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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/23/2026.
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.
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) 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825.
Re claim 16, CN ‘463 teach a method of manufacturing method a heat exchange graphite assembly for a tube bundle heat exchanger (figs), the heat exchange graphite assembly including a plurality of tubes (7) forming a bundle (figs), a pair of tube sheets (6) provided at opposite ends of the plurality of tubes, each tube sheet having through holes for receiving the plurality of tubes, at least one baffle (11) arranged at an intermediate location of the plurality of tubes, each baffle having openings for passage of the plurality of tubes, the method comprising: providing the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle
in a graphite material being in a non-impregnated or porous state and having a first porosity value (claim 3); positioning the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle in a porous state, respectively, and in a position that forms a clearance between facing walls of the plurality of tubes and the through holes; and impregnating the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle with an impregnation material different from cement, to fill the pores of the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle,
form in the clearance a bonding film (sealant pages 2-4) with the impregnation material, and attach the plurality of tubes with respect to the tube sheets (claims 6- 7).
CN ‘463 fail to explicitly teach a second porosity value.
Gugenberger et al. teach to thereby transform the graphite material to a second porosity value that is less than the first porosity value to impregnate graphite in a heat exchanger and reducing
the porosity of the graphite (col 4 lines 45-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second porosity value as taught by Gugenberger et al. in the CN ‘463 invention in order to advantageously allow for satisfactory leak tightness within the mass of the heat exchanger (col 4 lines 45-51).
Re claim 18, CN ‘463 teach wherein no cement is inserted in the clearance (see the rejection of claim 16).
Re claim 19, CN ‘463 teach wherein impregnating the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle comprises: placing the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle in a vessel, filling, from the bottom of the vessel (page 2 noting gravity will naturally have” a tetrafluoroethylene monomer in a reaction vessel, adding a solvent, a reaction auxiliary, a catalyst, and an additive to prepare a polytetrafluoroethylene prepolymer solution” fill or move towards the bottom first since the entire volume of the pressure vessel cannot be filled instantaneously), the vessel with the impregnation material to contact the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle with the impregnation material, and emptying the impregnation material from the vessel (page 2).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825 and BIRK US 20080121383 A1.
Re claim 17, CN ‘463 , as modified, fail to explicitly teach clearance has.
BIRK teach wherein the clearance has a transverse thickness value of between 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm to insert tubes into a plate ( para 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include clearance has as taught by BIRK in the CN ‘463 , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for heart exchange with gas as intended use.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825 and NORMAN ET AL. US 20230228503 A1.
Re claim 20, CN ‘463 , as modified, fail to explicitly teach contact duration.
NORMAN ET AL. teach wherein a contact duration of the impregnation material with the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle is between 5 hours and 72 hours ( para 49) to manufacture an impregnation cycle with a known amount of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include contact duration as taught by NORMAN ET AL. in the CN ‘463 , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for impregnation times for manufacture with a solvent combination.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825 and Zhamu US 20180310442 A1.
Re claim 21, CN ‘463 , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a duration.
Zhamu teach further comprising, after impregnating the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle, conducting a curing process by heating the plurality of tubes, the tube sheets, and the at least one baffle at a temperature of between 50degreeC and 250 degreeC for a duration of between 5 hours and 24 hours (para 107) to cure a solvent with multiple steps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a duration as taught by Zhamu in the CN ‘463 , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for a known manufacturing process to be used for multiple curing steps in ideal curing with carbon structures.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825 and Detz et al. US 4,358,046.
Re claim 22, CN ‘463 , as modified, fail to explicitly teach the bonding film has a thickness value of between 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm.
Detz et al. teach the the bonding film has a thickness value of between 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm to provide graphite on a tube (col2 2nd para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the bonding film has a thickness value of between 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm as taught by Detz et al. in the CN ‘463 , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow to reduce the size of heat exchange apparatus and/or the energy requirements associated with the condensing operation .
Additionally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the bonding film has a thickness value of between 0.01 mm and 0.1 m , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825 and Johannsen US 20230184497 A1.
Re claim 23, CN ‘463 , as modified, fail to explicitly teach a certain size.
Johannsen teach wherein each tube in the plurality of tubes has a wall thickness of between 2 mm and 5 mm (para 107) to provide a certain heat exchange rate depending on the intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a certain size as taught by Johannsen in the CN ‘463 , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for Ideal pressure and flow characteristics.
Additionally, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide each tube in the plurality of tubes has a wall thickness of between 2 mm and 5 mm , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘463 CN 107560463 A in view of Gugenberger et al. US 4,044,825 and KAMAN US 1265340 A.
Re claim 24, CN ‘463 , as modified, fail to explicitly teach between 1 mm and 3 mm.
KAMANteach wherein outer faces of adjacent tubes in the plurality of tubes are spaced between 1 mm and 3 mm (page 1 lines 85-90) to create optimal flow areas in between tubes .
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include between 1 mm and 3 mm as taught by KAMAN in the CN ‘463 , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for Ideal pressure and flow characteristics.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide outer faces of adjacent tubes in the plurality of tubes are spaced between 1 mm and 3 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights