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.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a MVR subsystem” and “a heat subsystem” in claims 1 and 15.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 9, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funk (US 4,392,877).
Regarding claim 9, Funk teaches a system and method of use of the system that comprises a mechanical vapor compression subsystem (fractionator 11 and surge tank 15 and compressor 18) arranged to receive a liquid (feed 12) and arranged to produce compressed vapor (24) from said liquid and to heat the liquid being received (via line 27 reboiler heat exchanger 28), wherein the MVR-subsystem is arranged as a closed vapor MVR-subsystem arranged to reuse the produced vapor (the compressed vapor is reused in the evaporator to heat the liquid by heat exchange therein), whereby the energy system comprises a heat subsystem (heat exchanger 31 and/or heat exchanger 44) connected to said MVR-subsystem and arranged to use a portion of said compressed vapor (flow in line 29 in heat exchanger 31) and/or at least a portion of said liquid being heated (in heat exchanger 44) to produce energy (Fig 1, C3:L54-C4:L46).
Regarding claim 11-12, Funk as set forth above teaches heat exchanger 31 in branched portion (line 29) from compressor 18 and the exchange is broadly considered direct as it is a heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 13, Funk teaches the system is for liquid purification via fractionation (“OVERHEAD PRODUCT” and “BOTTOM PRODUCT” are recovered Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Funk teaches a system and method of use of the system that comprises a mechanical vapor compression subsystem (fractionator 11 and surge tank 15 and compressor 18) arranged to receive a liquid (feed 12) and arranged to produce compressed vapor (24) from said liquid and to heat the liquid being received (via reboiler heat exchanger 28), wherein the MVR-subsystem is arranged as a closed vapor MVR-subsystem arranged to reuse the produced vapor (the compressed vapor is reused in the evaporator to heat the liquid by heat exchange therein), whereby the energy system comprises a heat subsystem (heat exchanger 31 and/or heat exchanger 44) connected to said MVR-subsystem and arranged to use a portion of said compressed vapor (flow 29 in heat exchanger 31) and/or at least a portion of said liquid being heated (in heat exchanger 44) to produce energy (Fig 1, C3:L54-C4:L46).
Regarding claim 17-18, Funk as set forth above teaches heat exchanger 31 in branched portion (line 29) from compressor 18 and the exchange is broadly considered direct as it is a heat exchanger.
Claim(s) 9, 11-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keith (US 5,587,054).
Regarding claim 9, Keith teaches a system and method of use of the system that comprises a mechanical vapor compression subsystem (heat exchanger 7 has boiling chamber 6, condensing chamber 8, vapor compressor 15 that returns superheated steam to condenser vapor port 16 to condense the vapor and evaporate incoming degassed feed into feed port 5 of boiling chamber 6, wherein the MVR-subsystem is arranged as a closed loop vapor MVR-subsystem arranged to reuse the produced vapor (vapor compressor 15 compressor vapor generated in boiling chamber 6 and returns superheated steam to condenser vapor port 16 of condensing chamber 8), wherein the energy system comprises a heat subsystem connected to said MVR- subsystem and arranged to use a branched portion of said compressed vapor to produce heat energy (Fig 1, see outlet of compressor 15 to inlet 22 of feed stripper 1 that exchanges heat with incoming feed in 2 via direct contact counter flow heat exchange/mass transfer with ) (See Figs 1-2, C2:L26-68).
Regarding claims 11-12, in Keith the feed stripper exchanges heat with incoming feed in 2 via direct contact counter flow heat exchange/mass transfer via a directly branched removed portion of superheated steam from compressor outlet to vapor inlet 22 (Fig 1).
Regarding claims 13-14 the MVR subsystem of Keith is an MVR feed water desalination subsystem (title, abstract Fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Keith teaches a system and method of use of the system that comprises a mechanical vapor compression subsystem (heat exchanger 7 has boiling chamber 6, condensing chamber 8, vapor compressor 15 that returns superheated steam to condenser vapor port 16 to condense the vapor and evaporate incoming degassed feed into feed port 5 of boiling chamber 6, wherein the MVR-subsystem is arranged as a closed loop vapor MVR-subsystem arranged to reuse the produced vapor (vapor compressor 15 compressor vapor generated in boiling chamber 6 and returns superheated steam to condenser vapor port 16 of condensing chamber 8), wherein the energy system comprises a heat subsystem connected to said MVR- subsystem and arranged to use a branched portion of said compressed vapor to produce heat energy (Fig 1, see outlet of compressor 15, to feed stripper 1 that exchanges heat with incoming feed in 2 via direct contact counter flow heat exchange/mass transfer) (See Figs 1-2, C2:L26-68)
Regarding claims 17-18, in Keith the feed stripper exchanges heat with incoming feed in 2 via direct contact counter flow heat exchange/mass transfer via a directly branched removed portion of superheated steam from compressor outlet to vapor inlet 22 (Fig 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of Funk (US 4,392,877) and/or Keith (US 5,587,054) as applied above and further in combination with Frederiksen (US 6,321,552).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Funk and Keith teaches all limitations as set forth above, however do not teach wherein the heat energy is at least one of district heat, heating of buildings or heat energy storage.
Frederiksen teaches a waste heat recovery system that provides cooling to a combustion engine 1,2 that has exhaust heat recovery exchanger 3 connected with heat driven chiller 4 in which cooling can be extracted from the recovered heat energy (see title, abstract), the system may be applied to a district heating system (C1:L22-27;30-62), and the energy is recovered in the loop 4 for building human comfort (see Fig 1, C1:L65-C2:L32), and the system may be used for useful heating with heating and/or cooling storage capacity (see claims 1, 15 and 21).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further utilize heat from the compressor in either of Funk and/or Keith to recover waste heat from the compressor as substantially taught by Frederiksen to utilize the compressor engine excess exhaust heat as taught by Frederiksen for useful heating and/or cooling storage as well as building HVAC purposes to thereby have a more efficient use of energy in both Funk and Keith.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Arcari (US 3,493,468) teaches vapor compression distillation. Railey (US 5,766,412) teaches vapor compression distillation. Schleiffarth (US 6,365,005, etc) teaches vapor compression distillation. Fernando (US 11,221,161) teaches combined heat pump vapor compression system. Crawford et al (US 2022/0016542, etc) teaches vapor compression distillation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772