DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species D, Subspecies AE, Subspecies BB, Subspecies CC in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it is proper restriction practice that a non-elected species be considered for reinstatement should a generic claim be found allowable. The election has been treated as an election without traverse. A traverse is a request for reconsideration of a requirement to restrict that must include a written statement of the reasons for traverse, distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors upon which the applicant relies for concluding that the requirement is in error. The absence of any statement indicating whether the requirement to restrict is traversed or the failure to provide reasons for traverse will be treated as an election without traverse. MPEP 818.01
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 35-38, 40-44, 46-49, 51-52 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by DE LARMINAT et al. US 2011/0056664 Al.
Re claim 35, DE LARMINAT et al. teach a refrigerant evaporator comprising: a shell (76) including a refrigerant inlet and a refrigerant outlet (104, 80/inlet to 80), wherein a refrigerant mixture enters a volume (volume outside of 92) in the shell from a lower portion of the shell (fig 5c);
a plurality of tubes (78) disposed within the shell and carrying a process fluid including at least a first plurality of tubes being immersed in liquid refrigerant within the shell, and at least a second plurality of tubes (140) being at least partially surrounded by a spray flow of the refrigerant mixture sprayed upwardly through an interstitial volume (fig 5c) of the shell throughout at least the second plurality of tubes including between outer surfaces of the second plurality of tubes,
wherein the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture comprises a refrigerant gas flow entraining liquid droplets of refrigerant;
and a baffle (113) positioned and located adjacent the first plurality of tubes and immersed in the liquid refrigerant to displace the liquid refrigerant upwardly in the shell toward the second plurality of tubes and configured to reduce an interstitial flow area between tubes of the first plurality of tubes to increase an upward gas velocity of the refrigerant mixture through the interstitial volume of the shell and to maintain a target interstitial velocity of refrigerant flow suitable to attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture above a threshold interstitial velocity that does not attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitations “carrying a process fluid including at least a first plurality of tubes being immersed in liquid refrigerant within the shell”, “being at least partially surrounded by a spray flow of the refrigerant mixture sprayed upwardly through an interstitial volume of the shell throughout at least the second plurality of tubes including between outer surfaces of the second plurality of tubes,
wherein the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture comprises a refrigerant gas flow entraining liquid droplets of refrigerant”, “and immersed in the liquid refrigerant to displace the liquid refrigerant upwardly in the shell toward the second plurality of tubes and configured to reduce an interstitial flow area between tubes of the first plurality of tubes to increase an upward gas velocity of the refrigerant mixture through the interstitial volume of the shell and to maintain a target interstitial velocity of refrigerant flow suitable to attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture above a threshold interstitial velocity that does not attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture” have been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 36, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the threshold interstitial velocity is about 3 ft/s.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the threshold interstitial velocity is about 3 ft/s” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 37, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the target interstitial velocity is about 5 ft/s.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the target interstitial velocity is about 5 ft/s” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 38, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein at least the first plurality of tubes includes a tube pitch (figs) configured for further attaining the spray flow of the refrigerant.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “configured for further attaining the spray flow of the refrigerant” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 40, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the plurality of tubes is configured such that there is no liquid pool with bubbles.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “wherein the plurality of tubes is configured such that there is no liquid pool with bubbles” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 41, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the baffle is at least partially immersed in the liquid refrigerant to displace the liquid refrigerant (figs).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “is at least partially immersed in the liquid refrigerant to displace the liquid refrigerant” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 42, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the baffle is a first baffle, and wherein the refrigerant evaporator further includes a second baffle positioned adjacent the first plurality of tubes and immersed in the liquid refrigerant (“at least one” para 32).
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “immersed in the liquid refrigerant” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 43, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the second baffle is axially spaced from the first baffle along a length of the shell (noting any second baffle cannot take up the same space a s a first baffle).
Re claim 44, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the plurality of tubes is oriented substantially horizontally relative to a support surface of the refrigerant evaporator (figs, noting tubes a horizontal and thus are disposed horizontally relative to any surface).
Re claim 46, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein at least a portion of the baffle is located between lower-most tubes in the first plurality of tubes and the shell (figs).
Re claim 47, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the first plurality of tubes is arranged in a first row, wherein the second plurality of tubes is arranged in a second row, and wherein a number of tubes in the second row exceeds a number of tubes in the first row (figs noting one of the rows having 8, fig 5c).
Re claim 48, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the baffle is a unitary construction and includes a plurality of apertures through which the corresponding first plurality of tubes are received (figs).
Re claim 49, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the shell includes a first length, and the baffle includes a second length of at least 25% of the first length, and wherein the first length and the second length are along an axial direction of the first plurality of tubes (fig 6a noting heights and diameters are disposed along a length in a single axial location).
Re claim 51, DE LARMINAT et al. teach wherein the baffle is further positioned and adjacent the second plurality of tubes (figs).
Re claim 52, DE LARMINAT et al. teach an apparatus for controlling a rate of heat exchange of refrigerant in a multi- dimensional environment comprising in combination or for assembly: a refrigerant evaporator having a shell (76) configured to receive a refrigerant mixture, wherein the shell includes a refrigerant inlet (80/inlet to 80) and a refrigerant outlet (104), wherein the shell is configured such that the refrigerant mixture enters a volume in the shell from a lower portion of the shell (volume outside of 92); a plurality of tubes (78, 140) disposed within the shell configured for traversing a process fluid, the plurality of tubes having an upper plurality of tubes (78) configured for being immersed in liquid refrigerant within the shell, and a lower plurality of tubes (140) configurable proximate to the upper plurality of tubes and configured to be at least partially surrounded by a spray flow of the refrigerant mixture sprayed upwardly through an interstitial volume of the shell throughout at least the upper plurality of tubes including between outer surfaces of the upper plurality of tubes, wherein the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture comprises a refrigerant gas flow entraining liquid droplets of refrigerant; and one or more integral baffles (113) configurable to be positioned adjacent to the lower plurality of tubes and capable of being immersed in the liquid refrigerant for displacing the liquid refrigerant upwardly in the shell toward the upper plurality of tubes and configured to reduce an interstitial flow area between tubes of the lower plurality of tubes to increase an upward gas velocity of the refrigerant mixture through the interstitial volume of the shell and to maintain a target interstitial velocity of refrigerant flow suitable to attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture above a threshold interstitial velocity that does not attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “being immersed in liquid refrigerant within the shell”, “at least partially surrounded by a spray flow of the refrigerant mixture sprayed upwardly through an interstitial volume of the shell throughout at least the upper plurality of tubes including between outer surfaces of the upper plurality of tubes, wherein the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture comprises a refrigerant gas flow entraining liquid droplets of refrigerant”, “capable of being immersed in the liquid refrigerant for displacing the liquid refrigerant upwardly in the shell toward the upper plurality of tubes and configured to reduce an interstitial flow area between tubes of the lower plurality of tubes to increase an upward gas velocity of the refrigerant mixture through the interstitial volume of the shell and to maintain a target interstitial velocity of refrigerant flow suitable to attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture above a threshold interstitial velocity that does not attain the spray flow of the refrigerant mixture” have been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE LARMINAT et al. in view of Ring et al. US 2008/0163637 Al.
Re claim 39, LARMINAT et al. fail to explicitly teach distributor details.
Ring et al. teach comprising a distributor disposed at the lower portion of the shell for distributing a gaseous portion of the refrigerant mixture (para 34, fig 7) to vary tube pitch .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include distributor details as taught by Ring et al. in the LARMINAT et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for changed flow states with different tube configurations.
Claim 45 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE LARMINAT et al. in view of MAURER US 20120199330 A1.
Re claim 45, LARMINAT et al. fail to explicitly teach rectangular pitch.
MAURER teach wherein tubes of the plurality of tubes are spaced relative to each other by a rectangular pitch (para 74) to vary tube pitch .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include rectangular pitch as taught by MAURER in the LARMINAT et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for changed flow states with different tube configurations.
Claim 50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over DE LARMINAT et al. in view of US 1992504 A.
Re claim 50, LARMINAT et al. fail to explicitly teach gaps.
MAURER teach wherein each of the first plurality of tubes includes an outer diameter less than a diameter of apertures in the baffle in which the tubes are respectively received, thereby defining an annular gap (fig 2) separating each of the first plurality of tubes and the baffle, and the annular gap extends along the second length to provide area in between the tubes and baffle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include gaps as taught by MAURER in the LARMINAT et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for flange formation or angles tube insertion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0120002 Al, US3240265, US 2004/0112573 Al.
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