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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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 21-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of “an inner, discontinuous helical baffle ”, wherein it is unclear what “an inner, discontinuous helical baffle ” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “an inner, discontinuous helical baffle ” have with the “an inner, discontinuous helical baffle ”, since the term “an inner, discontinuous helical baffle ” has not differentiated how the “an inner, discontinuous helical baffle ” are distinct from the recited “helical baffles” already recited in the claim. How many separate sets of baffles are being claimed? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the helical baffles constitute an inner, discontinuous helical baffle -- for clarity.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of “the ends of tubes therein”, wherein it is unclear what “tubes” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “tubes” have with the “an additional inner bundle of tubes ” and “an outer bundle of tubes”, since the term “tubes” has not differentiated how the “tubes” are distinct from the recited “an additional inner bundle of tubes ” and “an outer bundle of tubes” already recited in the claim. Which tubes are connected? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the ends of each said bundle of tubes therein -- for clarity.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of “each baffle”, wherein it is unclear what “each baffle” is referring to. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the exact relationship the “each baffle” have with the all the previously recited baffles in the claim. Which baffles are being referred to? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- each said baffle -- for clarity.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of ” at the same time every other main flat segment or every other intermediate flat segment of the shape of an isosceles triangle mutually parallel” where the entire limitation is unclear. Is at the same time requiring some sort of change or movement in structure requiring “time”? Does something else occur at a different time? How does one of ordinary skill in the art define “the shape” which is a shape that is “ of an isosceles triangle mutually parallel” since triangle sides are not parallel? Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite . For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- every other main flat segment or every other intermediate flat segment of the shape of an isosceles triangle is connected -- for clarity.
Claim 21 recites the limitation of ” while the intermediate flat segments or are positioned” where the entire limitation is unclear since the language has improper grammar. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite . For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- or are positioned -- for clarity.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the main flat segments ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as -- the many main flat segments --.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the intermediate flat segments ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as -- the many intermediate flat segments --.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the outer continuous helical baffle many common flat segments ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as -- the many main flat segments --.
Claim 24 recites the limitation " the main flat segments ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as -- the many main flat segments --.
Claim 24 recites the limitation " the intermediate flat segments ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The phrase has been examined as -- the many intermediate flat segments --.
Claim 27 recites the limitation of ” at least one of the baffles is cut out from a single plate sheet and bent ” where the limitation “each couple of the flat segments , , or is cut out from” is unclear since the language has improper grammar. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite . For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- each couple of the flat segments , , or is cut out from a single plate sheet and bent at the a angle along the legs of the main flat segments -- for clarity.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated, as best understood due to various indefiniteness issues, by Wang et al. US 7,740,057 B2.
Re claim 21, Wang et al. teach a shell-and-tube heat exchanger with helical baffles (col 10 lines 1-23) that includes: a shell (22) with an inlet (28) and outlet nozzle (29), a central pipe (210)
or, instead of the central pipe, an additional inner bundle of tubes placed in the central flow, an outer bundle of tubes (23) arranged parallel to the shell axis and around the central pipe or around the additional inner bundle of tubes, two tube sheets (21) to fix the ends of tubes therein, an outer continuous helical baffle (col 10 lines 1-23) formed of flat segments and matched to the inside diameter of the shell, and, if there is the additional inner bundle of tubes instead of the central pipe, additionally an inner, discontinuous helical baffle placed in the central flow, and each baffle has numerous coaxial holes for each tube of one or both bundles of tubes respectively, characterized in that: the outer continuous helical baffle is formed of many main flat segments (25) in the shape of an isosceles triangle (noting in the shape of may mean close to or resembling or “shaped like”) whose base has the shape of a convex arc facing the inner surface of the heat exchanger shell , and the apex of this triangle is located on a circle of a diameter equal to the outside diameter of the central pipe or the diameter of the central flow , respectively (figs), as well as of many intermediate flat segments of the shape of an isosceles triangle (additional 25, noting “of the shape of an isosceles triangle” is considered to mean the many intermediate flat segments are of the shape of an isosceles triangle ) whose base has the shape of a concave are facing the X-X axis of the heat exchanger, and the main flat segments together with the intermediate flat segments of the shape of an isosceles triangle alternately adjoin each other along the length of their legs (noting multiple 25 alternate with each other of different heights) and are arranged in relation to each other at an alternating angle a lesser than 180 degrees (figs) and at the same time every other main flat segment or every other intermediate flat segment of the shape of an isosceles triangle mutually parallel (figs noting everything is connected), while the intermediate flat segments or are positioned at an angle b lesser than 900 in relation to the X-X axis of the heat exchanger, whereas the inner discontinuous helical baffle is formed of many flat segments whose one side has the shape of a convex arc congruent with the concave are of the intermediate flat segment of the shape of an isosceles triangle, and which form together with the intermediate flat segments or of the outer continuous helical baffle many common flat segments or , where the flat segment of the inner discontinuous helical baffle has the area F larger than the area S of a flat geometric figure similar to an isosceles triangle whose base has the shape of a convex arc congruent with the concave arc of the intermediate flat segment of the shape of an isosceles triangle whereas the apex of this triangle is on the X-X axis of the heat exchanger, and where the projection of said geometric figure on a plane perpendicular to the X-X axis corresponds to 1/4 or 1/6 of the cross-sectional area of the central flow contained in the circle of a diameter equal to the diameter of the central flow (it is noted that the remaining claim limitations are claimed in the alternative, and since Wang et al. teach the central pipe the remaining limitations are not required in claim 21 regaining the inner baffle).
Regarding claim 22, Wang et al. teach the flat segments of the inner discontinuous helical baffle have the area F larger than the area S of the flat geometric figure in order to accommodate all tube holes located within the flat geometric figure and at least all complete boundary tube holes located at the edge of the flat geometric figure and arranged in accordance with the layout of the inner bundle of tubes, and claim 22 is rejected since claim 21 only requires alternative claim limitations (since the a central pipe is taught in claim 21) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 21 , Wang teach claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Wang et al. teach the flat segments of the inner discontinuous helical baffle have the area F larger than the area S of the flat geometric figure in order to accommodate, apart from all tube holes located within the flat geometric figure and the boundary tube holes , additional tube holes arranged in accordance with the layout of the inner bundle of tubes, and claim 23 is rejected since claim 21 only requires alternative claim limitations (since the a central pipe is taught in claim 21) in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 21 , Wang teach claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, Wang et al. teach the main flat segments together with the intermediate flat segments of the shape of an isosceles triangle form couples of segments or couples of segments respectively, which consecutively repeated n-fold form one full pitch P of the outer continuous helical baffle along the X-X axis of the heat exchanger, where n = 4 or 6 (figs, noting one full pitch is reach with four triangles, n=4).
Regarding claim 25, Wang et al. teach the main flat segments together with the common flat segments or with the common flat segments form couples of segments which consecutively repeated n-fold form one full pitch P of the outer continuous helical baffle integrated with the inner discontinuous helical baffle , where n = 4 or 6, and claim 25 is rejected since claim 21 only requires alternative claim limitations in the alternative and per the rejection of claim 21 , Wang teach claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, Wang et al. teach he angle b ranges from 30 degrees to 75 degrees whereas the angle a is within the range from 120° to 170° (noting points along the base od jacent triangles for an image line from the apex of an adjacent triangle to be approximately 170 degree or slightly less, fig 8, and angle b is required in the alternative in claim 21 per indefiniteness interpretation).
Regarding claim 27, The claim is considered to be a product-by-process limitation (see 112 interpretation above). In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” Wang et al. teach the claim since no new structural requirements are claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160018168 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights