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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjabeng (US PG Pub. 2018/0209695A1) in view of Houser et al. (USP 3880226A) and in further view of Romero (USP 5487423A), hereinafter referred to as Adjabeng, Houser and Romero, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Adjabeng discloses a heat exchanger configured to cool a vapor (“Evaporate or vapor” (¶47)), comprising:
a coil of piping (130) configured to receive a refrigerant from a chiller (“Coils 130 can have an incoming line for receiving a flow of chilled coolant or refrigerant to pass through the coils, and an outgoing line configured as a conduit for the outgoing coolant or refrigerant after having passed through the coils and acting as a heat exchanger”, (¶64), see intended use analysis below), the coil of piping defining a cylindrical space in a center portion of the coil of piping (shown in figures 6-8, wherein the coiled tubing (130) creates a space);
a return pipe (see ¶64 and figures 7-8) configured to receive the refrigerant (see intended use analysis below) from the coil of piping (shown in figures 7-8) and return to the chiller (see ¶64 and intended use analysis below) via a path through a central axis of the cylindrical space (shown in figures 7-8), wherein the coil of piping is configured to contact a fluid to be cooled (shown in figure 6A, “One or more ports 262, 264, and/or 266 can be provided to allow attachment of one or more conduits or additional instruments/vessels to act as inlets/outlets for compounds/fluids to be cooled and/or condense”, ¶61).
Adjabeng fails to disclose an insert tube that has at least two connection points to the return pipe, the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounding the return pipe, wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid to be cooled and the insert tube comprising a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping.
Romero, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a helical coiled tube, teaches an insert tube (8) that has one connection point to the return pipe (14, shown in the figure), the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping (shown in the figure) and surrounding the return pipe (shown in the figure), the insert tube comprising a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping (shown in the figure), wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid to be cooled (shown in the figure, being the fluid flowing from the pipe connection (6) to the pipe connection (7)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with an insert tube that has at one connection point to the return pipe, the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounding the return pipe, wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid to be cooled, as taught by Romero, the motivation being “to increase the efficiency of the heat transfer, the secondary fluid is circulated to mach as much contact as possible with the coil. To accomplish this, the latter is housed in the annular space formed between the inside wall of the body and the outside wall of an annular sleeve. Thus, the secondary fluid circulates helically between coil turns within the annular space” (col. 1 ll. 16-22).
Houser, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a helical coiled tube, teaches an insert tube that has at least two connection points to the return pipe (“The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10). Houser further states, “the inner cylindrical baffle 26a serves to reduce the cross sectional cooling water flow area inside the spool baffle 25a and thereby increase the velocity of cooling water flow at any given inlet pressure”, col. 7 ll. 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with an insert tube that has at least two connection points to the return pipe for sealing the insert tube, as taught by Houser, the motivation being to rigidly fix the return pipe to a predetermined position or increasing the velocity of the cooling water flow thereby requiring less resources (e.g. pump sizing) or to increase the cooling fluid flow rate that corresponds to an increased heat transfer capability.
Regarding limitations “configured to cool a liquid, vapor or other medium”, “configured to cool a liquid, vapor or other medium”, “configured to receive the refrigerant from the coil of piping”, “return to the chiller” and “configured to contact a fluid to be cooled” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to components that are not the claimed heat exchanger or temperature gradients of respective working fluids passing through the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the at least two connection points (“The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10 of Houser) are configured to transfer heat from the return pipe to the insert tube (the contact between the outlet tube (21b) and the inner baffle (26a, 35) will produce some degree of heat transfer).
Regarding limitations “configured to transfer heat from the return pipe to the insert tube” recited in Claim 2, which are directed to temperature gradients assigned to fluids passing through said heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the coil of piping (130 of Adjabeng) and the insert tube (8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 1 and the inner baffle (26a) of Houser) are configured to be placed in contact with the fluid to extract heat from the fluid (shown in figure 6A of Adjabeng). It is noted that a modified Adjabeng having the shell (8) of Romero or the inner baffle (26a) of Houser, further teaches said inner baffle being in contact with the fluid to extract heat from the fluid, wherein the shell of Romero or the inner baffle (26a) of Houser is placed in the enclosure (160) of Adjabeng.
Regarding limitations “configured to be placed in contact with the fluid to extract heat from the fluid” recited in Claim 3, which are directed to temperature gradients assigned to fluids passing through said heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Adjabeng further teaches a chiller (100) that supplies cooled refrigerant to the coil of piping (“Coils 130 can have an incoming line for receiving a flow of chilled coolant or refrigerant to pass through the coils, and an outgoing line configured as a conduit for the outgoing coolant or refrigerant after having passed through the coils and acting as a heat exchanger”, (¶64).
Regarding limitations “a chiller that supplies cooled refrigerant to the coil of piping” recited in Claim 4, which are directed to components that are separate and distinct from the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the refrigerant from the chiller is at a temperature below (“Coils 130 can have an incoming line for receiving a flow of chilled coolant or refrigerant to pass through the coils, and an outgoing line configured as a conduit for the outgoing coolant or refrigerant after having passed through the coils and acting as a heat exchanger”, (¶64) a temperature of the fluid (see intended use analysis below, see also “An effect of coiling the refrigerant lines of coiled lines 130 is to increase the surface area for cooling a medium in contact with the coils or in contact with a surface proximate to the coils”, ¶64).
Regarding limitations “the refrigerant from the chiller is at a temperature below a temperature of the fluid” recited in Claim 5, which are directed to temperature gradients assigned to fluids passing through said heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Adjabeng further teaches a vessel (260) that surrounds the coil of piping (shown in figure 6A), wherein the vessel contains the fluid to be cooled (shown in figure 6A).
Regarding Claim 7, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the transfer of heat at the connection points (as previously taught by Houser in the rejection of Claim 1, “The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10) comprises conduction (the piping contacting the shell with transfer heat to some degree).
Regarding limitations “the transfer of heat at the connection points comprises conduction” recited in Claim 7, which are directed to temperature gradients assigned to the return pipe and insert tube at the connection points, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the coil of piping (130 of Adjabeng) and the insert tube (8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 1 and the inner baffle (26a) of Houser) are configured to cause the fluid contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube to be condensed to a liquid (“One or more ports 262, 264, and/or 266 can be provided to allow attachment of one or more conduits or additional instruments/vessels to act as inlets/outlets for compounds/fluids to be cooled and/or condensed. Compounds, vapors or fluids entering single-walled enclosure 260 can come into contact with heat exchange coils 130, or a cooling sleeve surrounding the coils, to thereby cool the compounds, vapors or fluids”, ¶61).
Regarding limitations “are configured to cause the fluid contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube to be condensed to a liquid” recited in Claim 8, which are directed to temperature gradients between the return pipe and insert tube that may cause condensation, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the heat exchanger (shown in figure 6A of Adjabeng) is configured to be placed into a vessel (260) of liquid to cool the liquid (“Compounds, vapors or fluids entering single-walled enclosure 260 can come into contact with heat exchange coils 130, or a cooling sleeve surrounding the coils, to thereby cool the compounds, vapors or fluids”, ¶61).
Regarding limitations “the heat exchanger is configured to be placed into a vessel of liquid to cool the liquid” recited in Claim 10, which are directed to the vessel containing liquid and not structural components of the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 11, Adjabeng discloses a method to cool a fluid, comprising:
providing refrigerant (“Coils 130 can have an incoming line for receiving a flow of chilled coolant or refrigerant to pass through the coils, and an outgoing line configured as a conduit for the outgoing coolant or refrigerant after having passed through the coils and acting as a heat exchanger”, ¶64) to a coil of piping (130) from a chiller (100),
the coil of piping defining a cylindrical space in a center portion of the coil of tubing (shown in figures 6-8);
returning the refrigerant via a return pipe that receives the refrigerant from the coil of piping and returns to the chiller via path through a central axis of the cylindrical space (see ¶64, see figures 6-8, wherein the pipe travels through the space created by the helical arrangement of the coils (130)).
Adjabeng fails to disclose contacting an insert tube to the return pipe via at least two connection points, wherein the insert tube substantially fills the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounds the return pipe, and the insert tube comprises a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping; and contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube with the fluid to be cooled.
Houser, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a helical coiled tube, teaches contacting an insert tube (26a, 35) to the return pipe (21b) via at least two connection points (“The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10), wherein the insert tube substantially fills the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping (shown in figures 6-8) and surrounds the return pipe (shown in figures 6-8), contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube with the fluid (shown in figure 6, see also col. 7 ll. 61-64). Houser further states, “the inner cylindrical baffle 26a serves to reduce the cross sectional cooling water flow area inside the spool baffle 25a and thereby increase the velocity of cooling water flow at any given inlet pressure”, col. 7 ll. 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with contacting an insert tube to the return pipe via at least two connection points, wherein the insert tube substantially fills the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounds the return pipe, contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube with the fluid to be cooled, as taught by Houser, the motivation being increasing the velocity of the cooling water flow thereby requiring less resources (e.g. pump sizing) or to increase the cooling fluid flow rate that corresponds to an increased heat transfer capability.
