DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Invention Group A: Claims 1-11, drawn to a waste heat extraction device, classified in F24D2200/18.
Invention Group B: Claims 12-16, drawn to a method for recapturing waste heat from a commercial cooking facility, classified in F24H15/20.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions A and B are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)).
In the instant case, the method as claimed in Invention Group B can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus than that of Invention Group A - namely one that does not require “a vertical attachment”, “a pump” and “pump controller” which is required by Invention Group A. Furthermore, the apparatus as claimed in Invention Group A can be used to practice another and materially different process than that of Invention Group B - namely a waste heat extraction process in an application other than “for recapturing waste heat from a commercial cooking facility” (which is required by Invention Group B) such as an industrial energy production/recovery application.
3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
b. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
c. The inventions require a different field of search
d. The inventions are likely to raise a different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
4. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
5. The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Christopher Lutz on 10/9/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention Group A, Claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0003], the 3rd sentence, change “and or” to -- and/or --
In [0022], the last sentence, change “radiator has” to -- radiator that has --
It is recommended that Applicant review the specification in its entirety to ensure that no other issues are present.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 6, change “an exhaust conduit to an exterior environment” to -- an exhaust conduit that leads to an exterior environment -- (or equivalent) --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambertson (US 2018/0195808 A1) in view of Prasser (US 2012/0060818 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lambertson teaches of a waste heat extraction device (Fig. 1A), comprising:
a heat transfer element (134) including a fluid vessel (the internal fluid vessel within element (134) that water flows through) disposed in a stream of waste heat (105) (see at least [0042]-[0044] and Figs. 1A-1B);
a vertical attachment (132) securing the heat transfer element in the stream of waste heat (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least [0042]-[0044] and Fig. 1A);
a pump (146) in fluidic communication with the fluid vessel for circulating a heated fluid through the fluid vessel (see at least [0013], [0043], [0072] and Fig. 1A);
a pump controller (the “controller” that has “control circuitry in electronic communication with” the fluid pump that is disclosed as “controller 302” in [0072]) (see at least [0013], [0072] and Figs. 1A, 3) responsive to a temperature of the heated fluid in the fluid vessel in response to the stream of waste heat (via “temperature measurements”) (see at least [0042]-[0044], [0070]-[0072] and Figs. 1A, 3) that is adapted to circulate the heated fluid (via circulation pump (146)) (see at least [0043] and Fig. 1); and
a recapture tank (144) connected to the fluid vessel for receiving and storing the heated fluid (see at least [0043] and Fig. 1A).
Lambertson fails to explicitly teach that the pump controller is adapted to circulate the heated fluid based on predetermined waste heat recapture conditions.
Prasser discloses a relatable system for heat recovery (system of Fig. 7A, 7B) that comprises a heat transfer element (heat transfer element comprising units (100)) including a fluid vessel (the internal fluid vessel formed between elements (100) that water flows through) disposed in a stream of waste heat (see at least [0028], [0040]-[0041] and Figs. 1-3 and 7A-7B); a pump (218) in fluidic communication with the fluid vessel for circulating a heated fluid through the fluid vessel (see at least [0041] and Fig. 7B); a recapture tank (tank 214 and/or tank 216) connected to the fluid vessel for receiving and storing the heated fluid (see at least see at least [0040]-[0041] and Fig. 7B); and a pump controller (the pump controller that facilitates selective activation and deactivation of “recirculating pump 218”) (see at least [0041] and Fig. 7B) that is responsive to a temperature of the heated fluid in the fluid vessel in response to the stream of waste heat and is adapted to circulate the heated fluid (via circulation pump (218)) based on predetermined waste heat recapture conditions of (at least) “a measured temperature of the fluid in the storage tank 214 falling below a predetermined threshold” (see at least [0043] and Fig. 1). Presser teaches that configuring the pump controller to circulate the heated fluid based on (at least) the predetermined waste heat recapture conditions of measured fluid temperature enables only water that has a temperature above “a predetermined threshold” to be stored that is ideal for use in e.g., “hot water supply in a restroom, or used for other purposes” (see at least [0040]-[0041] and Fig. 7B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device taught by Lambertson by adapting the existing pump controller to circulate the heated fluid based on predetermined waste heat recapture conditions of measured fluid temperature as is taught by Prasser. Doing so would have enabled only water that has a temperature above a predetermined threshold to be stored that is ideal for use in e.g., hot water supply in a restroom, or other purposes. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Prasser also teaches that the waste heat recapture conditions that would be used by the pump controller of the combined apparatus are based on an activation of a source of waste heat (waste heat captured by element(s) (100) upon activation of element (202)) (see at least [0038], [0040]-[0043] and Figs. 7A-7B) and a demand for recaptured thermal energy in the heated fluid (demand for the water temperature to reach the “predetermined threshold” for heated water for, e.g., “hot water supply in a restroom”), the recapture tank engaged with a potable hot water source for sourcing a potable hot water tap (“hot water supply in a restroom”) (see at least [0040]-[0043] and Figs. 7A-7B).
Regarding Claim 3, Prasser also teaches that the waste heat recapture conditions of the combined apparatus are indicative of a temperature of the heated fluid above a threshold (“predetermined threshold”) defined for useable recycled heat (see at least [0041] and Figs. 7A-7B).
Regarding Claim 4, Lambertson also teaches that the device is disposed in a path between a primary consumer (102) of heat energy resulting in the waste heat (see at least [0036] and Fig. 1A) and an exhaust path (exhaust path comprising elements (128) and (142)) adapted for directing the waste heat away from a conditioned space housing the primary consumer (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least [0036], [0045] and Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 5, Lambertson also teaches that the primary consumer (102) is a cooking appliance (e.g., “oven”) and that the exhaust path includes a vent hood (106) (see at least [0036] and Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 6, Lambertson also teaches that the vertical attachment (132) includes a bracket (the rectangular shaped bracket that houses element (134) as shown in Figs. 1A-1B) attaching the heat transfer element (134) to an interior void of an exhaust conduit (130) that leads to an exterior ambient environment (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least [0042] and Figs. 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Lambertson also teaches that the vertical attachment (132) engages an interior of a circumference of the exhaust conduit (as is shown in Fig. 1A) (see at least [0042] and Figs. 1A).
Regarding Claim 8, Lambertson also teaches that the vertical attachment (132) extends transversely between opposed sides of the exhaust conduit (as is shown in Figs. 1A-1B) (see at least [0042] and Figs. 1A).
Regarding Claim 9, Lambertson also teaches that the heat transfer element (134) is a radiator adapted for automotive applications (Note that the limitation that the heat transfer element “is a radiator adapted for automotive applications” is being interpreted as an intended use of the claimed apparatus that a prior art apparatus must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In in the instant case, the heat transfer element (134) taught by Lambertson has radiator structure (the structure of at least element (134) as shown in Fig. 1B) that performs the same function of cooling/heating as a radiator adapted for automotive applications (via circulated fluid - see at least [0043] of and Figs. 1A-1B) and would therefore necessarily also be “adapted for automotive applications” since automotive applications require cooling/heating via circulated fluid (see at least [0043] of and Figs. 1A-1B). Thus, the heat transfer element (134) taught by Lambertson can perform the intended use as claimed accordingly is “a radiator adapted for automotive applications” as claimed.), the radiator having a single inlet (136) and a single outlet (138) (see at least [0043] of and Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding Claim 10, Lambertson also teaches of a plurality of heat transfer elements (individual conduits of element (134) as shown in Fig. 1B), the quantity of heat transfer elements being based on a size of the vent hood (as is evident from at least [0042]-[0044] and Figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding Claim 11, Lambertson also teaches of a serial connection between the plurality of heat transfer elements (the serial connections between each individual horizontal conduit of element (134) as shown in Fig. 1B), the serial connection defining a fluidic connection from the output of the respective heat transfer element to an input of a successive heat transfer element in the plurality of heat transfer elements (as is shown in Fig. 1B) (see at least [0042]-[0044] and Figs. 1A, 1B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use:
Gress et al. (US 2020/0232650 A1)
Kaupp (US 2015/0027667 A1)
Jacobs (US 2002/0189798 A1)
Jones (US 4,084,745)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 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, 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/14/2025
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762