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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appear to be the corresponding structures for the aforementioned 112(f) limitation(s):
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a cooling member in claim 11. For purposes of examination: this term is interpreted as a heat exchanger (Applicant Specification Publication [0007]) and its equivalents.
a heating member in claim 11. For purpose of examination: interpreted as a heat exchanger (Applicant Specification Publication [0041-42]) and its equivalents.
The aforementioned limitation meets the three-prong test outlined herein since:
(A) the term “device” is a generic placeholder,
(B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (e.g. “cooling or heating”), and
(C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structures, material or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 20-21 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.
In re Claim 16, The term “substantially identical rotational speed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially identical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what the boundaries are that would make the rotational speed substantially identical. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as any rotational speed.
In re Claim 20 and 21 , the claim recites the limitation "the mechanism" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: in order to expedite prosecution, this phrase/term is interpreted as the compression mechanism.
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 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.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 20200292211 A1) in view of Durand et al (US 20100263405 A1).
In re Claim 11, Saito discloses a device for refrigerating and/or liquefying (Fig. 1) a fluid selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, helium, and combinations thereof ([0015]: hydrogen gas),
the device comprising:
a circuit for fluid (See Fig. 1) to be cooled having
an upstream end (1) configured to be connected to a source of fluid ([0015]) and
a downstream end (16; See [0019]) configured to be connected to a member for collecting the fluid ([0019]: storage tank);
a set of heat exchanger(s) in heat exchange (FIG. 1; See [0021]: heat exchangers 81-86) with the circuit for fluid (See Fig. 1) to be cooled;
at least a first cooling system (at least 3) in heat exchange with at least part of the set of heat exchanger(s) (at least 82),
the first cooling system (3) being a refrigerator ([0021]: cooler, i.e., refrigerator) that performs a refrigeration cycle (100) on a cycle gas ([0015]: process gas),
wherein said refrigerator ([0021]) comprises the following, disposed in series in a cycle circuit (See Fig. 1 and the complete circuit of 3):
a compression mechanism (Fig. 1: 32 and 33) configured to compress the cycle gas (necessarily compresses cycle gas),
at least one cooling member (Fig. 1: 73) configured to cool the cycle gas (necessarily expands cycle gas),
an expansion mechanism (Fig. 1: 37 and 38) configured to expand the cycle gas (necessarily expands cycle gas), and
at least one heating member (Fig. 1: 42) configured to heat the expanded cycle gas (necessarily discloses heating cycle gas),
wherein the compression mechanism (32/33) comprises a plurality of compression stages in series (See Fig. 1: stages of 32 and 33 are a plurality of stages in series)
wherein the compression stages (31/32) are mounted on shafts (See Fig. 1 shafts of 31/32) that are driven in rotation by a set of motor(s) (See Fig. 1: rotation motors of 33 and 32),
wherein the expansion mechanism (37/38) comprises at least one expansion stage (at least 37) composed of a set of centripetal turbine(s) (See Fig. 2 and [0027]) having a determined working pressure ([0031]) at the inlet (377), and
wherein the turbine (38) is coupled to the same shaft (coupled via 31M) as at least one compression stage (32) so as to provide the mechanical work produced during the expansion to the compression stage (See Fig. 2 and [0036]),
However, Saito is silent on a set of centrifugal impeller compressors.
On the other hand, Durant teaches a set of centrifugal impeller compressors ([0051]) with direct coupling to centripetal turbines (Fig. 1: 9, 11, 13 and [0053] and [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Saito and to have modified them by a set of centrifugal impeller compressors coupled to a set of centripetal turbines, in order to an increase in the total energy efficiency of the refrigerator and maintain the purity of the working gas (See Durand [0060]), without yielding unpredictable results.
Modified Saito does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one turbine and the corresponding compression stage that are coupled are structurally configured such that the pressure of the cycle gas exiting the turbine differs by no more than 40% from the pressure of the cycle gas at the inlet of the compression stage, and wherein the at least one turbine and the corresponding compression stage that are coupled are structurally configured such that the pressure of the cycle gas entering the turbine differs by no more than 40% from the pressure of the cycle gas at the outlet of the compression stage, and wherein the expansion rate across the at least one turbine coupled to a compression stage is configured to produce a drop in pressure of the cycle gas, the value of which differs by no more than 40% from the value of the increase in pressure across the compression stage to which said turbine is coupled.
