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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Heat exchange component in claim 1, modified by the functional language of “smoke which has exchanged heat with the heat exchange component”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the heat exchange component in paras. 57-58, “Specifically, the heat exchange component 120 may be in the form of a heat exchange coil …”
First heat insulating member in claim 1, modified by the functional language of “heat insulating” and “arranged close to the first end portion”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the first heat insulating member in para. 63, “Specifically, the first heat insulating member 130 may be plunger-shaped as a whole, and a shape of an outer contour of the heat insulating member matches a shape of an inner contour of the heat exchange component 120. The first heat insulating member 130 may be made of a high-temperature-resistant material.”
Second heat insulating member in claim 11, modified by the functional language of “heat insulating” and “arranged close to the second end portion”, while not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Applicant’s PGPUB describes the second heat insulating member in paras. 83-86, “For example, the second heat insulating member 140 may include a water-cooling smooth tube 141 arranged between the heat exchange component 120 and the second end portion 112. A circulating liquid (e.g., circulating water) flows in the water-cooling smooth tube 141. The circulating water may be in communication with the water in the heat exchange component 120, i.e., a water inlet and a water outlet of the water-cooling smooth tube 141 are in communication with the heat exchange component 120. Of course, the water in the water-cooling smooth tube 141 may also be supplied by an independent system … Further, the second heat insulating member 140 may further include any one or combination of vermiculite, an air chamber 142, and a cooling liquid chamber arranged between the water-cooling smooth tube 141 and the second end portion 112.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-9, 15-17, 22 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 claim 4. The claim recites, “… wherein the heat insulating member is provided with a third deflector close to the first end portion …” It is unclear if the recitation of the third deflector requires a first and second deflector. For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider the claim as if not requiring a first and second deflector in addition to the third. See also claim 5 which introduces a first deflector and claim 7 which introduces a second deflector.
It is kindly recommended to amend the claims to introduce first, second, and third deflectors in the appropriate order, e.g. amending the third defector in claim 4 to be the first deflector, the first deflector in claim 5 to be the second deflector, and the second deflector in claim 7 to be the third deflector.
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) 1-4, 14, 18-21, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240353145 A1 to Le Mer.
Regarding claim 1. Le Mer teaches a condensing heat exchanger (fig. 3), comprising:
a housing (casing 2) including a first end portion (bottom 21) and a second end portion (façade 22 and/or door 4, see fig. 1) opposite to each other (see fig. 3), and a side wall arranged between the first end portion and the second end portion (tubular body 20), the second end portion being provided with a mounting portion for mounting a combustor (burner 50);
a smoke outlet arranged on the housing (sleeve 23, see fig. 1);
a heat exchange component arranged inside the housing (spirally wound tube 7); and
a first heat insulating member arranged close to the first end portion (deflector 8);
wherein a first gap is provided between the first heat insulating member and the first end portion (see fig. 3, space between bottom 21 and deflector 8 along direction X, labeled condensation chamber 26), and at least part of smoke which has exchanged heat with the heat exchange component can flow through the first gap and be discharged from the smoke outlet (see arrows indicating flow in fig. 3; in particular, arrows j, m, and k).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein a second gap is provided between the heat exchange component and the side wall (gap between the tube 7 and the tubular body 20), the second gap being in communication with the first gap (fig. 3, see arrows indicating flow of gas).
Regarding claim 3. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 2, wherein at least part of the smoke which has exchanged heat with the heat exchange component can sequentially flow through the second gap and the first gap and be discharged from the smoke outlet (fig. 3, see arrows indicating flow of gas, and reference para. 19).
Regarding claim 4. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein the heat insulating member is provided with a third deflector close to the first end portion (frame 82 of the deflector 8), and the first gap is formed between the third deflector and the first end portion (fig. 3, the frame 82 is spaced from the bottom 21).
Regarding claim 14. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein the side wall of the housing is provided with a drainage groove, which is provided at a lowest point thereof with a water outlet (para. 7, “Furthermore, the lower part of the casing 2 is slightly sloping, so as to allow the discharge of the condensates by gravity, via an outlet orifice 24, connected to a duct for discharging 240 these condensates.”).
Regarding claim 18. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchange component is in a form of a heat exchange coil (helically wound tube 7) which is formed in the middle thereof with a combustion chamber for mounting the combustor (fig. 3, combustion chamber 25 with burner 50 inside of tube 7), and at least part of the first heat insulating member is located in the combustion chamber (fig. 3, the combustion chamber 25 is bound by the disk 81).
Regarding claim 19. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 18, wherein the first heat insulating member is in clearance fit with the heat exchange component (as seen in fig. 3, the deflector 8 is in clearance fit with the tube 7, see also para. 66).
Regarding claim 20. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 19, wherein the first heat insulating member is plunger-shaped as a whole (as per Applicant’s drawings, the deflector 8 of Le Mer is being interpreted as substantially plunger shaped as a whole; see for example diameter D3 in fig. 3, described in para. 81. To the extent that Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation, clarification is kindly requested), and a shape of an outer contour of the heat insulating member matches a shape of an inner contour of the heat exchange component (as noted above, diameter D3 reads on this limitation).
Regarding claim 21. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 19, wherein along a height direction, a blocking member is further arranged between a top of the first heat insulating member and the heat exchange component (fig. 3, the portion of the frame 82 between the disk 81 and the tube 7 would read on this limitation).
