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 § 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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt taken together with Lutz.
The amendments to claims 1, 6, and 9, as submitted with the amendment filed on January 7, 2026 are noted. As such, applicant has pointed to the passage, “and at least partially condensing a steam-gas-mixture from the turbine in a heat exchanger to supply heat to be used for district heating”, and argued that Schmidt fails to teach or suggest at least partially condensing a steam-gas-mixture from the turbine in a heat exchanger to supply heat to be used for district heating as in the claimed invention (particularly amended independent claims 1 and 9). As evidence of applicant’s position, Fig. 2 of Schmidt is noted, presumably to show the lack of a condenser (heat exchanger) for condensing the steam that exits the turbine. However, as noted many times throughout the disclosure of the Schmidt reference, the electric generation process thereof utilizes a “Rankine cycle” to carry out the electric generation, a fact that is acknowledged by applicant in the last full paragraph on page 5 (the first page of the Remarks section) of the amendment filed on January 7, 2026. As is notoriously well known within the art of electrical power generation, the Rankine cycle, named for William Rankine (1820-1872), includes a pump for pumping working fluid (liquid water) to a boiler associated with a combustor, the boiler which produces a steam-gas-mixture from the water heated by the combustor, the steam-gas-mixture being fed to a turbine which produces work by being spun by the high pressure steam-gas-mixture, the work used to drive a generator which produces electricity, the steam-gas-mixture proceeding from the turbine to a condenser (which is a heat exchanger) wherein the heat is recovered during the condensation of the steam-gas-mixture back to a liquid water stream, which is pumped again to the boiler, thus completing one circuit of the Rankine cycle. The Rankine cycle was developed and published by William Rankine in 1859 and has been a mainstay in the electrical production industry for well over 100 years dating back from present day. Furthermore, the fact that a substantial amount of heat energy is constantly recovered from the operation of the condenser within the cycle is also notoriously well known, whereas utilization of the recovered waste heat within another portion of the cycle, for a related process within the power generation plant, or for district heating, as desired, would have been envisaged by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application. It is noted that the instant claims are not written in such a manner as to recite a manipulative step within the process claims, or a structural element within the lone apparatus claim (claim 9) to utilize the heat of condensation in any particular way, only that district heating may be an intended use of the recovered heat energy, which was also well known at the time of the filing of the application.
Applicant may wish to note the discussions within Simpson ‘800 (Figs. 1a, 1b, 5, and 9; paragraphs [0001], [0076], [0125], [0140], [0146], [0149]-[0150], [0153]-[0154], [0185]-[0187], for example), which illustrates the desirability of using waste heat from an electrical generation process for district heating, if desired. Here, Simpson ‘800 is simply used to note the well known nature of using waste heat from an electrical generation process for district heating, if desired, but wherein Simpson ‘800 has not been relied upon as a teaching reference within the rejection statement, since the claims only suggest district heating as a possible intended use for waste heat, rather than including either a manipulative step within a process claim or a structural element or combination of elements within an apparatus claim to positively recite means for transporting or utilizing recovered waste heat.
As stated in the previous Office action, wherein applicant previously pointed to the passages, “that transports the produced synthetic natural gas to consumers at distant sites” and “gas from the gas network is supplied to the combustor” as that language which differentiates the instantly claimed invention from the Schmidt reference, which has been applied as the primary reference within the combination of references, Schmidt taken together with Lutz, applicant’s attention is drawn to the last several lines of paragraph [0089] of Schmidt, wherein it is stated, “This mode of operation may actually produce excess methane which may be exported onto the natural gas grid or shipped to other locations.” Further, paragraphs [0028], [0043]-[0044], and last 11 lines of text of paragraph [0051] of Schmidt make it clear that gas (natural gas) may be a chosen fossil fuel that is supplied from a gas network to the combustor, when the power plant is operated to produce electrical energy by combustion within a combustor of a traditional fossil fuel either exclusively, or in combination with a methane stream produced within the plant using a Sabatier reactor.
