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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 19 October 2023 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Britain on 19 February 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the British application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 110 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 110 recites the limitation "machine learning capability" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a computer of some kind is necessary for machine learning capability. However, the system of claims 110 and it’s parent claim, claim 10, do not include a computer as part of the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-12, 15, 63, 66, 74, 80, 96, 98-99, 103, 105 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirson et al. (US 2012/0291436 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Hirson teaches “an energy cell (throughout reference) comprising: a chamber (10) for receiving a working fluid (gas from 80, liquid from 91) and having at least one inlet (16, 19) and outlet (18) to allow working fluid(s) to flow through the chamber (paragraphs 28, 29, 34); at least one electrode (electrodes of torches 15, 17 such as 310, 312 of exemplary torch 350) within the chamber (see Fig. 1) to apply electrical energy to the working fluid to generate plasma therein (paragraph 16); a fluid circulation system (80, 91) for circulating working fluid through the chamber (paragraphs 28-29); and a work extraction system (20+100) for extracting work from fluid output from the chamber (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 4: Hirson teaches “the energy cell of claim 1 (see above), wherein a body (310 or 312) of the chamber is a cathode or anode (paragraph 48)”.
With respect to claim 7: Hirson teaches “wherein the work extraction system comprises an engine (20) for converting thermal energy to provide motive power (paragraph 35) or to drive an electrical generator (100)”.
With respect to claim 8: Hirson teaches “wherein the work extraction system comprises a heat exchanger (paragraph 34)”.
With respect to claim 10: Hirson teaches “an energy cell system (throughout reference) comprising: a chamber (10) for receiving a working fluid (gas from 80, liquid from 91) and having at least one inlet (16, 19); at least one electrode (electrodes of torches 15, 17 such as 310, 312 of exemplary torch 350) within the chamber (see Fig. 1) to apply electrical energy to the working fluid to generate plasma therein (paragraph 16); a fluid supply for supplying working fluid through at least one inlet (80, 91); an outlet for exhausting plasma and working fluid (18): an expansion chamber (20) in fluid communication with the outlet (see Fig. 3); and a work extraction system (100) associated with the expansion chamber (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 11: Hirson teaches “the energy cell system of claim 10 (see above), wherein the expansion chamber is a chamber or cylinder of an engine (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 12: Hirson teaches “the energy cell system of claim 11 (see above), wherein the engine comprises further inlets (26) for introducing fuel into the expansion chamber (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 15: Hirson teaches “a power plant (throughout reference) comprising: a plasma chamber (10) for receiving a working fluid (gas from 80, liquid from 91) and having at least one inlet (16, 19) and outlet (18) to allow working fluid to flow through the chamber (see Fig. 1); at least one electrode (electrodes of torches 15, 17 such as 310, 312 of exemplary torch 350) within the chamber to apply electrical energy to the working fluid to generate plasma therein (paragraph 16), and; a fluid circulation system (80, 91) for circulating working fluid through the chamber (paragraphs 28-29); and a closed cycle heat exchange system (20+100) comprising a steam generator (20) coupled to the plasma chamber to use energy from the chamber to generate steam (paragraph 35), that is fed into a heat engine (100) to convert the heat into torque and a steam powered electrical generator (paragraph 35)”.
With respect to claim 63: Hirson teaches “the energy cell system according to claim 10, comprising more than one energy cell (10, 11) in either series (see Fig. 1) or parallel”.
With respect to claim 66: Hirson teaches “the energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), comprising more than one energy cell (10, 110) and incorporating manual or remote-controlled variable speed fluid pump(s) and or a compressed reservoir(s) of fluids (80) with a manual or remote-controlled variable pressure release valve(s) (71, 74, 75) that have a pressure sensor (61) and or a flow meter before the fluids are introduced into the energy cell (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 74: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), wherein one or more than one fluid is introduced independently or together and at the same or different quantities and velocities (paragraphs 28-29)”.
With respect to claim 80: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system comprising the energy cell according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a measuring and dosing mechanism for electrolytes, catalysts and working fluids (see Fig. 4 step 415)”.
With respect to claim 96: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), comprising manual (paragraphs 29, 58) or remote-controlled (paragraphs 29, 58) dosing unit(s) (71, 93) before the fluids are introduced into the energy cell (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 98: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a gas damper (80) in the form of a cylinder filled with a gas (paragraph 28) connected to the high pressure working fluids circuit (see Fig. 1) before the working fluids enter the energy cell (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 99: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a gas absorption type heat exchanger (20) connected to either the working fluids circuit or other thermal transfer fluids circuit (see Fig. 1)”.
With respect to claim 103: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a security function for disabling the energy cell from inappropriate access or operations (paragraph 40)”.
With respect to claim 105: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above), comprising measuring instruments such as flow meters, thermocouples, antenna, working fluid dielectric sensors, optical sensors (paragraph 37)”.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 17, 56, 88, 90, 93-94, 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leonov et al. (US 2023/0017324 A1).
With respect to claim 1: Leonov teaches “an energy cell (700/800) comprising: a chamber (704/804) for receiving a working fluid (702/802) and having at least one inlet (see Figs. 7, 8) and outlet (see Figs. 7, 8) to allow working fluid(s) to flow through the chamber (see Figs. 7, 8); at least one electrode (708/808, 710/810, and 716/816) within the chamber (see Figs. 7, 8) to apply electrical energy to the working fluid to generate plasma therein (723/823); a fluid circulation system (728+729+730+731+734+737+738) for circulating working fluid through the chamber (see Figs. 7, 8); and a work extraction system (736+737) for extracting work from fluid output from the chamber (paragraph 24)”.
With respect to claim 3: Leonov teaches “the energy cell of claim 1 (see above), wherein the at least one electrode comprises a cathode (708/808), an anode (710/810), and a stabilizing electrode (716/816)”.
With respect to claim 10: Leonov teaches “an energy cell system (700/800) comprising: a chamber (704/804) for receiving a working fluid (702/802) and having at least one inlet (see Figs. 7, 8); at least one electrode (708/808, 710/810, 716/816) within the chamber (see Figs. 7, 8) to apply electrical energy to the working fluid to generate plasma therein (723/823); a fluid supply for supplying working fluid through at least one inlet (734); an outlet for exhausting plasma and working fluid (see Fig. 7, 8): an expansion chamber (736) in fluid communication with the outlet (see Figs. 7, 8); and a work extraction system (736+737) associated with the expansion chamber (see Figs. 7, 8)”.
With respect to claim 17: Leonov teaches “The energy cell according to Claim 3 (see above), wherein the cathode comprises a pressure fitting (hole in which 712/812 are inserted) to fasten the cathode to the energy cell case (see Figs. 7, 8), an insulator (712/812) and a conducting material (708/808) fused together (paragraphs 62/74) using an organic sealant, a glass (paragraphs 61/73) or metal material (paragraph 40)”.
With respect to claim 56: Leonov teaches “The energy cell according to Claim 1 (see above), wherein a body of the energy cell is made from less than three parts (paragraphs 61, 73) and one of the parts (706/806) is made from a dielectric material (paragraphs 61, 73)”.
With respect to claim 88: Leonov teaches “The energy cell system comprising the energy cell according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a DC power source (714/814) with a with a driver (paragraph 66), a pulse shaper (paragraph 68) and a pulse generator capacitor (826) and or tesla type coil”.
With respect to claim 90: Leonov teaches “The energy cell system comprising the energy cell according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a high voltage DC power source (714/814) and a pulse generator to supply a high voltage DC current with pulses and or intermittent pulsing (paragraph 68)”.
With respect to claim 93: Leonov teaches “The energy cell system comprising the energy cell according to claim 10 (see above), comprising a DC plasma generator (714/814+720/820+pulsed supply voltage described in paragraphs 68/80) that can control the current (paragraphs 68/80), voltage (paragraph 68/80), ampage (paragraph 68/80), the frequency of pulses (paragraphs 63/75) as well as intermittent pulsing (paragraphs 68/80)”.
With respect to claim 94: Leonov teaches “The energy cell system comprising the energy cell according to claim 10 (see above), comprising an automatic feed- back loop controlling the input electrical signal matched to the output frequency of light and or electromagnetic radiation from the energy cell (paragraphs 67/79)”.
With respect to claim 109: Leonov teaches “The energy cell system comprising the energy cell according to claim 10 (see above), that manually or automatically controls the voltage, ampage, frequency, pulse form and gap between pulses (paragraphs 68/80) of the electrical inputs into the energy cell based on the information from the optical and / or electromagnetic sensors (paragraph 18; the phrase “when a need for stabilization is detected” implies sensors to do the detecting)”.
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 (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.
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 13, 52, 75, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Vincent et al. (US 3039446).
With respect to claim 13: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system of claim 10 (see above), wherein the energy cell is a modular unit (paragraph 43)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach that the energy cell can be fitted to an engine in place of a conventional spark plug.
However, Vincent teaches an engine (10) in which an energy cell (23) is used as ignition for the engine (column 2 lines 13-27).
