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 Objections
Claim 21 is objected to for not ending with a period. According to § 608.01(m) of the Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period (i.e., each claim is to be written as a single sentence). Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 abruptly ends with the word “and” and there is no period at the end of the claim. This suggests that Applicant has intended additional language to be part of the claim.
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.
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brigham et al. (US 2004/0050095).
With respect to claim 1, Brigham et al. disclose an apparatus for modular heat exchanger assembly for horizontal transport and vertical orientation installation comprising:
a frame comprising:
a case 64 having a top, a bottom, and a plurality of sides extending between the top and bottom (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.), the case having a side opening 78 in communication with an inner chamber defined between the sides, the top, and the bottom (Brigham et al., paragraph [0057], Figs. 4 and 4A), and
at least one side cap (“hinged, removable, scroll-type, or sliding door,” Brigham et al, paragraph [0057]) attached to the case 64 to cover the side opening, the frame having a length that extends in a longitudinal direction from the top to the bottom (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.);
a heat exchanger 10/16 positioned within the inner chamber (Brigham et al., paragraph [0053]); and wherein the frame is sized and configured to facilitate transport of the apparatus in a horizontal orientation for transportation (Brigham et al., paragraphs [0013] and [0066]), the length extending horizontally when the apparatus is in the horizontal orientation; and
the frame is sized and configured to facilitate positioning of the apparatus in a vertical orientation for installation at a site, the length extending vertically when the apparatus is in the vertical orientation (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.).
With respect to claim 7, Brigham et al. disclose a process of installing a heat exchanger, comprising:
forming a case 64 and at least one side cap (“hinged, removable, scroll-type, or sliding door,” Brigham et al., paragraph [0057];
positioning a heat exchanger 10/16 in an inner chamber of the case; attaching the at least one side cap to the case to form a frame and cover an open side 78 of the case and enclose the heat exchanger 10/16 within the inner chamber (Brigham et al., paragraph [0053]),
maintaining the frame in a horizontal orientation during transport of the heat exchanger to a site (Brigham et al., paragraphs [0013] and [0066]); and
moving the frame into a vertical orientation to install the heat exchanger at the site (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.).
With respect to claim 9, Brigham et al. disclose that the horizontal orientation is an orientation in which a length of the case that extends in a longitudinal direction between a top of the case and a bottom of the case extends horizontally (Brigham et al., paragraphs [0013] and [0066]).
With respect to claim 10, Brigham et al. disclose that the vertical orientation is an orientation in which a length of the case that extends in a longitudinal direction between a top of the case and a bottom of the case extends vertically (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.).
With respect to claim 11, Brigham et al. disclose that the horizontal orientation is an orientation in which a length of the case that extends in a longitudinal direction between a top of the case and a bottom of the case extends horizontally (Brigham et al., paragraphs [0013] and [0066]).
With respect to claim 21, Brigham et al. disclose an apparatus for modular heat exchanger assembly for horizontal transport and vertical orientation installation comprising:
a frame comprising:
a case having a top, a bottom, and a plurality of sides extending between the top and bottom, the case 64 having an open side (as shown in Fig. 4A of Brigham et al.) in communication with an inner chamber defined between the sides, the top, and the bottom (the inside of housing 64), and
at least one side cap ("hinged, removable, scroll-type, or sliding door," Brigham et al, paragraph [0057]) attached to the case to cover the open side,
the frame having a length that extends in a longitudinal direction from the top to the bottom (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.);
a heat exchanger 10/16 positioned within the inner chamber (Brigham et al., paragraph [0053]); and
wherein the frame is sized and configured to facilitate transport of the apparatus in a horizontal orientation for transportation (Brigham et al., paragraphs [0013] and [0066]), the length extending horizontally when the apparatus is in the horizontal orientation (as can be inferred from Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.); and
the frame is sized and configured to facilitate positioning of the apparatus in a vertical orientation for installation at a site, the length extending vertically when the apparatus is in the vertical orientation (as shown in Fig. 4 of Brigham et al.); and
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigham et al. (US 2004/0050095) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Dally et al. (WO 2021/072082).
With respect to claim 8, Brigham et al. disclose the claimed process except that they are silent on whether the heat exchanger is a coil-wound heat exchanger. However, Dally et al. teach a similar process of installing a heat exchanger wherein the heat exchanger is a coil-wound heat exchanger (CWHE) 300 (Dally et al., paragraph [0048]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Dally et al. with the process disclosed by Brigham et al. for the advantages of coil-wound heat exchangers which includes usage in broad temperature and pressure ranges, compact footprint, and robust design capable of absorbing start-ups, shut-downs and thermos shocks.
