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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its". This limitation is unclear and confusing because it is unclear to what is referring to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "these U-shaped sections". This limitation is unclear and confusing because it is unclear to which U shape section is applicant referring to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second set". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation " the inlet (4.3) and outlet (4.4) ". This limitation is unclear and confusing because it is unclear to what is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid (GB 2456570), hereinafter referred to as Reid.
Re claim 1, Reid teaches a heat recovery system (see Fig 1) comprising a hollow housing (3), a heat exchanger (7) and a removeable cover (1); wherein:
the hollow housing with a drain water inlet (4), a drain water outlet (5), at least two holes for tubes (implicit for tube 7 to go in and out), and comprises a plurality of protuberances (8) in its interior bottom surface;
the heat exchanger has a serpentine shape and is arranged inside the hollow case and comprises a plurality of connected parallel tubes (7), a clean water inlet (implicit) and a clean water outlet (implicit); wherein the parallel tubes are separated with a gap that has a length between 0.15 and 2 times the diameter of the parallel tubes (see Fig 2).
Re claim 2, Reid teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of parallel tubes is connected on both ends by U-shaped sections (see Fig 3), each U-shaped section connects two adjacent parallel tubes (see Fig 3).
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bose (US 20110024080), hereinafter referred to as Bose.
Re claim 1, Bose teaches a heat recovery system (see Fig 8-9) comprising a hollow housing (100), a heat exchanger (116, 118, 120, 122) and a removeable cover (128); wherein:
the hollow housing with a drain water inlet (104), a drain water outlet (106), at least two holes for tubes (see Fig 8-9), and comprises a plurality of protuberances (124) in its interior bottom surface;
the heat exchanger has a serpentine shape and is arranged inside the hollow case and comprises a plurality of connected parallel tubes (116, 120), a clean water inlet (implicit) and a clean water outlet (implicit); wherein the parallel tubes are separated with a gap that has a length between 0.15 and 2 times the diameter of the parallel tubes (see Fig 8).
Re claim 3, Bose teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of parallel tubes is connected on both ends by detachable U-shaped sections (118, 122), each detachable U-shaped section connects two adjacent parallel tubes (see Fig 9).
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) 1, 4-5, 8, 14-16, 22, 25-26, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tornquist et al. (US 2017019892), hereinafter referred to as Tornquist, in view of Bose.
Re claim 1, Tornquist teaches a heat recovery system (1) comprising a hollow housing (2), a heat exchanger (14) and a removeable cover (30); wherein:
the hollow housing with a drain water inlet (36), a drain water outlet (11), at least two holes for tubes (56-56’), and
the heat exchanger has a serpentine shape and is arranged inside the hollow case and comprises a plurality of connected parallel tubes (14), a clean water inlet (56) and a clean water outlet (56’); wherein the parallel tubes are separated with a gap that has a length between 0.15 and 2 times the diameter of the parallel tubes (see Fig 5).
Tornquist does not teach the limitation of a plurality of protuberances in its interior bottom surface.
However, Bose teaches a heat recovery system comprising a plurality of protuberances (124) in its interior bottom surface.
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tornquist and integrate a plurality of protuberances in its interior bottom surface, as taught by Bose, in order to increase heat transfer.
Re claim 4, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist further teaches wherein the heat exchanger comprises at least two separate sets of parallel tubes (14), the first set (lower one) has a serpentine shape and comprises a plurality of parallel tubes (see Fig 5) connected on both ends by U-shaped sections (see Fig 5), the second set (upper one) has a serpentine shape and comprises a plurality of parallel tubes (14) connected on both ends by U-shaped sections (see Fig 5), in which these U-shaped sections project upwards at an angle between 15 and 90° (see Fig 8); and the second set is arranged on top of the first set in such a manner that the parallel tubes of each set intercalate each other (see Fig 5).
Re claim 5, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist further teaches wherein the heat exchanger comprises two manifolds (see Fig 5) arranged perpendicularly to the parallel tubes, one manifold at each end of the parallel tubes (see Fig 5).
Re claim 8, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 5. Tornquist further teaches wherein each manifold comprises a plurality of holes, each connected to one parallel tube (see Fig 5).
Re claim 14, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein the parallel tubes have a diameter between 6 and 25 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a diameter between 6 and 25 mm, for the purpose of optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Re claim 15, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 5. Tornquist further teaches wherein the parallel tubes comprise one wall (see Fig 5).
Re claim 16, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein the parallel tubes comprise two walls, an inner wall and an outer wall. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that using dual wall heat exchangers for the purpose of increasing performance falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention as filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tornquist, as modified, and integrated wherein the parallel tubes comprise two walls, an inner wall and an outer wall, for the purpose of increasing performance.
Re claim 22, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein the parallel tubes are made from a material selected from copper, stainless steel, aluminum, or brass. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that using copper, stainless steel, aluminum, or brass for tubes for the purpose of increasing performance falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention as filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Tornquist, as modified, and integrated wherein the parallel tubes are made from a material selected from copper, stainless steel, aluminum, or brass, for the purpose of increasing performance.
Re claim 25, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein the hollow housing has a length between 300 and 900 mm, width between 100 and 400 mm and a height between 30 and 90 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modified the hollow housing to have a length between 300 and 900 mm and width between 100 and 400 mm and a height between 30 and 90 mm, for the purpose of optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Re claim 26, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein the protuberances have a height between 0.1 and 10 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modified the protuberances to a height between 0.1 and 10 mm, for the purpose of optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Re claim 28, Tornquist, as modified, teaches the heat recovery system according to claim 1. Tornquist, as modified, does not teach the limitation of wherein heat exchanger has a length between 200 and 800 mm, width between 90 and 390 mm and a height between 10 and 50 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modified the heat exchanger to have a length between 200 and 800 mm, width between 90 and 390 mm and a height between 10 and 50 mm, for the purpose of optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9-13, 17-21, 23-24, 27, 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 9/24/2026