Schmidt (Abstract; Fig. 6A; paragraphs [0008]-[0011], [0023], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0030], [0033]-[0034], [0038], [0041]-[0046], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0062], [0064], [0066], [0068]-[0072], [0077]-[0086], [0089]) discloses a method of operating an industrial plant, and the industrial plant, including operating an energy accumulator unit for producing synthetic natural gas (SNG), and an integral power plant for generating electricity, the plant being connected to the public electricity and gas grids, wherein the process utilizes excess electricity from the grid to produce oxygen and hydrogen from water by way of an electrolysis reaction (claim 3), the hydrogen produced thereby being used to produce SNG by way of a Sabatier reaction (claim 2), the SNG produced being discharged to a gas network within the plant and connected to the public gas grid (see [0089]), the SNG being burned by a combustor either exclusively, or in combination with a gas from a gas network (see paragraph [0051]) to produce a combustion mixture, including water, steam and carbon dioxide, the combustion mixture being used to drive a turbine that generates electricity with a generator driven by the turbine (claims 1 and 9), the exhaust from the turbine being condensed in a heat exchanger in the form of a condenser (note the discussion above relative to the Rankine cycle, which is disclosed throughout Schmidt as the process by which the electrical generation is undertaken, with the carbon dioxide being sent to a storage tank for later use in the Sabatier reactor (claim 6). It is noted that paragraphs [0077]-[0086] of Schmidt discloses several operational states including alternative operative states of the energy accumulating unit and the power plant unit (claims 1, 8, and 9). While Schmidt substantially discloses applicant’s entire invention, the reference is apparently silent as to the inclusion of a water storage tank and an oxygen storage tank. Clearly, the processes set forth within the Schmidt reference produce excess oxygen (the water electrolysis process) and excess water (the SNG combustion process), and therefore it would have been an obvious expedient for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to collect and store the produced oxygen and water streams for later use within the processes of the Schmidt reference, as both materials are needed as input feeds to the methanation and hydrogen generation processes, respectively.
Even in the event that applicant cannot agree that providing an oxygen tank and a water tank to store the materials for later use by the processes disclosed within the Schmidt reference, Lutz (col. 6, lines 22-33, 52-67; col. 7, lines 1-49, 63-65; col. 8, lines 5-8, 48-67; col. 10, line 62 through col. 11, line 22; col. 12, lines 15-45; col. 13. Lines 13-25) clearly teaches the collection and storage of oxygen and water within the industrial plant disclosed thereby for later use within the processes of an energy accumulator unit and a power plant unit that operate in essentially the same manner as those as disclosed by Schmidt. Wherein collection and storage of any given product stream within an industrial plant, where that same material will be needed for use in standard processes of operation within the plant, is absolutely essential to the efficiency of the operation of the plant, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the industrial plant apparatus and processes of operating the plant, as taught by Schmidt, with storage tanks for any collected products, including water and oxygen streams, in view of Lutz, since such would insure the high efficiency of operation of the plant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the language added to independent claims 1 and 9, stating, in the last full paragraph of the Remarks section prior to the heading “Conclusion”, that the “dependent claims need no further discussion herein.” The sole argument presented in support for patentability is that, “Schmidt fails to teach or suggest at least partially condensing a steam-gas-mixture from the turbine in a heat exchanger to supply heat to be used for district heating as in the claimed invention.” See the last paragraph on page 6 of the amendment filed January 7, 2026.
Applicant should note the first full paragraph of the augmented rejection statement of paragraph 3 above, which effectively rebuts applicant’s arguments and is incorporated herein by reference.
Further, as also discussed above in the rejection statement, the instant claims, as amended by the amendment filed on January 7, 2026, to not require any manipulative steps of the claimed process, or structural element(s) of the claimed apparatus, and therefore the use of recovered waste heat for any particular purpose, such as district heating, is simply one possible intended use of the heat energy. As such, an intended use of waste heat from a known process cannot be considered to lend patentable weight to a process or apparatus that is otherwise known, or suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application.
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 CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/4-21-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights