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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejections of the previously presented claims have been withdrawn, however with regard to the new claims the applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the ground of rejection does not rely on any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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 68 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eck (DE 10248064 A1), hereinafter Eck, in view of Takahashi (JP 2016048138 A), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claims 68 and 69, Eck discloses a concentrated solar thermal receiver for receiving concentrated solar thermal energy from a concentrating array of solar reflectors, wherein:
the receiver comprises a single layered array of a plurality of tubes configured to carry a heat transfer fluid and be directly exposed to the concentrated solar thermal energy at a receiving surface of the array (“a solar receiver device according to the invention, which is denoted as a whole by 30 in FIG provided by spaced-apart absorber tubes 32, through which the heat absorbing medium flows in parallel” paragraph [0052]),
each tube is separately connected to a fluid inlet configured to communicate with at least one inlet conduit (“One or more supply lines 24 are provided for supplying heat absorption medium to the solar receiver device 20” paragraph [0048]), and separately connected to a fluid outlet configured to communicate with at least one outlet conduit (“One or more discharge lines 26 are provided for discharging heat absorption medium heated in the solar receiver device 20” paragraph [0048]),
the plurality of tubes are arranged predominantly in a single layer (Figure 3 for instance),
the array of tubes is substantially co-planar so as to provide a continuous co-planar energy receiving surface (Figure 3 for instance);
wherein the array of tubes includes at least two adjacent tubes.
PNG
media_image1.png
723
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eck does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of tubes is a plurality of serpentine tubes, the array of tubes has predominantly transverse passes or components, with each serpentine tube having an upright or longitudinal component extending between successive transverse passes or components, wherein at least one of the upright or longitudinal components includes a respective straight section, the at least two adjacent tubes transition from two respective transverse passes or components to two upright or longitudinal components with two adjacent bends, the two adjacent bends having substantially equal radii.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein the plurality of tubes is a plurality of serpentine tubes, the array of tubes has predominantly transverse passes or components, with each serpentine tube having an upright or longitudinal component extending between successive transverse passes or components, wherein at least one of the upright or longitudinal components includes a respective straight section, the at least two adjacent tubes transition from two respective transverse passes or components to two upright or longitudinal components with two adjacent bends, the two adjacent bends having substantially equal radii (“many internal flow paths 313 of the heat collector 310 are arranged in parallel and having a meandering pattern. Thereby, more exhaust heat of the solar cell 210 heated by receiving sunlight can be taken away and acquired by each heat collector 310” citations from machine translation appended to foreign reference).
PNG
media_image3.png
628
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Takahashi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the configuration as is taught in Takahashi, in the receiver disclosed by Eck because Takahashi states that the configuration more heat can be taken away by each collector. Therefore, including packing a planar area as taught in Takahashi will improve heat collection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 39, 40, 42-45, 47, 49, 51, 53-57, 60, 61, 63, 66, and 67 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a concentrated solar thermal receiver for receiving concentrated solar thermal energy with all of the limitations of independent claims 61 and 63.
Claim 61 recites the limitation “a portion of at least one of the transverse passes or components being bent out of plane such that said bent portion extends substantially perpendicular to at least one of the upright or longitudinal components on a side of the array of tubes opposite the receiving surface.” The closest prior art of record to this limitation is the previously recited Eck, Bouse, and Gilli which collectively disclose “a portion of at least one of the transverse passes or components being bent out of plane on a side of the array of tubes,” but fails to disclose the limitation in its entirety. No further art was found such that the limitation would have been obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim, distinguish the claims from the prior art.
Claim 63 recites the limitation “a portion of at least one of the transverse passes or components being bent out of plane such that said bent portion extends substantially perpendicular to at least one of the upright or longitudinal components on a side of the array of tubes opposite the receiving surface” and is allowable by the same or substantially the same rationale as articulated with regards to claim 61, above.
Claims 37, 39, 40, 42-45, 47, 49, 51, 53-57, 60, 66, and 67 are allowable at least because they depend from allowable independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Voelker (US 4079726 A)
PNG
media_image4.png
373
453
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Smith (US 4170220 A)
PNG
media_image5.png
345
553
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762