 Atkinson to include the single tube configuration of FOR1, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In the instant case, a single tube conduit and multiple pipe conduit are functional equivalents, as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson (US2119091A) in view of Wu (CN1441211A).
Regarding claim 11, Atkinson teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Atkinson does not teach wherein the at least one product circulation conduit is oriented substantially horizontally and the cooling fluid conduit is oriented substantially vertically within the closed vessel, or the at least one product circulation conduit is oriented substantially vertically and the cooling fluid conduit is oriented substantially horizontally within the closed vessel.
Wu teaches wherein the at least one product circulation conduit is oriented substantially vertically and the cooling fluid conduit is oriented substantially horizontally within the closed vessel (see vertical conduit 2 and horizontal conduit 4; Fig. 3).
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 Atkinson to include the horizontal/vertical configuration of Wu, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143). In the instant case, the horizontal/vertical and horizontal/horizontal configurations are functional equivalents, as taught by the prior art.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thepsimuang (WO2007103509A) in view of Atkinson (US2119091A).
Regarding claim 14, Thepsimuang teaches a system comprising: a facility (see Fig. 1) forming or processing a liquefied solid having a temperature of about 40° C. or above, the liquefied solid being a solid or semi-solid material at room temperature (wax or wax-like material – abstract); an indirect heat exchange apparatus (5) receiving the liquefied solid as a feed to the at least one product circulation conduit.
Thepsimuang does not teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the heat-receiving fluid has a normal boiling point of about 50° C. or above.
Atkinson teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (as detailed above), wherein the heat-receiving fluid has a normal boiling point of about 50° C. or above (diphenyl – 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 Thepsimuang to include the apparatus of claim 1, in order to provide a heat exchange apparatus with a high heat transfer rate (Page 1, col. 2, lines 15-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Atkinson fails to teach forming a vaporized heat receiving fluid and wherein the cooling fluid is configured to condense the vaporized heat transfer fluid, citing Page 1, lines 15-19 and Page 1, right column 52-55. Applicant further argues the “configured to circulate a liquefied solid” is not taught by Atkinson, which teaches using cracked coal tar.
Examiner respectfully traverses this argument. Specifically, Applicant is directed to Page 1, right column, lines 10-20, which states “heat is transferred by vaporization and condensation of the auxiliary medium.” Examiner contends Applicant’s arguments that the auxiliary medium is maintained only the liquid state is not substantiated by the citations provided, but rather refuted by the teachings of Atkinson (see also claim 1 thereof). Examiner further maintains that the apparatus as taught by Atkinson is capable of receiving a liquefied solid and thus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Thepsimuang is merely relied upon to teach heat exchangers are used in cooling molten materials, and thus Applicant’s arguments directed to the specific heat exchanger taught by Atkinson are not found persuasive.
For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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