Regarding claim 25. Le Mer teaches a water heating/heating device, comprising:
the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1); and
a combustor (burner 50),
wherein the combustor (50) and the condensing heat exchanger (7) are fixed on a combustion door (door 4, shown in fig. 1 as at least partially in contact with the burner 50 and tube 7), which is fitted and fixed to the first end portion of the condensing heat exchanger by means of a sealing structure (para. 27, “a gas-tight casing inside which said at least one tube is mounted, this casing comprising a bottom and a facade on which a door is mounted” Therefore, in order to be gas tight, as described, it is understood that the features shown in fig. 3 are sealing structures between the door 4 and the façade 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
394
567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20120312513 A1 to Le Mer II.
Regarding claim 10. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1,
But fails to explicitly teach wherein a material of the first heat insulating member comprises any one of vermiculite, refractory bricks, quartz, and fiberglass.
Le Mer II teaches a heat insulating member comprising refractory material (para. 108, “This deflector plate 61 is formed by a disc in a heat-insulating and heat-refractory material, for example based on ceramic; it is supported by a discoidal frame as a thin plate 610, in stainless steel of larger diameter.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
617
575
media_image3.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 implement a heat refractory material, as taught by Le Mer II, as the disk 81 of Le Mer. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably forming the disk 81 of Le Mer, as suggested by Le Mer II in the portion cited above. See also MPEP 2144.07, which states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination …” This would read on the heat insulating member comprising refractory bricks, since the disk 81 would be formed of a refractory material and be in the substantial shape of a brick, i.e. a three dimensional mass.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 212719722 U to Lu.
Note: Reference is made to the attached translation of Lu.
Regarding claim 11. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein the condensing heat exchanger further comprises a second heat insulating member arranged close to the second end portion.
Lu teaches a second heat insulating member arranged close to the end portion (fig. 2, end cover heat insulation layer 112, which is arranged adjacent to the burner 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
543
686
media_image4.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 Le Mer to implement a suitable insulation material on the end over adjacent to the burner, as taught by Lu. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of reducing heat loss and increasing efficiency, as suggested by Lu in p. 6 para. 4, “By setting the end cover heat insulation layer 112, can reduce heat dissipation in the heat exchange cavity, reduce heat loss and ensure the heat exchange efficiency of the heat exchanger.”
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200386482 A1 to Giannoni.
Regarding claim 23. Le Mer teaches the condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchange component comprises a single-layer heat exchange coil (fig. 3).
But fails to teach the heat exchange component having a D-shaped section.
Giannoni teaches a heat exchange component having a D-shaped section (para. 120, “In a preferred embodiment, the tubular duct of the heat exchanger has a cross section with a flattened shape, preferably at least partially oval.” Where partially oval is shown in the figures as a substantially D-shaped section).
PNG
media_image5.png
789
484
media_image5.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 Le Mer to implement a substantially D-shaped tube section, as taught by Giannoni. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably forming a heat exchange tube, as suggested by Giannoni in the portion cited above.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150007779 A1 to Cui.
Regarding claim 24. The condensing heat exchanger according to claim 1, wherein the heat exchange component comprises a single-layer heat exchange coil (fig. 3).
But fails to teach the heat exchange component being a finned tube.
Cui teaches a heat exchange component being a finned tube (para. 16, “In order to solve the above technical problems, this invention provides the following solutions: A forced convection helical fin-tube coils condensing heat exchanger including: heat exchanger housing, the burner, and bundle of helical fin-tube coils inside the housing, water inlet, water outlet, and flue gas outlet on the housing. Burner is connected to the air fuel mixer unit. The burner is located in the upper portion of the heat exchanger housing. A bundle of helical fin-tube coils are installed around the burner tightly and coaxially.”).
PNG
media_image6.png
459
388
media_image6.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 Le Mer to implement a finned tube heat exchanger, as taught by Cui. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably forming a heat exchange tube, as suggested by Cui in the portion cited above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 15-17, 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5. Le Mer, applied to claim 1, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein a first deflector is arranged between an outer side of the heat exchange component and the side wall of the housing, and the second gap is formed between the first deflector and an inner side wall of the housing, the first deflector being hermetically connected with the third deflector.”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Le Mer specifically teaches the gas flow direction shown by the arrows j and m in figure 3, which flows from the pipe 7 to the other side of the third deflector 82. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first deflector on the outside of the pipe, as claimed; in particular, a first deflector being hermetically connected with the third deflector, based on the prior art of record, since this would interrupt the desired gas flow within the device.
PNG
media_image7.png
722
530
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, while it is known in the art to provide a deflector on the outside of a helical tube, such a deflector would not be hermetically connected with the third deflector, as claimed; see for example the outer flue baffle 5 shown in fig. 10 of Cui, relied on for the rejection of claim 24, above.
Finally, attention is drawn to CN 212719722 U to Lu, relied on in the rejection of claim 11, which provides a flue middle baffle 4 hermetically connected with an end seat 121, see fig. 2. This configuration also fails to read on claim 5 because the baffle 4 is not arranged between an outer side of the heat exchange component and the side wall of the housing, as claimed. Instead, the baffle 4 is arranged between the inner and outer layer heat exchange tubes, see second deflector of claim 7.
PNG
media_image8.png
543
686
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12. The combination of Le Mer in view of Lu, applied to claim 11, represents the closest prior art of record to the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach, “wherein the second heat insulating member comprises a water-cooling smooth tube arranged between the heat exchange component and the second end portion”, in addition to the rest of the claim.
Instead, Lu teaches providing an insulation material on the end cover as the claimed second heat insulating member. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water cooling smooth tube arranged between the heat exchange component and the second end portion, as claimed, since this would add complexity to the device of modified Le Mer, without a suggestion in the prior art to do so.
Conclusion
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
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights