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 with traverse in the reply filed 03/20/2026 groups I and II with traverse is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that of group I and II jointly do not place a burden on the examiner. This is found persuasive and the restriction is withdrawn.
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 sealing element of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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 claim 10 in this application is 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:
“sealing element” in claim 10
The aforementioned meets the three-prong test outlined here in since:
(A) the term “element” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g.
“sealing”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or
acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10, and the claims depending from these claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “sealing element”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “sealing element”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicants claims or specification. The lack of the term “sealing element” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no details is shown, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “sealing element”.
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 10 includes the limitation “sealing element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for all claimed structures and various claimed structures are indefinite and unclear. The specification is devoid of adequate structure description to perform the claimed function of all claimed possible structures. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to implement “sealing element”. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. A review of the specification and drawing found no described or shown structure thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the term “sealing element”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Any structure capable of controlling flow based on temperature will be considered to read on this.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-6, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US3182720A) in view of Avila (US 11846471 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a shell-and-tube heat exchanger assembly (shown in fig. 1) comprising:
a first tube sheet (shown in fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32) adapted to be secured to a shell (shown in fig. 1, flange portions 16) of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger assembly, the first tube sheet comprising:
a plurality of first holes (shown in annotated fig. 1, Plurality of first holes fh) adapted to support a plurality of tubes (shown in fig. 3, tubes 21) extending through the shell (shown in fig. 1, cylindrical main body portion 11); and
a second tube sheet (shown in fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33) adapted to be
fastened to a front surface (shown in annotated fig. 1, Front surface fs) of the first tube sheet and fastened (shown in fig. 1, nuts 18) to a rear surface (shown in annotated fig. 1, Rear surface rs) of a plenum (shown in fig. 1, compartment 30), the second tube sheet comprising:
a plurality of second holes (shown in annotated fig. 1, Plurality of second holes sh) adapted to support the plurality of tubes extending through the plurality of first holes,
Brown does not teach, wherein the second tube sheet is made of a metal adapted to limit a corrosion response of the plurality of tubes when exposed to a chiller fluid.
Avila teaches a shell-and-tube heat exchanger assembly (see Avila shown in fig. 1) comprising: a second tube sheet (see Avila’s fig. 3, first section 210a, shown in fig. 2) and plurality of tubes (see Avila aluminum tubes 120, shown in fig. 2), wherein the second tube sheet is made of a metal adapted to limit a corrosion response of the plurality of tubes when exposed to a chiller fluid (Abstract states “a plurality of holes configured to support a respective plurality of aluminum tubes extending through the shell, wherein the first section is configured to limit a galvanic response of the plurality of aluminum tubes when exposed to a chiller water.” The section in contact with the plurality of tubes is adapted to limit the corrosion response between the tubes and chiller fluid).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to clad the second tube sheet of Brown with a material adapted to limit a corrosion response of the plurality of tubes, as taught by Avila, such modification would provide the benefit of extending the span life of the heat exchanger for continuous operation (see Avila column 1 line 25).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 2, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein an electrochemical potential of the metal of the second tube sheet (see Avila’s fig. 3, first section 210a, column 4 line [39-46] states “The first section 210a may be cladded. The cladding may be a rolled-in thin metallic layer of aluminum or a suitable alloy, a spray coat, or other commercial process of cladding metal. The cladding material can be any material that is more electrochemically negative than the aluminum tubes when exposed to chiller water.” The material clad on the second tube sheet is equal to or lower in electrochemical potential than that of the aluminum tubes) is equivalent or lower than an electrochemical potential of the material of the plurality of tubes (see Avila’s fig. 3, aluminum tubes 120).
Regarding claim 3, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein the second tube sheet (see Avila’s fig. 3, first section 210a, column 4 line [39-41] states “The first section 210a may be cladded. The cladding may be a rolled-in thin metallic layer of aluminum or a suitable alloy, a spray coat, or other commercial process of cladding metal.” The second tube sheet is rolled in an aluminum alloy) is made of at least one of an aluminum alloy and an inert material.
Regarding claim 4, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein each of the plurality of tubes (see Avila’s fig. 3, aluminum tubes 120) is made of an aluminum alloy.
Regarding claim 5, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein the plurality of first holes (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Plurality of first holes fh) of the first tube sheet is aligned with the plurality of second holes (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Plurality of second holes sh) of the second tube sheet.
PNG
media_image2.png
323
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 6, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein a plurality of first openings (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, first opening fo) is defined in the first tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, sheet metal plate 32), a plurality of second openings (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second openings so) is defined in the second tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, sheet metal plate 33), and a plurality of third openings (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, third openings to) is defined in the plenum (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, compartment 30).
Regarding claim 10, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein a sealing element is disposed in each of the plurality of first holes (see Brown’s fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Plurality of first holes fh column 2 line [20-25] states “Each of the tubes is welded adjacent its end by a continuous inlet to the corrosion resistant plate, thereby sealing the remainder of the tube plates against access of the corrosive fluid and further acting to prevent leakage through the partition from the first compartment to the second compartment.” The tubes are sealed to the first tube sheet with a weld) between the plurality of tubes (see Brown’s fig. 3, tubes 21) extending through the shell (see Brown’s fig. 1, cylindrical main body portion 11) and the first tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32).
Regarding claim 11, Brown does not teach wherein the chiller fluid inside each of the plurality of tubes is water.
Avila further teaches, wherein the chiller fluid inside each of the plurality of tubes is water (see Avila’s fig. 3, aluminum tubes 120 column 5 line [11-14] states “Chiller water as used herein can include pure water, potable water, brines (e.g., saltwater, polyethylene, polypropylene, and the like), and treated water including additives such as corrosion inhibiters or antifreeze, and the like.” The chiller fluid that travels through the aluminum tubes can be pure water).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the tubes of Brown with aluminum tubes, that carry water as taught by Avila, such modification would provide the benefit of increasing the heat transfer efficiency (Avila column 3 line 46-47).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US3182720A) in view of Avila (US 11846471 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ostersetzer et al. (US20090101321A1).
Regarding claim 7, Brown in view of Avila teaches, wherein each of the plurality of first openings (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, first opening fo) defined in the first tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32) are aligned with a corresponding second opening (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second openings so) from the plurality of second openings defined in the second tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33).
Brown in view of Avila does not teach, that each of the plurality of first openings defined in the first tube sheet are aligned with a corresponding third opening from the plurality of third openings defined in the plenum.
Ostersetzer teaches a shell and tube heat exchanger (see Figure 1) comprising tubes that include first openings that are aligned with a corresponding third opening (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, third opening to) from the plurality of third openings defined in the plenum (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, plenum p) aligned with the second openings (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second opening so) defined in the second tube sheet (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second tube sheet sts).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace assembly of Brown with the second tube sheet and plenum, as taught by Ostersetzer, such modification would provide the benefit of increasing the strength and durability of the heat exchanger (see Ostersetzer page 1 para. 006).
PNG
media_image3.png
422
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 8, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein a plurality of fasteners (see Brown’s fig. 1, nuts 18) are adapted to be inserted into aligned plurality of first openings (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, first opening fo), a plurality of second openings (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second openings so), and a plurality of third openings to fasten the second tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33) to a front surface (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, Front surface fs) of the first tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32) and fasten the second tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33) to the rear surface (see Brown’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, Rear surface rs) of the plenum (see Brown’s fig. 1, compartment 30).
Brown in view of Avila does not teach that each of the plurality of first openings defined in the first tube sheet are aligned with a corresponding third opening from the plurality of third openings defined in the plenum.
Ostersetzer teaches, shell and tube heat exchanger (see Figure 1) comprising tubes that include first openings that are aligned with a plurality of second openings, and a plurality of third openings (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, third opening to) to fasten the second tube sheet (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second tube sheet sts) to a front surface of the first tube sheet and fasten the second tube sheet (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second tube sheet sts) to the rear surface (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, rear surface rs) of the plenum (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, plenum p).
Regarding claim 9, Brown further teaches wherein the plurality of fasteners comprise at least one of a guiding pin, a screw thread fastener, and a bolt fastener (see Brown’s fig. 1, suitable bolts and nuts 18) .
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US3182720A) in view of Avila (US 11846471 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches a method for limiting a corrosion response of a plurality of tubes (shown in fig. 3, tubes 21) of a shell- and-tube heat exchanger assembly (shown in fig. 1), the method comprising:
securing a first tube sheet (shown in fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32) to a shell (shown in fig. 1, flange portions 16) of the shell-and-tube heat exchanger assembly;
disposing a second tube sheet (shown in fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33) between the first tube sheet and a plenum (shown in fig. 1, compartment 30) of the shell- and-tube heat exchanger assembly,
wherein the second tube sheet is fastened (shown in fig. 1, nuts 18) to a front surface (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Front surface fs) of the first tube sheet and a rear surface (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Rear surface rs) of the plenum,
Brown does not teach, wherein the second tube sheet is made of a metal adapted to limit a corrosion response of the plurality of tubes when exposed to a chiller fluid.
Avila teaches a shell-and-tube heat exchanger assembly (see Avila shown in fig. 1) comprising: a second tube sheet (see Avila’s fig. 3, first section 210a, shown in fig. 2) and a plurality of tubes (see Avila aluminum tubes 120, shown in fig. 2), wherein the second tube sheet is made of a metal adapted to limit a corrosion response of the plurality of tubes when exposed to a chiller fluid (see Avila Abstract states “a plurality of holes configured to support a respective plurality of aluminum tubes extending through the shell, wherein the first section is configured to limit a galvanic response of the plurality of aluminum tubes when exposed to a chiller water.” The section in contact with the plurality of tubes is adapted to limit the corrosion response between the tubes and chiller fluid).
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to clad the second tube sheet of Brown with a material adapted to limit a corrosion response of the plurality of tubes, as taught by Avila, such modification would provide the benefit of extending the span life of the heat exchanger for continuous operation (see Avila column 1 line 25).
Regarding claim 13, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein an electrochemical potential of the metal of the second tube sheet (see Avila’s fig. 3, first section 210a column 4 line [39-46] states “The first section 210a may be cladded. The cladding may be a rolled-in thin metallic layer of aluminum or a suitable alloy, a spray coat, or other commercial process of cladding metal. The cladding material can be any material that is more electrochemically negative than the aluminum tubes when exposed to chiller water.” The material clad on the second tube sheet is equal to or lower in electrochemical potential than that of the aluminum tubes) is equivalent or lower than an electrochemical potential of the material of the plurality of tubes (see Avila’s fig. 3, aluminum tubes 120).
Regarding claim 14, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein the second tube sheet (see Avila’s fig. 3, first section 210a, column 4 line [39-41] states “The first section 210a may be cladded. The cladding may be a rolled-in thin metallic layer of aluminum or a suitable alloy, a spray coat, or other commercial process of cladding metal.” The second tube sheet is rolled in an aluminum alloy) is made of at least one of an aluminum alloy and an inert material.
Regarding claim 15, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein the second tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33) is fastened (see Brown’s fig. 1, suitable bolts and nuts 18) to the front surface (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Front surface fs) of the first tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32) and the rear surface of the plenum (see Brown’s fig. 1, compartment 30) using at least one of fasteners and industrial adhesives.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US3182720A) in view of Avila (US 11846471 B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ostersetzer et al. (US20090101321A1).
Regarding claim 16, Brown in view of Avila teaches wherein the step of fastening the second tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 33) to the front surface (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Front surface fs) of the first tube sheet (see Brown’s fig. 1, sheet metal plate 32) and the rear surface (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, Rear surface rs) of the plenum (see Brown’s fig. 1, compartment 30) further comprises:
aligning each of a plurality of first openings (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, first opening fo) defined in the first tube sheet with a corresponding second opening (see Browns fig. 1 (section) annotated by Examiner, second openings so) from a plurality of second openings defined in the second tube sheet;
Brown in view of Avila does not teach, aligning each of the plurality of second openings with a corresponding third opening from a plurality of third openings defined in the plenum; and inserting a plurality of fasteners into the aligned plurality of first openings, the plurality of second openings, and the plurality of third openings to fasten the second tube sheet to the front surface of the first tube sheet and fasten the second tube sheet to the rear surface of the plenum.
Ostersetzer teaches, shell and tube heat exchanger (see Figure 1) aligning each of the plurality of second openings (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second opening so) with a corresponding third opening (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, third opening to) from a plurality of third openings defined in the plenum (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, plenum p); and
inserting a plurality of fasteners (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, bolt and nut bn) into the aligned plurality of first openings, the plurality of second openings, and the plurality of third openings to fasten the second tube sheet (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, second tube sheet sts) to the front surface of the first tube sheet and fasten the second tube sheet to the rear surface (see Ostersetzer’s fig. 1 annotated by Examiner, rear surface rs) of the plenum.
It would, therefore be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace assembly of Brown with the second tube sheet and plenum, as taught by Ostersetzer, such modification would provide the benefit of increasing the strength and durability of the heat exchanger (see Ostersetzer page 1 para. 006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-5795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740 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.
/HENRY FRANCIS CANOVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights