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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: An external plant that generates heat
Hot-air supplier
Water treatment device for treating sewage
A coolant supplier
A controller
Claims 16 and 19: a converter to …converts CO2 into ethanol
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2,6-16 and 18-19 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: ”A heat exchange system between an external plant that generates heat during operation, the heat exchange system comprising:” this phrase is incomplete regarding the use of term “between.” Claim can be interpreted as the heat exchange system between the external plant and something else that is not specified, or as the heat exchange system between some things within the external plant.
Claims 16 and 19: the limitation, a converter configured to burn generated biogas to convert carbon dioxide into ethanol …, , invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure provides no more details that just the means plus function statement. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Response to arguments: no persuasive arguments presented. The cited references about converting CO2 to ethanol or methanol were not originally incorporated, presented or cited in the disclosure, nor any details disclosed. Converting CO2 to ethanol or methanol is a very involved process, as can be seen in the cited references. Incorporating these details at this stage of prosecution would be considered as adding new matter. Since the details were not originally presented, the claim invoking 112(f) is deficient.
For the references to be cited in the patent if/when issued, applicant must submit these references in an IDS.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al (US 8,223,495) in view of KR 102045191 and Constantz, (US 2016/0076511.)
PNG
media_image1.png
663
905
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carlson teaches in Fig. 7A, copied herein, A data center 101 in proximity with a cooling tower 118 and a water treatment plant 205. The parts of the figure are labelled for easy understanding.
Claims 1 and 2 recite essentially a heat exchange (122) that exchanges heat between hot air of a data center and cooling water, which is taught by Carlson. A controller 730, fig. 7A, controls the system. Other elements in claim 1 are functional or intended use. Hot air supply includes pipes and blowers – see fig. 1.
A water treatment plant 205 treats water circulated in the cooling tower as well as incoming raw water – see col. 23 lines 25-31. However, Carlson does not teach sewage water treatment reactor using microorganisms as part of the treatment plant 205, the sludge dryer and the associated piping and valve. The treated water from the water treatment plant is used as coolant for the data center. See also the secondary coolant supply as wee in fig. 7A.
KR teaches producing biogas through a bioreactor, producing biogas to generate energy and using exhaust gas (air) to heat the bioreactor and to dry the sludge [0041.] The bioreactor in KR is an anaerobic digester that uses microbes– see [0004.] It uses hot air from the external plant, the power generating device [0070.] The external plant in KR is the power generator that uses biogas. In [0036] and [0037] KR teaches heat exchangers and using the exhaust hot air supply to both the reactor and the dryer through a three-way valve to control the flow. While a blower is not shown in this line, it is implied to circulate the air through the ducts (air pipes.) The control system to control the valve would have been obvious. “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art:” MPEP 2144.04-III.
Since Carlson teaches a water treatment plant, for incoming water which can be from a source of dirty water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the teaching of KR in the teaching of Carlson to combine the teachings and use the advantages of KR in Carlson.
For claims 6-8, see the details of the cooling tower and heat exchangers in fig. 1.
Claims 9 -11 – water storage tank, circulation pipes, and coolers 124 and 130 – see fig. 1 and fig. 7 A.
Claims 17 and 18: functional or intended use. Use of the exhaust air from the data center for feeding to a bioreactor will be only an intended use of the exhaust.
Carlson also teaches exhaust gas from the Data center -see col. 6, lines 49-55. Carlson is deficient in showing sewage treatment, fuel cell, etc., in combination with the data center for energy usage.
Constantz combines data center with fuel cell including fuel cell running on natural and bio-gas, and gas turbines to supply energy to the data center energy [0073], [0080]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the teachings of KR and Constantz in the teaching of Carlson to utilize hot air from the data center for the bio gas generator or fuel cell, and using the bio gas to run the fuel cells or turbines, and using energy thus produced to run the data center. Providing pipes, pumps and blowers to design the system would also have been obvious. The combination of the references teach utilization of energy and recycling of heat/hot air for energy conversation, including the means as to how the recycling can be accomplished. See MPEP 2143-I, A-G for rationales for combining the references. Also, having a known converter (see the references cites by applicant in response to the 112(a) rejection, US 8,435,331 and US 2014/0243435, on 1/28/26) to convert exhaust CO2 to ethanol or other useful product to reduce the CO2 emission would have been prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. They are addressed in the rejection. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant appears to argue only what applicant perceives as not taught by the references.
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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777