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the energy cell system of Hirson as an ignition device analogous to a spark plug in an engine as Vincent teaches due to the art recognized suitability for igniting the fuel in the engine (Vincent column 1 lines 30-33).
With respect to claim 52: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system of claim 1 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “wherein a body of the energy cell has one or more optically transparent and or electromagnetically transparent window(s) with a photosensitive and or electromagnetic sensor”.
However, Vincent teaches “wherein a body of the energy cell has one or more optically transparent and or electromagnetically transparent window(s) (column 2 line 56) with a photosensitive and or electromagnetic sensor (column 2 line 56)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the window and sensor taught by Vincent in order to detect ignition of the plasma (Vincent column 2 lines 56-57).
With respect to claim 75: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system of claim 10 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “incorporating a vortex generator before the energy cell or within the body of the energy cell, that creates a vortex before the working fluid are introduced into the energy cell chamber”.
However, Vincent teaches “incorporating a vortex generator (24) before the energy cell or within the body of the energy cell (see Fig. 4), that creates a vortex before the working fluid are introduced into the energy cell chamber (column 2 lines 13-27)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the vortex generator of Vincent in order to improve the performance of the associated engine (Vincent column 2 lines 69-71).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of Perry et al. (US 2013/0257199 A1).
With respect to claim 25: Hirson teaches “The energy cell according to claim 3 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “wherein the cathode comprises an independent fluid cooling circuit”.
However, Perry teaches “wherein the cathode (66) comprises an independent fluid cooling circuit (108)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the cathode cooling circuit of Perry in order to maintain the cell at a desired temperature (Perry paragraph 35).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonov as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mills (US 2010/0209311 A1).
With respect to claim 31: Leonov teaches “The energy cell according to claim 3 (see above)”.
Leonov does not specifically teach “wherein an electrical conductor of the cathode comprises an end component that contains elements that when eroded become a catalyst”.
However, Mills teaches “wherein an electrical conductor of the cathode comprises an end component that contains elements that when eroded become a catalyst (paragraph 74)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Leonov by using the cathode as a catalyst source as taught by Mills due to the art recognized suitability of the cathode for that purpose (Mills paragraph 74).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh (US 20060037606 A1).
With respect to claim 50: Hirson teaches “The energy cell according to claim 1 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “wherein a body of the energy cell has an outer layer that is an antenna”.
However, Singh teaches “wherein a body of the energy cell has an outer layer that is an antenna (paragraph 9)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson by using it as an antenna as taught by Singh in order to collect electromagnetic radiation (Singh paragraph 9).
Claim 104 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wobben (US 2005/0127855 A1).
With respect to claim 104: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “comprising a mechanism for measuring the energy inputs and outputs incorporated into a billing system”.
However, Wobben teaches “comprising a mechanism for measuring the energy inputs and outputs incorporated into a billing system (Wobben claim 12)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the measuring and billing mechanism taught by Wobben in order to accurately charge the user for the energy used (Wobben paragraph 49).
Claim 107 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mills (US 20190372449 A1), hereinafter Mills II.
With respect to claim 107: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “comprising a fibre optic link to communicate information from the sensors”.
However, Mills II teaches “comprising a fibre optic link to communicate information from the sensors (paragraph 641)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the fibre optic sensor taught by Mills II in order to measure the temperature of the plasma (Mills II paragraph 641).
Claim 110 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Couture et al. (US 2021/0319152 A1).
With respect to claim 110: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “comprising machine learning capability to optimize operating conditions of the system”.
However, Couture teaches “comprising machine learning capability to optimize operating conditions of the system (paragraph 156)”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the machine learning taught by Couture in order to improve efficiency and optimize lifetime of the system (Couture paragraphs 156-157).
Claim 113 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lanier et al. (US 2007/0001826 A1).
With respect to claim 113: Hirson teaches “The energy cell system according to claim 10 (see above)”.
Hirson does not specifically teach “comprising coded security access to prevent unauthorized operation, wherein the coded access security is numerical or a form of a bio signature”.
However, Lanier teaches “comprising coded security access (10) to prevent unauthorized operation (abstract), wherein the coded access security is numerical (see Fig. 3) or a form of a bio signature”.
It would have been obvious at the time the application was effectively filed for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell system of Hirson with the coded access taught by Lanier in order to prevent unauthorized people from using devices powered by the energy cell (Lanier paragraph 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hatsopoulos et al. (US 3215869), which teaches a plasma jet engine.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5721. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 EST M-F.
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, ABDULMAJEED AZIZ can be reached at (571)270-5046. 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.
/NATHANIEL J LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/ABDULMAJEED AZIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights