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
Claims 14-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/7/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 8/7/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both claims 1 and 14 center on the same mixed tube heat exchanger architecture, and that there is not a search and/or examination burden since they share the same features. This is not found persuasive because the inventions have been shown to be distinct since the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, regardless of any shared structure between the two. This further results in the inventions requiring a different field of search, e.g. prior art having the structure of claim 1 would not necessarily read on the invention of claim 14. Examiner will consider claims 14-26 for rejoinder as appropriate, as noted in the Restriction mailed on 6/10/26.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read, “a heat exchanger configured to be fluidly coupled to a burner”
Claim 6 should end with a period.
Claims 2-13 should read, “[[A]] The condensing boiler according to claim …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 6-8 recite a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is within a range of ratios.
Claims 9-11 recite a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is within a range of percentages.
These claims are being interpreted to correspond to the ratio of the number of higher and lower heat exchanger tubes, see paras. 31-33 of the Applicant’s PGPUB. This is opposed to interpreting the ratio between the higher and lower tubes as corresponding to some other property of the tubes, e.g. diameter, length, etc.
For example, a ratio of higher to lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes being 75% would correspond to a ratio of 3:4.
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 6-13 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.
Regarding claims 6-11. Consistent with the claim interpretation section above, the claims are being interpreted to recite a ratio between the number of high and low efficiency heat exchanger tubes. As currently recited, it is unclear what the ratio actually corresponds to.
Furthermore, with the interpretation taken above, the claims are still unclear. Specifically, the claims each depend from claim 1 which requires each of the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes to be encircled by at least three of the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. It is unclear how the device can have a ratio in which there are significantly more lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes, e.g. a ratio of 1:100 or some other ratio as described in claims 6-11, while also requiring each of the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes to be encircled by at least three of the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. At best, this would involve arranging 300 lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes which are all surrounded by only 3 high efficiency heat exchanger tubes.
See also the drawing objection below.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… is between
The term “about” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… is between
The term “about” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… is between
The term “about” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… are between
The term “about” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if reading, “… are between
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the ratio in which there are more lower efficiency heat exchange tubes, see claims 6-11, consistent with the claim interpretation section and rejection under 112(b) above must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Additionally, the limitations of claim 5 wherein the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a smaller cross sectional diameter must be shown or the feature(s) cancelled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered. In particular, fig. 4, copied below, shows a much smaller relative number of lower efficiency heat exchange tubes B (highlighted for easier reference), wherein the tubes B have a larger cross sectional diameter when compared to tubes A.
PNG
media_image1.png
883
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5027749 A to Rocco.
Regarding claim 1. Rocco teaches a condensing boiler (intended use which the device of Rocco is capable of, e.g. condensation in flue gas can be formed given the right conditions. See for example col. 4 ll. 40-50 which provides a provision for configuring the device as a condensing boiler) comprising:
a heat exchanger configured to be fluidly coupled to a burner (fig. 1, flue path from burner 16 to vent 26),
a hot water supply (water outlet 32), and
a cold water supply (water inlet 30),
the heat exchanger including, multiple lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes (central flue 24, comprising two tubes in the storage tank 18 and recovery tank 20), and multiple higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (secondary flues 42, where the secondary flues would be understood to have a higher efficiency than the overall efficiency of the central flue 24 tubes at least due to a) the overall temperature difference since the central flue 24 is partially arranged in the recovery tank 20 and b) their better surface-area-to-volume ratio from being smaller),
wherein each of the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes are encircled by at least three of the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (from a top down view, each of the concentric tubes of the central flue 24 are encircled by the four secondary flues 42).
PNG
media_image2.png
716
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Rocco teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein:
the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a smooth sidewall (fig. 1, tubes of the central flue 24 can be seen to have a substantially smooth sidewall);
But fails to teach the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a corrugated sidewall.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20160015952 A to Choi.
Regarding claim 1. Choi teaches a condensing boiler (p. 2 para. 2, “That tangsik heat exchanger Heat exchanger for hot water storage type condensing boiler.”) comprising:
a heat exchanger (130) configured to be fluidly coupled to burner (151), a hot water supply (112b), and a cold water supply (112a), the heat exchanger including,
PNG
media_image3.png
648
397
media_image3.png
Greyscale
multiple lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes (fig. 4, first heat exchange tubes 220), and
multiple higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (fig. 4, second heat exchange tubes 230),
wherein each of the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes (220) are encircled by at least three of the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (from fig. 4, each tube 220 is encircled by 17 of the tubes 230).
PNG
media_image4.png
440
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5. Choi teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a smaller cross-sectional diameter than the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (from fig. 4, the tubes 220 can be seen to have a smaller cross sectional diameter than the tubes 230; at least when considering the hydraulic diameter of the elongated cross section of 230).
Claim(s) 1, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2016131787 A1 to Axel, cited in Applicant’s 5/7/24 IDS.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Axel.
Regarding claim 1. Axel teaches a condensing boiler (figs. 1 and 10, intended use which the device of Axel is capable of, given favorable conditions) comprising:
a heat exchanger configured to be fluidly coupled to burner (p. 8 paras. 13-14, “For example, the tube bundle heat exchanger according to the invention for Heat recovery from hot exhaust gas streams are used”), a hot water supply (fluid M outlet 14), and a cold water supply (fluid M inlet 13), the heat exchanger including,
PNG
media_image5.png
343
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
multiple lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes (larger tubes along the interior of fig. 4), and
multiple higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (smaller tubes along the exterior of fig. 4),
wherein each of the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes are encircled by at least three of the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (when considering for example only the outermost layer of tubes as being higher efficiency, each of the interior tubes would be encircled by at least three of the tubes in the outermost layer).
PNG
media_image6.png
342
492
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6. Axel teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is between 1:100 to 1:10 (Whether or not Axel reads on this claim is solely dependent upon which of the tubes in fig. 10 are considered lower and higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered the tubes such that a ratio between the higher efficiency and lower efficiency tubes is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7. Axel teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is between 1:10 to 1:5 (Whether or not Axel reads on this claim is solely dependent upon which of the tubes in fig. 10 are considered lower and higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered the tubes such that a ratio between the higher efficiency and lower efficiency tubes is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 8. Axel teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is between 1:20 to 1:2 (Whether or not Axel reads on this claim is solely dependent upon which of the tubes in fig. 10 are considered lower and higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered the tubes such that a ratio between the higher efficiency and lower efficiency tubes is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9. A condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is between about 50% and about 99% (Whether or not Axel reads on this claim is solely dependent upon which of the tubes in fig. 10 are considered lower and higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered the tubes such that a ratio between the higher efficiency and lower efficiency tubes is within the claimed range).
Examiner Note: The percents of 50% and 99% are being interpreted to correspond to ratios of 1:2 and 1:1.01, respectively (50/100=1/2 and 99/100=1/1.01).
Regarding claim 10. A condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is between about 65% and about 98% (Whether or not Axel reads on this claim is solely dependent upon which of the tubes in fig. 10 are considered lower and higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered the tubes such that a ratio between the higher efficiency and lower efficiency tubes is within the claimed range).
Examiner Note: The percents of 65% and 98% are being interpreted to correspond to ratios of 1:1.53 and 1:1.02, respectively.
Regarding claim 11. A condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein a ratio between the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes and the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes is between about 75% and about 95% (Whether or not Axel reads on this claim is solely dependent upon which of the tubes in fig. 10 are considered lower and higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have considered the tubes such that a ratio between the higher efficiency and lower efficiency tubes is within the claimed range).
Examiner Note: The percents of 75% and 95% are being interpreted to correspond to ratios of 1:1.33 and 1:1.05, respectively.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Durafin Tube, Formed and Dimpled Tubing, 2023.
Regarding claim 3. Rocco teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1, wherein:
the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a smooth sidewall (fig. 1, tubes of the central flue 24 can be seen to have a substantially smooth sidewall);
But fails to teach the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a flattened sidewall with crimped portions.
Durafin Tube teaches a heat exchanger tube having a flattened sidewall with crimped portions (see figure below of corrugated flat tube with round end).
PNG
media_image7.png
367
621
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Rocco to implement suitable corrugated flat tubes as at least some of the heat transfer tubes of Rocco, e.g. the secondary flues 42, as taught by Durafin Tube. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing heat exchange tubes with a known structure to achieve the diverse and complex heat exchanger problems, as suggested by Durafin in the description paragraph.
Regarding claim 4. Rocco teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 3, wherein the lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes have a larger cross-sectional diameter than the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes (fig. 1, the central flue 24 can be seen to have a larger diameter than the secondary flues 42).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Copper Development Association, Why Copper, 2023.
Regarding claim 12. Rocco teaches a condensing boiler according to claim 1,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein the higher efficiency heat exchanger tubes are between
Copper Development Association teaches smaller diameter tubes having a higher efficiency (fifth paragraph, “Additionally, manufacturers are designing a new generation of heat exchangers with more advantages over present designs. These new heat exchangers have copper tubing designed with an even smaller diameter (5mm copper tube) than competing heat exchanger designs, allowing for a better-performing product with higher internal and external heat transfer coefficients.”)
With regards to the limitation of “between 5% and 85% more efficient”, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a specific efficiency has predictable and expected results. For example, this efficiency could be optimized by selecting secondary flues 42 having a smaller diameter than the central flue 24, while balancing the desired flow between the plurality of secondary flues 42 and the central flue 24, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since an efficiency is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the efficiency of the secondary and central flues is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the efficiencies of the higher and lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes such that the higher efficiency tubes are between 5% to 85% more efficient, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
Regarding claim 13. The claim is rejected using substantially the same rationale as applied to claim 12, where it would have been obvious to optimize the efficiencies to be within 25% to 50% more efficient, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20110203781 A1 to Ellingwood, fig. 4, teaches two concentric rows of heat exchanger tubes; however, the tubes of the inner row would be considered as the high efficiency heat exchanger tubes at least since they are closer to the heat source and have enhancement devices 60. The tubes of the inner row are encircled by the tubes of the outer row.
PNG
media_image8.png
861
452
media_image8.png
Greyscale
US 20070051359 A1 to Missoum, fig. 2, teaches a heat exchanger having two rows of heat exchanger tubes, similar to Ellingwood, the inner tubes would be considered as the high efficiency heat exchanger tubes due to the larger temperature difference of the flue gas and water. See condensation 35 in the outer row of tubes.
PNG
media_image9.png
629
492
media_image9.png
Greyscale
US 20190203974 A1 to Scott, fig. 3, teaches a multi-pass heat exchanger in which the tubes gradually decrease in diameter and increase in number along the flow direction of the flue gas. Only the singular first pas flue tube 202 is encircled by the second and third pass flue tubes. Additionally, it is unclear which tubes would be considered the high and low efficiency tubes since the tube diameter decreases as the flue temperature goes down.
PNG
media_image10.png
712
308
media_image10.png
Greyscale
EP 2771622 B1 to Adam, teaches a generally similar heat exchanger layout, but fails to teach higher and lower efficiency heat exchanger tubes, in particular with the arrangement claimed.
PNG
media_image11.png
592
462
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights