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 .
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.
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 12, 14, 22, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9752550 B2 to Bhende et al. in view of US 20220018326 A1 to Cheron et al. and US 8536723 B2 to Roos.
Regarding claim 12, Bhende et al. discloses a system comprising:
a first reservoir (Fig. 12: 36) for containing fluid;
a second reservoir (37) for containing fluid; and
a pipe (35) connecting the first reservoir and the second reservoir and defining a pipe inner diameter; and
a rim-drive turbomachine (1) positioned within the pipe (35) and comprising:
a hollow cylindrical shell (Fig. 8) having a central axis, a first end (16) fluidically coupled to the first reservoir, a second end (20) opposite and spaced apart along the central axis from the first end, the second end (20) fluidically coupled to the second reservoir, and an inner surface extending between the first and second ends, the shell including S shell portions, wherein S equals two or more (16, 3, and 20), each of the S shell portions being axially separate from each of the other shell portions, and each of the S shell portions are axially couplable to the other shell portions;
a modular, multi-bladerow, rim drive, axial flow system (Fig. 1) including: at least one motor rotor (Fig. 3) coupled to the inner surface of one of the S shell portions and extending circumferentially around the central axis, wherein the at least one motor rotor is rotatable about the central axis and relative to the shell;
at least one motor stator (Fig. 4) in electromagnetic communication with the at least one motor rotor; and
N sets of blades, wherein N equals two or more, wherein each of the S shell portions has at least one of the N sets of blades coupled to the inner surface of that shell portion, each of the N sets of blades extending radially inwardly toward the central axis, wherein the blades of each of the N sets of blades are spaced circumferentially around the central axis, each of the N sets of blades being axially spaced apart along the central axis from each of the other sets of blades (Figs. 3, 6, and 7),
wherein a single set of N blades (Fig. 3: 10) is coupled to the at least one motor rotor.
However, it fails to disclose an outwardly extending flange defining a shell outer diameter and being configured to connect to the pipe inner diameter; wherein the turbomachine is configured to pump fluid from the first reservoir to the second reservoir, and wherein the turbomachine is configured to operate as a turbine when fluid flows form the second reservoir to the first reservoir.
Cheron et al. teaches an outwardly extending flange (Figs. 2A and 2B: 203) defining a shell outer diameter (203) and being configured to connect to the pipe inner diameter (201).
Roos teaches wherein the turbomachine is configured to pump fluid from the first reservoir to the second reservoir, and wherein the turbomachine is configured to operate as a turbine when fluid flows form the second reservoir to the first reservoir (column 2, lines 14-25)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the outwardly extending flange as disclosed by Cheron et al. to the shell disclosed by Bhende et al. and the pump/turbine function as disclosed by Roos to the system disclosed by Bhende et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve structural connection to the pipe and to use the system as an energy storage and recovery system.
Regarding claim 14, Bhende et al. discloses one of the N sets of blades is stationary (Figs. 6 and 8: 18) with respect to the shell, and wherein the one set of blades that is stationary with respect to the shell is closer than the other sets of blades to the first end (16) of the shell.
Regarding claim 22, Bhende et al. discloses S is equal to N (Fig. 8: three sections and three sets of blades).
Regarding claim 25, Bhende et al. discloses the first reservoir (Fig. 12: 36) is disposed at a higher altitude than the second reservoir (37).
Regarding claim 29, Bhende et al. discloses a turbomachine comprising:
a hollow cylindrical shell (Fig. 8) defining a central axis, the shell including a plurality of axially separated shell portions (16, 3, and 20) configured to be coupled together, each of the shell portions defining an inner surface;
a motor rotor (Fig. 3) coupled to the inner surface of at least on shell portion, extending circumferentially about the central axis, and rotatable about the central axis and relative to the shell;
a motor stator (Fig. 4) in electromagnetic communication with the motor rotor, the motor stator defining a stator outer diameter less than the shell outer diameter (Fig. 8: stator goes inside shell 3); and
a modular multi-bladerow configuration (Fig. 1) including a plurality of sets of blades (Figs. 3, 6, and 7) spaced axially from one another along the central axis,
wherein the shell outer diameter (Fig. 12: 1) is sized to be received in a pipe (35) of a pumped storage hydropower system,
wherein each of the shell portions has at least one set of blades coupled to the inner surface of that shell portion (Fig. 8: each shell 16, 3, and 20 have sets of blades),
wherein each set of blades extends radially inwardly toward the central axis, wherein each set of blades includes blades that are spaced circumferentially about the central axis (Figs. 3, 6, and 7), and
wherein a single set of blades (Fig. 3: 10) is coupled to the motor rotor
wherein each of the blades in modular and scalable (Fig. 1).
However, it fails to disclose a radially outward extending flange defining a shell outer diameter and being configured to connect to an interior surface of a pipe; wherein electrical current is provided to the motor stator to operate the turbomachine as a pump, and wherein rotation of the single set of blades coupled to the motor rotor causes an electrical current to be provided from the motor stator to operate the turbomachine as a turbine.
Cheron et al. teaches a radially outward extending flange (Figs. 2A and 2B: 203) defining a shell outer diameter (203) and being configured to connect to an interior surface of a pipe (201).
Roos teaches wherein electrical current is provided to the motor stator to operate the turbomachine as a pump, and wherein rotation of the single set of blades coupled to the motor rotor causes an electrical current to be provided from the motor stator to operate the turbomachine as a turbine (column 2, lines 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the radially outward extending flange as disclosed by Cheron et al. to the shell disclosed by Bhende et al. and the pump/turbine function as disclosed by Roos to the turbomachine disclosed by Bhende et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to improve structural connection to the pipe and to use the turbomachine as an energy storage and recovery system
Claims 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9752550 B2 to Bhende et al. in view of US 20220018326 A1 to Cheron et al. and US 8536723 B2 to Roos as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of US 20130088014 A1 to Holstein et al.
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claims 13 and 17.
Holstein et al. teaches:
each of the blades (Fig. 4: 2.2) has an outer end coupled adjacent the inner surface (2.1) and an inner end that is spaced radially inward of the outer end, wherein the inner ends of the blades are spaced apart from the central axis and define an aperture (2.3) through which the central axis extends.
the one set of blades are shaped such that, when the one set of blades are rotated, the one set of blades causes a higher pressure of a fluid inside the shell adjacent the inner surface (2.1) of the shell than adjacent the central axis (2.3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the blade shape as disclosed by Holstein et al. to the blades disclosed by Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos
One would have been motivated to do so to optimize rotation of the blades.
Regarding claim 15, Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claim 15.
Holstein et al. teaches the turbomachine further comprising R motor rotors coupled to the inner surface of the shell and extending circumferentially around the central axis and R motor stators, each of the R motor stators being in electromagnetic communication with one of the R motor rotors, wherein one of the R motor rotors is rotatable relative to the shell, and the second set of blades is coupled to the second motor rotor, and wherein each of the R motor rotors is independently rotatable from the other motor rotors (Fig. 5: two sets of motor rotors/stator with blades).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the additional power units as disclosed by Holstein et al. to the system disclosed by Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos.
One would have been motivated to do so to generator additional power.
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9752550 B2 to Bhende et al. in view of US 20220018326 A1 to Cheron et al. and US 8536723 B2 to Roos as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of US 20130062881 A1 to Mellah.
Regarding claim 18, Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claim 18.
Mellah teaches the shell has an outer surface (Fig. 2: 38) radially spaced apart from the inner surface (39), and the motor stator (42) is coupled to the outer surface of the shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the motor stator location as disclosed by Mellah to the system disclosed by Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos,
One would have been motivated to do so for ease of electrical transfer (see Fig. 6 of Mellah).
Regarding claim 27, Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos discloses a system as described above.
However, it fails to disclose the limitations from claim 27.
Mellah teaches a power source [0013] configured to store energy created by the turbomachine.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the power source as disclosed by Mellah to the system disclosed by Bhende et al., Cheron et al., and Roos.
One would have been motivated to do so to store electrical power generated.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130088014 A1 to Holstein et al. in view of US 20130062881 A1 to Mellah, US 20220018326 A1 to Cheron et al., US 9752550 B2 to Bhende et al., and US 8536723 B2 to Roos.
Regarding claim 1, Holstein et al. discloses a turbomachine comprising:
a hollow cylindrical shell (Fig. 5) including:
a vane shell portion (2.4),
a first rim drive shell portion (left 1) defining a first outer surface,
a second rim drive shell portion (right 1) defining a second outer surface,
wherein the vane shell portion (2.4), the first rim drive shell portion (left 1), and the second rim drive shell portion (right 1) are coaxial;
a first rotor (Fig. 19: 2.1) rotatably coupled to the first rim drive shell portion;
a first stator (6.1) in electromagnetic communication with the first rotor;
a first set of blades (2.2) coupled to the first rotor and extending radially inwardly (from center 2.3);
a second rotor rotatably coupled to the second rim drive shell portion;
a second stator in electromagnetic communication with the second rotor; and
a second set of blades coupled to the second rotor and extending radially inwardly (similar to Fig. 19 above since Fig. 5 has two power unit 1).
However, it fails to disclose the first stator coupled to the first outer surface of the first rim drive shell portion and the first stator defining a first stator outer diameter that is less than the shell outer diameter; and the second stator coupled to the second outer surface of the second rim drive shell portion and the second stator defining a second stator outer diameter that is less than the shell outer diameter; and a flange extending radially outward from the first outer surface and the second outer surface, the flange defining a shell outer diameter and being configured to connect to an interior surface of a pipe; the second set of blades shaped different from the first set of blades, wherein electrical current is provided to at least one of the first stator and the second stator to operate the turbomachine as a pump and cause fluid flow axially through the vane shell portion, and wherein rotation of at least one of the first set of blades and the second set of blades causes an electrical current to be provided from at least one of the first stator and the second stator to operate the turbomachine as a turbine.
Mellah teaches the first stator (Fig. 2: 46) coupled to the first outer surface (38) of the first rim drive shell portion and the first stator defining a first stator outer diameter that is less than the shell outer diameter (42).
Cheron et al. teaches a flange (Figs. 2A: 203) extending radially outward from the first outer surface and the second outer surface (204), the flange defining a shell outer diameter (Fig. 2B: 203) and being configured to connect to an interior surface of a pipe (201).
Bhende et al. teaches the second set of blades (Fig. 6) shaped different from the first set of blades (Fig. 3).
Roos teaches wherein electrical current is provided to at least one of the first stator and the second stator to operate the turbomachine as a pump and cause fluid flow axially through the vane shell portion, and wherein rotation of at least one of the first set of blades and the second set of blades causes an electrical current to be provided from at least one of the first stator and the second stator to operate the turbomachine as a turbine (column 2, lines 14-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the stator location as disclosed by Mellah and apply it to the first and second stator disclosed by Holstein et al., the teaching of the flange as disclosed by Cheron et al. to the shell disclosed by Holstein et al., the teaching of blade shapes as disclosed by Bhende et al. to the blades disclosed by Holstein et al., and the pump/turbine function as disclosed by Roos to the turbomachine disclosed by Holstein et al.
One would have been motivated to do so for ease of electrical transfer (see Fig. 6 of Mellah), to connect the turbomachine to use fluids within pipes, to improve fluid flow, and to use the turbomachine as an energy storage and recovery system.
Regarding claim 2, Holstein et al. discloses wherein inner ends of blades of the first set of the blades and the second set of blades (Fig. 5: 2.2) are spaced apart from a central axis and define an aperture (2.3) through which the central axis extends.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Holstein et al., Mellah, Cheron et al., Bhende et al., and Roos discloses a stationary set of vanes (Bhende et al., Fig. 6: 18) coupled to the vane shell portion (16).
Regarding claim 6, Holstein et al. discloses the first set of blades and the second set of blades are shaped such that rotation causes a higher pressure of a fluid inside the shell adjacent the inner surface (Fig. 19: 2.1) of the shell than adjacent a central axis (2.3).
Regarding claim 9, Holstein et al. discloses the turbomachine is usable as a turbine (abstract) or a pump.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new 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.
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 VIET P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8.
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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/VIET P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834