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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, line 15, change “WBH” to –WHB--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, change “outer tube sheets” to –outlet tube sheets--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
The term “thin flexible tube sheets” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin flexible” 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" (SEE line 6) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for instance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "such as" (SEE line 6) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the specification is indefinite in its description of a plurality of straight tubes being arranged in one compartment yet defining a plurality of inlet and outer tube sheets.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "i.e. prior to e.g. drilling of holes in the tube sheets" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, “the thin flexible tube sheets being verified by means of finite analysis in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Division 2”, is considered indefinite language since it is known in the art for industry standards to change over time.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "i.e. after at least one year of operation" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-5 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila et al (WO 2021011184). Avila et al discloses a process gas waste heat boiler (100) including a shell (101) within which a plurality of straight tubes are arranged, each of the straight tubes being connected at its one end with an inlet tube sheet (160a) and with an outlet tube sheet (160b) at its opposite end; in which the inlet tube sheet and the outlet tube sheet are provided with a plurality of holes adapted to cooperate with each of the straight tubes (SEE Figure 2) for respectively receiving and exiting a process gas, wherein each of the holes in the inlet tube sheet defines an inlet opening and each of the holes in the outlet tube sheet defines an outlet opening (inherent), wherein at least the inlet and outlet tube sheets are provided with a cladding (210a) (SEE [0040]) at least at the inlet and outlet opening of each of the holes (SEE Figures 2-5) and wherein the inlet and outlet tube sheets are thin flexible tube sheets made of steel (SEE [0036] & [0040]). Avila et al does not specifically recite that the tube sheets including the cladding have a thickness of 20-70 mm. 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 subject matter pertains to have to have chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success a thickness for the tube sheets falling within a range of 20-70 mm, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range can be achieved without any inventive skill. With regards to claims 2, 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 subject matter pertains to have to have chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success a thickness for the tube sheets falling within a range of 15-65 mm, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range can be achieved without any inventive skill.
In re claim 3, Avila et al discloses that the cladding may be a rolled-in thin metallic layer of aluminum or a suitable alloy….and can be any material that is more electrochemically negative than aluminum tubes when exposed to chiller water (SEE [0040]). 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 subject matter pertains to have to have chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success a thickness for the cladding falling within a range of 4-10 mm, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range can be achieved without any inventive skill. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to selected a metal dusting resistant material selected from alloy 601, alloy 690, alloy 602CA, alloy 625, alloy 693 or alloy 699 XA as the material for the cladding, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re claim 4, Avila et al discloses that the invention is provided with a tube to tube sheet welding (SEE [0041] & [0043]). In re claim 5, Avila et al discloses that the inlet part of the tube is welded to the shell side of the inlet tube sheet (SEE [0036]). In re claim 8, Avila et al includes a plurality of straight tubes (120) arranged in one compartment and includes an inlet and an outlet tube sheet (SEE Figures 2-5). In re claim 9, Avila et al discloses structure capable of meeting the conditions of the method of providing a welding of straight tubes to the inlet and outlet tube sheets (SEE [0036]) providing a cladding (SEE [0040]) at least at the inlet and outlet tube sheet; providing the plurality of holes in the inlet tube sheet and outlet tube sheet (shown in Figure 3) introducing the plurality of straight tubes (120) into the holes for connecting each of the straight tubes at one end with the inlet tube sheet and at the opposite end with the outlet tube sheet; and providing a tube to tube sheet welding at the one end of a straight tube with the inlet tube sheet, and at the opposite end of the straight tube with the outlet tube sheet (SEE [0036], [0040] and [0041]). In re claim 10, Avila discloses structure inherently capable of being constructed wherein step i) is conducted prior to step ii). In re claim 11, the method of providing welding of the straight tubes to the inlet and outlet tube sheets wherein the tube to tube sheet welding is provided as multiple pass strength welds optionally with staggered runs, suitably as fully automatic multiple pass strength welds with staggered runs for the inlet tube sheet and the outlet tube sheet is not considered inventive since the method represents standard processes known to those having ordinary skill in the art. In re claim 12, Avila discloses the use of thin flexible tube sheets (SEE [0040]), however is silent on the tube sheets being verified by means of finite element analysis in accordance with ASME Section VIII, Division 2, however it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re claim 13, Avila inherently discloses that the invention is constructed in fabrication step. In re claim 14, Avila et al discloses structure capable of protecting the PGWHB, in particular the inlet and outlet tube sheets thereof, the method comprising: after long-term operation i.e. after at least one year of operation, plugging at least one of said straight tubes by welding to said weld overlay or cladding (via plenums150a and 150b). In re claim 15, A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avila et al (WO2021011184) in view of Maretzo (3,317,222). Avila et al discloses the applicants primary inventive concept as stated above including a process gas waste heat boiler (100) including a plurality of straight tubes (120) between an inlet tube sheet (160a) and outlet tube sheet (160b), but does not specifically disclose that the straight tubes are provided with an internal liner, however the use of internal liners in straight tubes of boilers and heat exchangers and the like was commonly known in the art as taught by Maretzo. Maretzo teaches metal tube inserts (18) extending inwardly of the tube wall beyond surface of a tube sheet (10) for the purpose of protecting against deterioration of the end portions of the tubes and portions adjacent thereof. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the applicants claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains to have modified the plurality of tubes (120) attached to the inlet tube sheet (160a) and outlet tube sheet (160b) of Avila et al by providing the tubes with an internal liner as was already known in the art and taught by Maretzo and arrived at the applicants claimed invention for the purpose of protecting the tubes against deterioration. In re claim 7, Avila et al as modified by Maretzo would meet the limitations of the applicants claimed invention since Maretzo further teaches that the internal liner (18) are connected to the internal surface of each straight tube mechanically (column 1, line 68 – column 2, line 22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/GREGORY A WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights