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 Amendment
The amendments filed 8/21/2025 are entered. Additionally, the rejections under 112 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim begins with “A”, but should begin with “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon (WO2011044281A2) in view of Dethier et al. (WO 2018177696 A1; hereinafter Dethier).
Regarding claim 1, Conlon teaches a concentrated solar energy collection system (FIG. 1, linear Fresnel reflector solar energy collector system 100), comprising: an array of heliostats (FIG. 1, refelector fields 110, which in some embodiments (e.g., paragraph 67) are heliostats); a solar receiver (FIG. 1, solar thermal receiver 105) including a plurality of tubes having at least one inlet and at least one outlet for carrying a heat transfer fluid (HTF) (FIG. 4, the parallel tubes 130 carry heat transfer fluid), an external surface of the plurality of tubes configured for receiving solar radiation reflected from the array of heliostats for heating the HTF (the parallel tubes 130 receive solar radiation from the mirrors); a flow control arrangement located upstream of the at least one inlet (FIG. 4, flow control device 160-1 controls flow upstream of an inlet to heat exchange tubes).
Conlon fails to teach that at least one radiation sensor for measuring radiation reflected from the solar receiver; at least one temperature sensor for measuring an inlet temperature of the HTF at or near the inlet; and a controller responsive to the at least one radiation sensor and the at least one temperature sensor for regulating an outlet temperature of the HTF by controlling the flow of HTF through the tubes via the flow control arrangement.
However, Dethier teaches at least one radiation sensor (FIG. 4, paragraph 17, camera set 7, which may be an IR camera used for measuring radiation reflected on a surface of a receiver) for measuring radiation reflected from the solar receiver; at least one temperature sensor (paragraph 17, a temperature sensor may be used to measure the temperature of a fluid at a tube inlet) for measuring an inlet temperature of the HTF at or near the inlet; and a controller (claim 1, control means 41 is used to measure IR cameras, temperature sensors, and tube integrity) responsive to the at least one radiation sensor and the at least one temperature sensor for regulating an outlet temperature of the HTF by controlling the flow of HTF through the tubes via the flow control arrangement.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon by having the controlling means 41 of Dethier take IR camera data and fluid temperature data into account for controlling the flow rate of the fluid of Conlon, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of Dethier with the motivation of increasing the number of variables used to calculate an estimated fluid temperature, thereby allowing the receiver to produce a more accurately heated fluid.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Conlon and Dethier teaches that during normal operation the outlet temperature of the HTF is solely controlled by the valve arrangement (Conlon, the flow control device 160-1 is the means by which temperature is adjusted).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Conlon and Dethier teaches a flow sensor for measuring the inflow of HTF into the receiver, the flow sensor providing an input to the controller (Dethier, FIG. 2, flowmeters 22).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Conlon and Dethier teaches at least one outlet temperature sensor for measuring the outlet temperature of the HTF, the at least one temperature sensor providing an input to the controller (Dethier, paragraph 71, a temperature sensor may be used to measure the temperature of a fluid at a tube outlet).
Regarding claim 17, the Examiner notes that the claimed “plurality of solar energy collection systems” are not part of the solar energy collection system of the preamble. Therefore, the system must merely be capable of use with such limitations. The Examiner asserts that the teachings of Conlon and Dethier could easily be adjusted to fit into a multi-receiver system.
Regarding claim 18, Conlon teaches a method of operating a concentrated solar energy collection system (FIG. 1, linear Fresnel reflector solar energy collector system 100, and the method by which it operates), comprising: an array of heliostats (FIG. 1, refelector fields 110, which in some embodiments (e.g., paragraph 67) are heliostats); a solar receiver (FIG. 1, solar thermal receiver 105) including a plurality of tubes having at least one inlet and at least one outlet for carrying a heat transfer fluid (HTF) (FIG. 4, the parallel tubes 130 carry heat transfer fluid), an external surface of the tubes receiving solar radiation reflected from the heliostats for heating the HTF (the parallel tubes 130 receive solar radiation from the mirrors); and a flow control arrangement located upstream of the at least one inlet for controlling a flow of HTF through the tubes (FIG. 4, flow control device 160-1 controls flow upstream of an inlet to heat exchange tubes).
Reynolds fails to teach the method including: measuring radiation reflected from the solar receiver using at least one radiation sensor; measuring an inlet temperature of the HTF at or near the inlet using at least one temperature sensor; and responsive to the radiation sensor and inlet temperature, regulating an outlet temperature of the HTF by controlling the flow of the HTF through the tubes via the flow control arrangement.
However, Dethier teaches that the method including: measuring radiation reflected from the solar receiver using at least one radiation sensor (FIG. 4, paragraph 17, camera set 7, which may be an IR camera used for measuring radiation reflected from a surface of a receiver); measuring an inlet temperature of the HTF at or near the inlet using at least one temperature sensor (paragraph 17, a temperature sensor may be used to measure the temperature of a fluid at a tube inlet); and responsive to the radiation sensor and inlet temperature, regulating an outlet temperature of the HTF by controlling the flow of HTF through the tubes via the flow control arrangement (claim 1, control means 41 is used to measure IR cameras, temperature sensors, and tube integrity. In the combination below, the system of Reynolds utilizes this data to adjust the flowrate of the receiver).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon by having the controlling means 41 of Dethier take IR camera data and fluid temperature data (and other data, such as flow rate data) into account for controlling the flow rate of the fluid of Reynolds, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of Dethier with the motivation of increasing the number of variables used to calculate an estimated fluid temperature, thereby allowing the receiver to produce a more accurately heated fluid.
Claim(s) 2 and 19 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon and Dethier as applied to claim 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Aucoin et al. (US 20190353385 A1; hereinafter Aucoin).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach a pressure differential sensor arrangement for measuring pressure differential across the flow control arrangement, the pressure differential sensor arrangement providing an input to the controller.
However, Aucon teaches a pressure differential sensor (FIG. 6, the pressure differential sensor 634 measures pressure across a valve and communicates with a control system) arrangement for measuring pressure differential across the flow control arrangement, the pressure differential sensor arrangement providing an input to the controller.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon by including a pressure differential sensor across the valve 160-1 that communicates with the control system, as taught by Aucoin, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of Aucoin with the motivation of allowing the control system to open the valve in the case of a pressure differential so large that it threatens to damage the assembly.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon and Dethier as applied to claim 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20170242939 A1; hereinafter Yu) and Madden et al. (US 6396061 B1; hereinafter Madden).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that the at least one radiation sensor includes an actinometer spaced from the receiver and having a window configured to mask radiation not emanating from the receiver.
However, Yu teaches that the at least one radiation sensor includes an actinometer (paragraph 76, the assembly includes an actinometer).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon and Dethier by including an IR Camera as well as an actinometer, as taught by Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of Yu with the motivation of ensuring accuracy through the use of multiple sensor types.
Yu fails to teach that the actinometer is spaced from the receiver and having a window configured to mask radiation not emanating from the receiver.
However, Madden teaches that the actinometer is spaced from the receiver and having a window configured to mask radiation not emanating from the receiver (FIG. 1, Ge detector 19 is held within a shield 18 and is spaced from the object it detects).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon and Dethier by having the radiation detector be shielded and spaced from the tubes, as taught by Madden, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of Madden with the motivation of ensuring the radiation detector receives minimal interference.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Conlon, Dethier, Yu, and Madden teaches that the actinometer includes a pyranometer (Yu, paragraph 29, the actinometer may be a pyranometer).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Conlon and Dethier teaches that at least one thermal imaging camera for providing data associated with a thermal image of an outer face of the receiver to the controller (Dethier, FIG. 4, paragraph 17, one of the camera sets 7, which may be an IR camera used for measuring radiation on a surface of a receiver. Note that the assembly uses multiple camera sets 7, so this IR camera may be distinct from the camera of claim 1).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyno Conlon and Dethier as applied to claim 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Dasappa et al. (WO 2017163266 A; hereinafter Dasappa).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Conlon and Dethier teaches that the flow control arrangement is in the form of a valve arrangement (Conlon, FIG. 4, the flow control device 160-1 is a valve arrangement).
The combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach associated valve control elements having an overall turn down ratio greater than 5:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 5:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dasappa, paragraph 36, downdraft gasifier 200 has a turn- down ratio in a range of 1:3 to 1:4), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the turn-down ratio is a result effective variable because it affects the sensitivity of the valve apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 5:1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that the valve arrangement and associated valve control elements have a turn down ratio of at least 10:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 10:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dasappa, paragraph 36, downdraft gasifier 200 has a turn- down ratio in a range of 1:3 to 1:4), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the turn-down ratio is a result effective variable because it affects the sensitivity of the valve apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 10:1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that the valve arrangement and associated valve control elements have a turn down ratio of at least 12:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 12:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dasappa, paragraph 36, downdraft gasifier 200 has a turn- down ratio in a range of 1:3 to 1:4), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the turn-down ratio is a result effective variable because it affects the sensitivity of the valve apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 12:1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that the valve arrangement and associated valve control elements have a turn down ratio of at least 15:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 15:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dasappa, paragraph 36, downdraft gasifier 200 has a turn- down ratio in a range of 1:3 to 1:4), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the turn-down ratio is a result effective variable because it affects the sensitivity of the valve apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the turn-down ratio of Conlon greater than 15:1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon, Dethier, and Dasappa as applied to claim 5-8 above, and further in view of McGrane et al. (US 20190264951 A1; hereinafter McGrane).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Conlon, Dethier, and Dasappa fails to teach that the valve arrangement includes at least two valves in parallel.
However, McGrane teaches that the valve arrangement includes at least two valves in parallel (FIG. 1, the valves 36 are in parallel).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon by including multiple parallel valves arraying the tubes, as taught by McGrane, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of McGrane with the motivation of more accurately controlling fluid temperature by adjusting a flow rate of various tubes based on their exposure to radiation using parallel valves.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon and Dethier as applied to claim 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Kretszchmar et al. (US 20150114385 A1; hereinafter Kretzschmar).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that the HTF is a liquid metal, either as a pure element or in a eutectic mixture with other elements.
However, Kretzschmar teaches that the HTF is a liquid metal, either as a pure element or in a eutectic mixture with other elements (paragraph 40, the working fluid may be liquid sodium).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon by using liquid sodium as a working fluid, as taught by Kretzschmar, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Reynolds with these aforementioned teachings of Kretzschmar since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself- that is in the substitution of the liquid sodium for the working fluid of Conlon. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Conlon, Dethier, and Kretzschmar teaches that the HTF is selected from a group comprising liquid sodium (Kretzschmar, paragraph 40, the working fluid may be liquid sodium), eutectic mixtures of sodium and potassium (NaK), eutectic mixtures of lead and bismuth (PbBi), and tin.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon and Dethier as applied to claim 1, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Drees (US 20170104449 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that the controller includes feedforward control elements.
However, Drees teaches that the controller includes feedforward control elements (paragraph 89, the controller 318 uses feedforward elements).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Conlon by using feedforward control elements to control the choke 2400, as taught by Drees, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Conlon with these aforementioned teachings of Drees with the motivation of using predictive control to adjust the flow rate of the fluid as soon as possible to prevent energy loss.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conlon, Dethier, and Aucoin as applied to claims 2 and 19 above, and further in view of Dasapa.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Conlon and Dethier teaches measuring the inflow of HTF into the receiver using a flow sensor (Dethier, FIG. 2, flowmeters 22), the flow sensor providing an input to which the controller is responsive, measuring the outlet temperature of the HTF using a temperature sensor (Dethier, paragraph 17, a temperature sensor may be used to measure the temperature of a fluid at a tube inlet), the temperature sensor providing an input to which the controller is responsive, and providing data associated with a thermal image of an outer face of the receiver to the controller as an input to which the controller is responsive using at least one thermal imaging camera (Dethier, FIG. 4, paragraph 17, one of the camera sets 7, which may be an IR camera used for measuring radiation on a surface of a receiver. Note that the assembly uses multiple camera sets 7, so this IR camera may be distinct from the camera of claim 1); wherein the flow control arrangement is in the form of a valve arrangement including at least one valve and associated valve control elements (Reynolds, FIG. 19, the choke 2400 is a valve arrangement); wherein during normal operation, the outlet temperature of the HTF is solely controlled by the flow control arrangement via the controller (Reynolds, the choke 2400 is the means by which temperature is normally adjusted).
The combination of Conlon and Dethier fails to teach that and control of the outlet temperature of the HTF is achieved by controlling the flow of HTF through the valve arrangement between maximum and minimum flows corresponding to turn down ratios selected from a group including greater than 5:1, at least 10:1, at least 12:1 or at least 15:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the turn-down ratio of Dasappa switch along a range between at least 5:1 and at least 15:1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Dasappa, paragraph 36, downdraft gasifier 200 has a turn- down ratio in a range of 1:3 to 1:4), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that the turn-down ratio is a result effective variable because it affects the sensitivity of the valve apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the turn-down ratio of Dasappa switch along a range between at least 5:1 and at least 15:1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, on pages 8 and 9 the Applicant argues that Dethier does not teach an IR camera that detects reflected radiation, but rather emitted radiation. The Examiner notes that Dethier’s specification does use the term “emitted,” but further notes that the terms emitted and reflected, when referring to radiation, are often used interchangeably, and any distinction between the two types of radiation is not one that can be detected by a radiation sensor. The Examiner notes that in the interview summary filed 7/22/2025, the Examiner suggested specifying that the radiation sensor directly detects solar radiation (i.e., detects radiation before it reflects).
Furthermore, regarding the arguments found in section V on page 10, the rejection regarding claim 16 has been rearticulated to fit the amended claim.
Conclusion
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 WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762