Claims 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigham et al. (US 2004/0050095) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faure et al. (US 6,711,868).
With respect to claim 12, Brigham et al. disclose the claimed process except that they are silent on the inclusion of a plurality of retention devices. However, Faure et al. teach a similar apparatus including a frame 2 and a plurality of retention devices 32/5 within an inner chamber positioned to engage the heat exchanger 1 to maintain a position of the heat exchanger in the inner chamber (as shown at bottom of Fig. 5 of Faure et al.).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Faure et al. with the process disclosed by Brigham et al. for the advantage of retaining the heat exchanger in a precisely controlled position during shipping and installation of the apparatus.
With respect to claim 13, Faure et al. teach adjusting positions of the retention devices 32/5 from a first position (as shown in which the devices 32/5 are loosened to allow for insertion of the heat exchanger.) and a second position (securing the heat exchanger in position–as shown in Fig. 5 of Faure et al.).
With respect to claim 15, Brigham et al. disclose the claimed process except that they are silent on how the frame is moved into a vertical orientation. However, Faure et al. teach a similar process including that the moving the frame into a vertical orientation to install the heat exchanger at the site comprises lifting the frame via at least one lifting device to adjust the orientation of the frame to the vertical orientation (Faure et al., col. 5, lines 36-38).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Faure et al. with the process disclosed by Brigham et al. for the advantage of the lifting power provided by the lifting device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigham et al. (US 2004/0050095), in view of Faure et al. (US 6,711,868), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hillenburg et al. (US 2021/0372116).
With respect to claim 16, Brigham et al. in view of Faure et al. disclose the claimed process except that Faure et al. is silent on what type of lifting device is used. However, Hillenburg et al. teaches a similar process including transporting heat exchangers horizontally (Hillenburg et al., paragraph [0015] and then lifting the heat exchanger into vertical position with a crane (Hillenburg et al., paragraph [0016]).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Hillenburg et al. with the process disclosed by Brigham et al. in view of Faure et al. because cranes are readily available for heavy lifting work at construction sites.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brigham et al. (US 2004/0050095) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Air Products South Africa (Youtube.com video).
With respect to claim 17, Brigham et al. disclose the claimed process except that they are silent on unloading the frame from the transportation vehicle while the frame is in the horizontal orientation. Brigham et al. disclose loading the frame in a transportation vehicle while the frame is the horizontal orientation (Brigham et al. teaches transporting the frame in a horizontal orientation via ISO containers, paragraphs, see [0013] and [0066]–such a transport of the frame would necessarily require a loading the frame in a transportation vehicle while the frame is in a horizontal orientation at least in the moment immediately before the container is placed on the vehicle).
Air Products South Africa teaches a similar method including unloading a cold box frame from a transportation vehicle while the frame is in a horizontal orientation (see time 3:11 of the video). It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Air Products South Africa with the process disclosed by Brigham et al. for the advantage of removing the frame from the vehicle and placing it on the ground in a stable orientation while further preparations are made for lifting the frame into a vertical orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 22 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 22 has been indicated as containing allowable subject matter primarily for the step of positioning the heat exchanger in the inner chamber of the case through the open side of the case.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claim 7 in view of Brigham, Applicant argues that Brigham does not disclose the claimed language because Brigham discloses “that aperture 78 [is] included in one side of housing 64,” and that this “cannot be properly correlated to the claimed open side of the case.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to be arguing that open side of the case necessarily means that the entire side is open. In other words, if a case is a six-sided rectangular prism one face of the prism is entirely gone. The examiner does not believe that the term “open side” is restricted to this interpretation. The examiner interprets “open side” to also mean a side with an opening. That is, part of the face of the rectangular prism may be present as long as there is an opening or aperture in that face.
For example, the open-sided shipping container advertised at supercubes.com (see attached reference) shows a container that is not entirely open on side due to three posts between the floor and ceiling on the open side.
Similarly, the “open sided bus” shown at alamy.com (see attached reference) also includes several side panels on the open side.
The same argument can be made for the interpretation of claim 21.
Applicant may wish to amend the claims to recite a side that is --completely open along the entire length of the case and the entire width of the case-- in order to differentiate from the prior art of record.
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights