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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/5/26 has been entered. Claims 19-24 and 26-32 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 2/5/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the prior art does not teach the newly amended claim.
Examiner asserts this is shown in Figure 3 of Maurer and also the fact that a tube passes through a plate indicates it does not touch the outer edges of the plate which would meet the claim limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 19-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of U.S. PGPUB 20120199331 to Maurer et al. (Maurer).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA teaches a shroud having a top and a bottom (206, Figure 2); a riser located in a central region of said steam generator (202, Figure 2); a tube bundle region within said steam generator between the riser and the shroud (204, Figure is between 202 and 206), said tube bundle region comprising a plurality of tubes (204 is a tube bundle per Paragraph 0005); an annular baffle extending radially away from the riser toward the shroud in the tube bundle region along at least part of a length of said shroud (208, Figure 2); and wherein said baffle comprises an annular sector comprising flat plates, each of said flat plates having at least one side edge (208 has at least one side having an edge), wherein the plurality of tubes are axially arranged in the tube bundle region (shown in Figures 1-2 with tubes in a region), wherein said flat plates comprise apertures configured to allow the plurality of tubes to pass through said flat plates with none of the plurality of tubes laying along the at least one side edges of said flat plates (flat plates have a plurality of edges, such as those on the circumference of the plates, the tubes do not lay along these side edges. Additionally the presense of a plate in which a tube passes through indicates that the tube does not touch side edges because it must pass through the aperture).
AAPA is silent on a stepwise helical baffle.
Maurer teaches a stepwise helical baffle (82, Figure 3). It is further noted that Maurer teaches wherein the plurality of tubes are axially arranged in the tube bundle region (tubes in a bundle region shown in Figure 3), wherein said flat plates comprise apertures configured to allow the plurality of tubes to pass through said flat plates with none of the plurality of tubes laying along the at least one side edges of said flat plates (shown in Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Maurer to provide a stepwise helical baffle, wherein the plurality of tubes are axially arranged in the tube bundle region, and wherein said flat plates comprise apertures configured to allow the plurality of tubes to pass through said flat plates with none of the plurality of tubes laying along the at least one side edges of said flat plates. Doing so would increase the heat transfer of the device and lengthen the lifespan of the device by reducing friction/contact points.
Regarding claim 20, AAPA is silent on wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle extends from said bottom to said top of said shroud.
Maurer teaches wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle extends from said bottom to said top of said shroud (Figure 3, Paragraph 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Maurer to provide wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle extends from said bottom to said top of said shroud. Doing so would increase the heat transfer of the device.
Regarding claim 21, AAPA is silent on wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle comprises single helix.
Maurer teaches wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle comprises single helix (Figure 3, Abstract, and Paragraph 0046). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Maurer to provide wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle comprises single helix. Doing so would increase the heat transfer of the device.
Regarding claim 22, AAPA is silent on wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle comprises multiple helices.
Maurer teaches wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle comprises multiple helices (Figure 3, Abstract, and Paragraph 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Maurer to provide wherein said annular stepwise helical baffle comprises multiple helices. Doing so would increase the heat transfer of the device and/or be a simple duplication of parts.
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of AAPA teaches wherein said plate side edges are straight (shown in Figure 2 of AAPA and Figures 2 and 3 of Maurer).
Regarding claim 26, the modified device of AAPA teaches wherein said an annular sector of plates forms a complete 360 degree annulus (shown in Figure 2 of AAPA and Figures 2-3 of Maurer).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Maurer and U.S. Patent 3006612 to Herbert (Herbert).
Regarding claim 24, AAPA is silent on wherein said plate side edges are corrugated.
Herbert teaches wherein said plate side edges are corrugated (14’, Figure 6, Col. 1 lines 62-64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Herbert to provide wherein said plate side edges are corrugated. Doing so would allow the desired pressure drop and heat transfer to be imparted upon the system depending on system needs.
Claim(s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Maurer and U.S. Patent 3400758 to Suk Lee (Lee).
Regarding claim 27, AAPA is silent on wherein at least two of said plate edges are connected by a vertical plate.
Lee teaches wherein at least two of said plate edges are connected by a vertical plate (shown in Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Lee to provide wherein at least two of said plate edges are connected by a vertical plate. Doing so would allow the rate of flow to be adjusted, heat transfer increased, and/or provide a durable structure.
Regarding claim 28, AAPA is silent on wherein at least two of said plate edges are mechanically fastened.
Lee teaches wherein at least two of said plate edges are mechanically fastened (shown in Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Lee to provide wherein at least two of said plate edges are mechanically fastened. Doing so would allow the rate of flow to be adjusted, heat transfer increased, and/or provide a durable structure.
Regarding claim 29, AAPA is silent on wherein at least two of said plate edges are welded together.
Maurer teaches wherein at least two of said plate edges are welded together (Paragraphs 0041 and 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Maurer to provide wherein at least two of said plate edges are welded together. Doing so would make a separate structure into one by welding or use welding as another means of making a solitary structure because welding is a well-known attachment technique and shown as an equivalent alternative in Maurer.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Maurer and U.S. Patent 5853549 to Sephton (Sephton).
Regarding claim 30, AAPA is silent on wherein said tube bundle region is spaced from said shroud to form a gap between said tube bundle region and said shroud, said gap being sealed by vertical baffles.
Sephton teaches wherein said tube bundle region is spaced from said shroud to form a gap between said tube bundle region and said shroud, said gap being sealed by vertical baffles (Figures 2B walls enclosing regions 69-73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of AAPA with the teachings of Sephton to provide wherein said tube bundle region is spaced from said shroud to form a gap between said tube bundle region and said shroud, said gap being sealed by vertical baffles. Doing so would allow other functions to be performed in the device and provide more equal spacing for heat transfer of the tube bundles.
Regarding claim 31, the modified device of AAPA teaches wherein said vertical baffles are fixed to said shroud (shown in Figured 2B of Sephton).
Regarding claim 32, the modified device of AAPA teaches wherein said vertical baffles are fixed to said vertical baffles (shown in Figure 2B of Sephton and AAPA and Maurer teaches the flat plates attached to the walls).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights