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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendment/remarks filed 09/12/2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-13 are currently pending, of which claims 8-13 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer (US 2007/0209365 A1, hereinafter Hamer) in view of Conochie (US 6,497,737 B1, hereinafter Conochie) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer (US 2007/0209365 A1, hereinafter Hamer) in view of Conochie (US 6,497,737 B1, hereinafter Conochie), and further in view of Heuer (US 9,518,318 B2, hereinafter Heuer) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer (US 2007/0209365 A1, hereinafter Hamer) in view of Conochie (US 6,497,737 B1, hereinafter Conochie), and further in view of Zhang (CN 104153957 A, hereinafter Zhang) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are 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 “said nitrogen based, inert gas includes the addition of hydrocarbon gas at a low concentration sufficient to bind any oxygen present in said nitrogen based, inert gas”. The term “low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as the nitrogen based, inert gas includes hydrocarbon gas, and the concentration of the hydrocarbon gas is sufficient to bind any oxygen present in the nitrogen based, inert gas.
Claims 2 and 6 depend from claim 1 and recite the limitation "said electrically powered heaters". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation "said electrically powered heaters" is interpreted as “said electrical heating elements”.
Claims 2 and 4-7 depend from claim 1, therefore claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer (US 2007/0209365 A1, hereinafter Hamer) in view of Conochie (US 6,497,737 B1, hereinafter Conochie).
Regarding claim 1, Hamer teaches an apparatus for storing heat energy in a body of graphite (para [0001]). Hamer teaches that the operating temperature of the apparatus can be in the range of 1500 °C-2400 °C (para [0042]), which falls within the claimed range of “excess of 1500 °C”.
Hamer teaches means for evaporating a working fluid in tubes associated with the apparatus and adapted to recover heat stored in the apparatus (para [0093], Figs. 1 and 2), which reads on the claimed series of channels extending therethrough for energy offloading to a working gas passing through. The tubes containing a working fluid of Hamer reads on the claimed channels.
Hamer teaches that the tubes containing a working fluid are located within the graphite body (para [0194], Figs. 1 and 2), which reads on the claimed channels located with said graphite thermal body.
Hamer teaches that the means for heating the inner region of the body of graphite comprises a resistor (para [0102]), the apparatus comprises an electrical resistor (para [0057], [0194], [0209], Figs. 1 and 2). Thus, the resistor of Hamer reads on the claimed electrical heating element.
Hamer also teaches that a series of resistors are located within the graphite body (para [0200], Fig. 2), which reads on the claimed series of electrical heating elements located within said graphite thermal body for heating.
Hamer also teaches that the working fluid can be nitrogen or a hydrocarbon gas (para [0134]), and the working fluid is used to transfer heat of the graphite thermal body (para [0131]).
Hamer does not teach that the working fluid comprises a mixture of a nitrogen gas and a hydrocarbon gas.
However, Conochie teaches an apparatus for heating a solid carbonaceous material comprising (a) a process vessel for containing a packed bed of the solid carbonaceous material; and (b) a heat exchange circuit for supplying steam to the process vessel to heat the solid carbonaceous material in the packed bed via indirect heat exchange (col. 3, ll. 40-55, col. 1, ll. 10-15; Fig. 1).
Conochie also teaches that the apparatus comprises a circuit for circulating a working fluid through the packed bed of the solid carbonaceous material to enhance heat exchange between steam flowing through the heat exchange circuit and the solid carbonaceous material in the packed bed (col. 4, ll. 60-65; Fig. 1). Conochie teaches that the working fluid can be a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas (col. 5, ll. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas as taught by Conochie as the working fluid in Hamer, in order to transfer heat of the graphite thermal body with a reasonable expectation of success, because the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas enhances heat exchange/transfers heat as recognized by Conochie, and the working fluid used to transfer heat can be nitrogen or a hydrocarbon gas as recognized by Hamer.
Furthermore, the claimed limitation that the concentration of hydrocarbon gas is sufficient to bind any oxygen present in said inert nitrogen based atmosphere is a functional limitation that would flow naturally from the combined teachings of references, because the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas as taught by the combination of Hamer and Conochie is substantially the same nitrogen based inert gas as claimed. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hamer teaches an apparatus for storing heat energy in a body of graphite comprising means for heating an inner region of the body of graphite, wherein the means for heating the inner region of the body of graphite comprises a resistor (para [0102]).
Hamer also teaches that the apparatus comprises an electrical resistor (para [0057], [0194], [0209], Figs. 1 and 2). Thus, the resistor of Hamer reads on the claimed electrically powered heater.
Hamer teaches that a series of resistors are located within the graphite body (para [0200], Fig. 2). Hamer also teaches that the resistor can be constituted by granular graphite (para [0193]), which reads on the claimed graphite based electrical heating element.
Hamer further teaches that the operating temperature of the apparatus can be in the range of 1500 °C-2400 °C (para [0042]), which falls within and meets the claimed limitation of the graphite based electrical heating elements being capable of operating at temperatures in excess of 1500° C.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer (US 2007/0209365 A1, hereinafter Hamer) in view of Conochie (US 6,497,737 B1, hereinafter Conochie) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Heuer (US 9,518,318 B2, hereinafter Heuer).
The disclosure of Hamer in view of Conochie is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Hamer teaches an apparatus for storing heat energy in a body of graphite comprising means for heating an inner region of the body of graphite, wherein the means comprises a resistor (para [0102]). Hamer also teaches the apparatus comprises an electrical resistor (para [0057]). Thus, the resistor of Hamer is an electrical heating element.
Hamer teaches that the bore or well of electrical resistor can be at least partially filled with a high purity granular carbonaceous material (para [0057]). Hamer also teaches that the resistor can be constituted by granular graphite (para [0193]). Thus, the resistor of Hamer is a graphite based electrical heating element.
Hamer does not teach the resistor is carbon fiber carbon composite.
However, Heuer teaches a device for thermally treating workpieces including a cooling chamber and two or more carburizing chambers in which the workpieces are subjected to a carbon-containing gas and/or a nitrogen-containing gas by means of direct heat radiation from heating elements, and the heating elements are operated electrically and consist of graphite or carbon-fiber-reinforced carbon (CFC) (abstract; col. 1, II. 27-29; col. 5, II. 25-26; col. 7, ll. 66-67; col. 8, l. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the graphite based heating elements as taught by Hamer with carbon fiber carbon (CFC) based heating elements as taught by Heuer. For doing so, a person of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of heating a body of graphite, because both graphite based heating elements and carbon fiber carbon (CFC) based heating elements are art recognized electrical heating elements. See MPEP § 2144.06 II, Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamer (US 2007/0209365 A1, hereinafter Hamer) in view of Conochie (US 6,497,737 B1, hereinafter Conochie) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 104153957 A, hereinafter Zhang).
The disclosure of Hamer in view of Conochie is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hamer teaches that the working fluid can be nitrogen or a hydrocarbon gas (para [0134]), and the working fluid is used to transfer heat of the graphite thermal body (para [0131]).
Conochie also teaches that the apparatus comprises a circuit for circulating a working fluid through the packed bed of the solid carbonaceous material to enhance heat exchange between steam flowing through the heat exchange circuit and the solid carbonaceous material in the packed bed (col. 4, ll. 60-65; Fig. 1), and the working fluid can be a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas (col. 5, ll. 1-3).
Hamer and Conochie do not teach that the hydrocarbon gas is methane, propane, ethylene, acetylene or mixtures thereof.
However, Zhang teaches an energy-gathering cycle power generation system comprising a working fluid, and a heat source medium such as water and air as energy, wherein the working fluid absorbs the latent heat of the heat source medium to transfer heat for power generation (para [0008], [0020], [0055], abstract, Fig. 1).
Zhang teaches that the working fluid can be nitrogen, because nitrogen is a commercial product, easy to obtain and low cost (para [0119]); and the working fluid can also be ethylene (para [0119]); and both nitrogen and ethylene as a working fluid can be gas in the system (para [0020]). Ethylene gas is a hydrocarbon gas.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ethylene gas as taught by Zhang as the hydrocarbon gas in the working fluid as taught by the combination of Hamer and Conochie, in order to make a working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and ethylene for transferring heat of the graphite thermal body with a reasonable expectation of success, because both nitrogen and ethylene are used as a working fluid for heat transfer as recognized by Zhang, and the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas is used to transfer heat as recognized by Conochie. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Harmer is concerned with thermal storage, while Conochie is concerned with modification of the material itself; Harmer and Conochie are in a different field of endeavor; the proposed combination of Conochie and Harmer changes the principal of operation of Harmer (p. 4, last para; p. 5, 1st para).
Applicant also argues that the cited references provide no disclosure or teaching that practicing them as describe would inevitably yield the claimed invention "the concentration of hydrocarbon gas is sufficient to bind any oxygen" (p. 5, 2nd para).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Firstly, Hamer teaches an apparatus for storing heat energy in a body of graphite (para [0001]). Hamer teaches means for evaporating a working fluid in tubes associated with the apparatus and adapted to recover heat stored in the apparatus (para [0093], Figs. 1 and 2), which reads on the claimed series of channels extending therethrough for energy offloading to a working gas passing through.
Hamer also teaches that the working fluid can be nitrogen or a hydrocarbon gas (para [0134]), and the working fluid is used to transfer heat of the graphite thermal body (para [0131]).
Furthermore, Conochie teaches that an apparatus comprises a circuit for circulating a working fluid through the packed bed of the solid carbonaceous material to enhance heat exchange between steam flowing through the heat exchange circuit and the solid carbonaceous material in the packed bed (col. 4, ll. 60-65; Fig. 1). Conochie teaches that the working fluid can be a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas (col. 5, ll. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas as taught by Conochie as the working fluid in Hamer, in order to transfer heat of the graphite thermal body with a reasonable expectation of success, because the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas enhances heat exchange/transfers heat as recognized by Conochie, and the working fluid used to transfer heat can be nitrogen or a hydrocarbon gas as recognized by Hamer. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Whether Conochie is concerned with modification of the material or not, it will not affect the reasoning stated above.
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that “same field of endeavor” and “reasonably pertinent” are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Secondly, regarding Applicant’s argument that the cited references provide no disclosure or teaching that practicing them as describe would inevitably yield the claimed invention "the concentration of hydrocarbon gas is sufficient to bind any oxygen", Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As stated in claim 1 above, the claimed limitation that the concentration of hydrocarbon gas is sufficient to bind any oxygen present in said inert nitrogen based atmosphere is a functional limitation that would flow naturally from the combined teachings of references, because the working fluid comprising a mixture of nitrogen and hydrocarbon gas as taught by the combination of Hamer and Conochie is substantially the same nitrogen based inert gas as claimed. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761