Romero, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a helical coiled tube, teaches contacting an insert tube (8) to the return pipe (14, shown in the figure) via a connection point, wherein the insert tube (8) substantially fills the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounds the return pipe (shown in the figure) and the insert tube comprises a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping (shown in the figure); and contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube with the fluid to be cooled (shown in the figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with contacting an insert tube to the return pipe via a connection point, wherein the insert tube substantially fills the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounds the return pipe and the insert tube comprises a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping; and contacting the coil of piping and the insert tube with the fluid to be cooled, as taught by Romero, the motivation being “to increase the efficiency of the heat transfer, the secondary fluid is circulated to mach as much contact as possible with the coil. To accomplish this, the latter is housed in the annular space formed between the inside wall of the body and the outside wall of an annular sleeve. Thus, the secondary fluid circulates helically between coil turns within the annular space” (col. 1 ll. 16-22).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the insert tube is cooled (contact between the outlet tube (21b) and the inner baffle (26a, 35) will produce some degree of heat transfer) via the connection points to the return pipe (“The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10 of Houser). It is noted that a modified Adjabeng having the insert tube of Houser does produce cooling as the cooling fluid in Adjabeng cools the insert tube through conduction.
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Adjabeng further teaches cooling the fluid from contact (shown in figure 6A of Adjabeng) with the coil of piping (130 of Adjabeng) and the insert tube (26a, 35, previously taught by Houser in the rejection of Claim 10 and 8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 10). It is noted that a modified Adjabeng having the inner baffle (26A, 35) of Houser or the sleeve (8) of Romero, further teaches said inner baffle being in contact with the fluid to extract heat from the fluid, wherein the inner baffle of Houser or Romero is placed in the enclosure (160) of Adjabeng.
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the refrigerant from the chiller is at a temperature below a temperature of the fluid (“Coils 130 can have an incoming line for receiving a flow of chilled coolant or refrigerant to pass through the coils, and an outgoing line configured as a conduit for the outgoing coolant or refrigerant after having passed through the coils and acting as a heat exchanger”, (¶64) see also ¶61).
Regarding Claim 15, a modified Adjabeng further teaches collecting a liquid condensate (condensate is collected via port (266, shown in figure 6A) created when the fluid contacts the coil of piping and the insert tube (see also figure 7D that shows the condensate being collected into a flask (310)) .
Regarding Claim 17, Adjabeng discloses a heat exchanger configured to heat a liquid, vapor or other medium (see intended use analysis below), comprising:
a coil of piping (130) configured to receive a heating medium (see intended use analysis below) from a heating source (shown in figure 6A, see intended use analysis below), the coil of piping defining a cylindrical space in a center portion of the coil of tubing (shown in figures 6-8, wherein the coiled tubing (130) creates a space);
a return pipe (see ¶64 and figures 7-8) configured to receive the heating medium (see intended use analysis below) from the coil of piping (shown in figures 7-8) and return to the heating source (see intended use analysis below) via a path through a central axis of the cylindrical space (shown in figures 7-8), wherein the coil of piping is configured to contact a fluid to be heated (shown in figure 6A, see intended use analysis below).
Adjabeng fails to disclose an insert tube that has at least two connection points to the return pipe, the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounding the return pipe, the insert tube comprising a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid to be heated.
Houser, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a helical coiled tube, teaches an insert tube (26a, 35) that has at least two connection points to the return pipe (“The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10), the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping (shown in figures 6-8) and surrounding the return pipe (shown in figures 6-8), wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid (shown in figure 6, see also col. 2 ll. 45-46). Houser further states, “the inner cylindrical baffle 26a serves to reduce the cross sectional cooling water flow area inside the spool baffle 25a and thereby increase the velocity of cooling water flow at any given inlet pressure”, col. 7 ll. 61-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with an insert tube that has at least two connection points to the return pipe, the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounding the return pipe, wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid, as taught by Houser, the motivation being increasing the velocity of the cooling water flow thereby requiring less resources (e.g. pump sizing) or to increase the cooling fluid flow rate that corresponds to an increased heat transfer capability.
Romero, also drawn to a heat exchanger having a helical coiled tube, teaches an insert tube (8) that has a connection point (14, shown in the figure) to the return pipe, the insert tube (8) substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounding the return pipe (shown in the figure) the insert tube comprising a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping (shown in the figure) wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid to be heated (shown in the figure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with an insert tube that has that has a connection point to the return pipe, the insert tube substantially filling the cylindrical space inside of the coil of piping and surrounding the return pipe, the insert tube comprising a length located entirely within a boundary of a length of the coil of piping wherein the coil of piping and the insert tube are configured to contact a fluid to be heated, as taught by Romero, the motivation being “to increase the efficiency of the heat transfer, the secondary fluid is circulated to mach as much contact as possible with the coil. To accomplish this, the latter is housed in the annular space formed between the inside wall of the body and the outside wall of an annular sleeve. Thus, the secondary fluid circulates helically between coil turns within the annular space” (col. 1 ll. 16-22).
Regarding limitations “configured to heat a liquid, vapor or other medium”, “a heating medium from a heating source”, “the heating medium”, “the heating source” and “configured to contact a fluid to be heated” recited in Claim 17, which are directed to components that are not the claimed heat exchanger or temperature gradients of respective working fluids passing through the heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the at least two connection points (“The tube 21c is coiled around an inner baffle 26a which is a hollow cylinder closed at both ends except for apertures in sealing relationship to the outlet tube 21b which extends axially through the inner hollow cylinder 26a for the complete return run through the center of the coil”, col. 6 ll. 5-10 of Houser) are configured to transfer heat via conduction from the return pipe to the insert tube (the contact between the outlet tube (21b) and the inner baffle (26a, 35) will produce some degree of heat transfer).
Regarding limitations “configured to transfer heat from the return pipe to the insert tube” recited in Claim 18, which are directed to temperature gradients assigned to fluids passing through said heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the coil of piping (130 of Adjabeng) and the insert tube (26a, 35, previously taught by Houser in the rejection of Claim 17 and 8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 17) are configured to be placed in contact with the fluid to transfer heat to the fluid (shown in figure 6A of Adjabeng). It is noted that a modified Adjabeng having the inner baffle (26A, 35) of Houser or the sleeve (8) of Romero, further teaches said inner baffle being in contact with the fluid to exchange heat with the fluid, wherein the inner baffle of Houser or Romero is placed in the enclosure (160) of Adjabeng.
Regarding limitations “configured to be placed in contact with the fluid to transfer heat to the fluid” recited in Claim 19, which are directed to temperature gradients assigned to fluids passing through said heat exchanger, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claims 9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adjabeng (US PG Pub. 2018/0209695A1) in view of Houser et al. (USP 3880226A) and in further view of Romero (USP 5487423A), as applied in Claims 1-8, 10-15 and 17-19 above and in further view of Yoshitome et al. (Translation of JP2002162069A), hereinafter referred to as Yoshitome.
Regarding Claim 9, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the insert tube (26a, 35, previously taught by Houser in the rejection of Claim 1 and 8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 1) is constructed of a material (shown in figure 6 of Houser and the figure of Romero), Adjabeng fails to disclose a thermally conductive metal.
Yoshitome, also drawn to a heat exchanger having an outer pipe (15) sleeved over an inner pipe (16), teaches an insert tube (15) is constructed of a thermally conductive metal (“The outer cylindrical body 15 is formed in a cylindrical shape with open ends, and is made of a metal tubular body such as copper or aluminum having excellent heat conductivity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with the insert tube being constructed of a thermally conductive metal, as taught by Yoshitome, the motivation being that metal tubes are known for producing “excellent heat conductivity”, Pg 4).
Alternately, a modified Adjabeng discloses the claimed invention except for the insert tube being constructed of a thermally conductive metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fabricate the insert tube from a thermally conductive metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the insert tube (26a, 35, previously taught by Houser in the rejection of Claim 11 and 8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 11) is constructed of a material (shown in figure 6 of Houser and the figure of Romero), Adjabeng fails to the insert tube is constructed of a thermally conductive metal.
Yoshitome, also drawn to a heat exchanger having an outer pipe (15) sleeved over an inner pipe (16), teaches an insert tube (15) is constructed of a thermally conductive metal (“The outer cylindrical body 15 is formed in a cylindrical shape with open ends, and is made of a metal tubular body such as copper or aluminum having excellent heat conductivity”, Pg 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with the insert tube being constructed of a thermally conductive metal, as taught by Yoshitome, the motivation being that metal tubes are known for producing “excellent heat conductivity”.
Alternately, a modified Adjabeng discloses the claimed invention except for the insert tube being constructed of a thermally conductive metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fabricate the insert tube from a thermally conductive metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Adjabeng further teaches the insert tube (26a, 35, previously taught by Houser in the rejection of Claim 17 and 8, previously taught by Romero in the rejection of Claim 17) is constructed of a material (shown in figure 6 of Houser and the figure of Romero), Adjabeng fails to the insert tube is constructed of a thermally conductive metal.
Yoshitome, also drawn to a heat exchanger having an outer pipe (15) sleeved over an inner pipe (16), teaches an insert tube (15) is constructed of a thermally conductive metal (“The outer cylindrical body 15 is formed in a cylindrical shape with open ends, and is made of a metal tubular body such as copper or aluminum having excellent heat conductivity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Adjabeng with the insert tube being constructed of a thermally conductive metal, as taught by Yoshitome, the motivation being that metal tubes are known for producing “excellent heat conductivity”, Pg 4).
Alternately, a modified Adjabeng discloses the claimed invention except for the insert tube being constructed of a thermally conductive metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fabricate the insert tube from a thermally conductive metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