However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Also, the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. Since modified Saito discloses multiple compressors connected in series and their respective turbines, coupled on the same shaft, each point in the gas cycle having a particular pressure. Therefore, the ratio of the gas entering the turbine to the pressure of the gas entering the compressor and the ratio of gas exiting the turbine and entering the compressor is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the smaller ratio requires less work and thus improves the efficiency. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the compressors are connected in series with their respective turbine expanders, were disclosed in the prior art by modified Saito, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pressure at turbine inlet and turbine outlet at a value not more than 40% less than at the compressor inlet disclosed by modified Saito in order to improve the efficiency of the system.
In re Claim 12, modified Saito teaches wherein the expansion mechanism (37/38) comprises
at least two expansion stages in series (37/38) that are composed of a set of centripetal turbines in series (Durand 9, 11, 13), and in that, in the direction of circulation of the cycle gas (Saito Fig. 1 direction of 1),
at least two turbines in series (37/38 and See Durand [0060]) are coupled respectively to compression stages considered in the reverse order of their disposition in series (See Durand [0060]),
that is to say that at least one turbine is coupled to a compression stage situated upstream of a compression stage coupled to another turbine which precedes it in the cycle circuit (See Durand [0060]).
In re Claim 13, modified Saito teaches wherein the compression mechanism (Saito 32/33) comprises solely centrifugal compressors (Durand [0051]).
In re Claim 14, Modified Saito teaches wherein the expansion mechanism (Saito 37/38) comprises solely centripetal turbines (Saito [0027]).
In re Claim 15, Modified Saito does not explicitly teach the device comprises n turbines and k compressors, n and k being integers such that k is greater than or equal to n.
However, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, increasing the number of compression stages and turbines increases the capacity of the system.
In re Claim 16, modified Saito teaches wherein the mechanical coupling of the at least one turbine and of the compression stage to one and the same shaft (Durand [0060]) is configured to ensure an identical or substantially identical rotational speed of the turbine and of the compression stages that are coupled.1
In re Claim 17, Modified Saito does not explicitly teach wherein the device comprises sixteen compression stages and eight turbines, or twelve compression stages and six turbines, or eight compression stages and four turbines, or six compression stages and three turbines, or four compression stages and three turbines, or three compression stages and two or three turbines, or two compression stages and one or two turbines.
However, a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, increasing the number of compression stages and turbines increases the capacity of the system.
In re Claim 18, Modified Saito teaches wherein the set of heat exchanger(s) (Saito 81-86) comprises at least one heat exchanger (81) in which two separate portions of the cycle circuit (70 and 1) under separate thermodynamic conditions perform circulation simultaneously in countercurrent operation for the cooling and the heating of the cycle gas (1)|(See Saito Fig. 1 and [0017]: concurrent cooling and heating of cycle gas using material gas and liquefied cooling medium), respectively.
In re Claim 19, Modified Saito teaches further comprising a second cooling system (Fig. 1: 70) in heat exchange (Saito [0017]) with at least part of the set of heat exchanger(s) (Saito 81), said second cooling system (70) comprising a circuit for heat transfer fluid such as liquid nitrogen (See Saito Fig. 1: liquid nitrogen).
In re Claim 20, Modified Saito teaches a process for producing hydrogen at cryogenic temperature (Saito Fig. 1), notably liquefied hydrogen (Saito [0015] and [0019]), using the device as claimed in Claim 11, the process comprising the step of setting the pressure of the cycle gas at the inlet of the mechanism compressing the cycle gas to be between two and forty bar abs.2
In re Claim 21, Modified Saito teaches the process for producing hydrogen at cryogenic temperature (Saito [0015] and [0019]) as claimed in Claim 20, wherein the pressure of the cycle gas at the inlet of the mechanism is between eight and thirty five bar abs.3
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "configured to ensure an identical or substantially identical rotational speed of the turbine and of the compression stages that are coupled” recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The modified prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
2 The recitation of "using the device as claimed in Claim 11, the process comprising the step of setting the pressure of the cycle gas at the inlet of the mechanism compressing the cycle gas to be between two and forty bar abs.” recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The modified prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
3 The recitation of "wherein the pressure of the cycle gas at the inlet of the mechanism is between eight and thirty five bar abs” recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use in view of the dependency of Claim 21 on Claim 20. The modified prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).