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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4413348 A to Kapich in view of US 8869531 B2 to Held.
Regarding claim 1:
Kapich discloses:
An integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system (figure 1), comprising:
a nuclear power plant (12/14) including a nuclear reactor coolant (14);
a heat pump (24; column 2, lines 40-55) including a refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62) as a working fluid (fluid within circuit 24), the heat pump (24) integrated with the nuclear power plant (12/14) so as to be in at least thermal contact with the nuclear reactor coolant (14) (see figure 1 where the coolant in line 14 passes heat to the heat pump/refrigerant circuit 24 via heat exchanger 20); and
a process fluid (fluid within loop 34) configured to be heated by (heated at heat exchanger 36) the refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62), the heat pump (24) configured to raise a temperature of the refrigerant to a temperature that is higher than a temperature of the nuclear reactor coolant exiting a nuclear reactor prior to heating the process fluid (as shown in figure 1, the refrigerant within loop 24 between compressor 28 and heat exchanger 36 is 1460ºF which is greater than the exit temperature of the nuclear reactor 1350 ºF and prior to the refrigerant heating the process fluid in heat exchanger 36),
wherein the refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62) is either separate from the nuclear reactor coolant (14; is the case in this reference with the carbon dioxide within heat pump 24 is separate from the nuclear reactor coolant 14) or includes the nuclear reactor coolant.
Kapich fails to disclose:
Wherein the heat pump is configured such that the refrigerant is subject to a trans-critical cycle or sub-critical cycle.
Held teaches:
An integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system (figure 1) that includes a turbine (102), condenser (106), pump (108) and a heat exchanger (101). The heat exchanger or waste heat can be from a nuclear reactor (column 4, lines 1-10). Further, the system can be supercritical or a subcritical cycle (column 8, lines 28-51) that uses CO2 as the working fluid (column 7, lines 20-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapich to further include operating the heat pump in Kapich as a sub-critical cycle as taught by Held. This is a simple substitution of one known element (operational cycle of Kapich) for another (subcritical cycle of Held) to obtain predictable results (to utilize and transfer the waste heat of the nuclear reactor).
Regarding claim 3:
Kapich discloses:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the nuclear power plant (12/14) is configured such that the nuclear reactor coolant (14) is not utilized for mechanical work before coming in thermal contact (heat is transferred to the fluid circuit of the heat pump 24 before being transferred to the circuit 42 that includes the turbine 44/50 that utilizes the heat for mechanical work) with the heat pump (24).
Kapich and fails to disclose:
And electricity from another electricity source is used to drive the heat pump.
Held teaches:
A power plant system (figure 1; that can include a nuclear reactor; column 4, lines 1-10) that includes a turbine (102), generator (105), motor (110) and pump/compressor (108). The reference further teaches the pump/motor (110/108) can be powered with electricity from the generator (105) of the turbine (102) from another cycle (column 5, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapich to further include powering the heat pump 24/compressor 28 with a motor powered with electricity from the turbine 50/generator 52 as taught by Held. This is a simple substitution of one known element (powering the compressor 28 via the turbine 30 as taught by Held) for another (powering the compressor 28 with a motor powered by electricity from the generator 52 as taught by Held) to obtain predictable results (to compress the refrigerant within the heat pump 24).
Regarding claim 4:
Kapich discloses:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the nuclear power plant (12/14) is configured such that a minor fraction of the nuclear reactor coolant (14) is utilized for mechanical work to generate electricity (see figure 1 where only second portion/minor portion of the heat energy is absorbed by the heat exchanger 22 and sent to the steam turbines 15 or 44 to be utilized for mechanical work to generate electricity while another portion is absorbed that heat exchanger 20 and used as part of the heat pump), while a major fraction of the nuclear reactor coolant (14) is utilized for thermal work in connection with the heat pump (24)(see where the first portion/major portion of the heat in the coolant line 14 is used in heat exchanger 20 that sees as part of the heat pump 24).
Regarding claim 5:
Kapich discloses:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the heat pump (24) is configured to operate in an indirect cycle such that the refrigerant thermally interacts with the nuclear reactor coolant (14) without physical intermingling (see the heat exchanger 20 that allows for the heating to pass from the coolant in line 14 to the refrigerant and the circuit 24 without intermixed or without intermingling).
Regarding claim 15:
Kapich discloses:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the refrigerant is R-718 or carbon dioxide (fluid within circuit 24 can be carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4413348 A to Kapich and US 8869531 B2 to Held as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150069758 A1 to Davidson.
Regarding claim 2:
Kapich and Held fail to disclose:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the nuclear power plant is configured to generate electricity for driving the heat pump such that the nuclear reactor coolant passes through one or more turbines to generate the electricity before coming in thermal contact with the heat pump.
Davidson teaches:
A nuclear powered heat pump system (figure 1; ¶0047) that includes a nuclear reactor (16) and a coolant (coolant line A-H) that flows through turbines (40/42), compressors (12a-12c), heat rejection system and condenser (58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapich and Held to further include a turbines in the coolant line of Kapich as taught by Davidson in order to generate electricity/power (Davidson. ¶0044).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4413348 A to Kapich and US 8869531 B2 to Held as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2018050402 A1 to Husmann et al. (Husmann) (see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action).
Regarding claim 7:
Kapich discloses:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 1, wherein the nuclear power plant (12/14) and the heat pump (24) are configured such that the nuclear reactor coolant (14) thermally contacts the refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62) prior to (heat from the reactor coolant 14 is passed to the refrigerant via heat exchanger 20 before it is compressed in the compressor 28 as shown in figure 1) the refrigerant being subjected to a compression (28) to achieve an increased desired temperature (pressure increase in the refrigerant after the compressor 28 is released via heat exchanger 35).
Kapich and Held fail to disclose:
The refrigerant being subjected to a multi-stage compression to achieve an increased desired temperature.
Husmann teaches:
A power plant (figure 2) that includes a steam turbine (“TRB”) that is connected to heat pump with multi-stage compressors (ST1-ST3) that form a heat pump (MSC) with a plurality of intercoolers (QF1-QF3) between the stages of the compressor. Further, the heat from the compressor is transferred to a steam generator (PH1-PH3 and BOI) via the intercooler (PH1) that powers the steam turbine (“TRB”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapich to replace the compressor 28 in Kapich with a multistage compressor with intercoolers as taught by Husmann. Husmann teaches that single or multistage compressors can be used interchangeably (see page 2 ¶4 of the Husmann translation).
Regarding claim 8:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 7 by Kapich, Held and Husmann:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 7, wherein the heat pump (24 in Kapich) is configured such that the refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62 in Kapich) is subjected to intercooling (see the intercoolers of Husmann incorporated into Kapich) between stages of the multi-stage compression (see the multi-stage compressors of Husmann incorporated into Kapich).
Regarding claim 9:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 7 by Kapich, Held and Husmann:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 8, wherein the heat pump (24 in Kapich) is configured such that the intercooling (see the intercoolers of Husmann incorporated into Kapich) is performed with at least one of an intercooling heat exchanger (see the heat exchanger QF1-QF3 intercoolers of Husmann incorporated into Kapich) or a saturated vapor.
Regarding claim 10:
Kapich and Held fail to disclose:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 7, wherein the heat pump is configured such that the refrigerant with the increased desired temperature is supplied to a once-through steam generator (OTSG) to heat a process fluid for an industrial application.
Husmann teaches:
Further, the heat from the compressor is transferred to a steam generator (PH1-PH3 and BOI) via the intercooler (PH1) that powers the steam turbine (“TRB”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapich to attach the intercoolers incorporated in the claim 7 rejection above to a OTSG that further powers a steam turbine as Husmann in order to increase the amount of heat that can be recovered and therefore improve the efficiency of the system (page 2 ¶4 of the translation of Husmann).
Regarding claim 13:
All limitations of the claim are taught by the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 7 by Kapich, Held and Husmann:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 7, wherein the heat pump (24 in Kapich) is configured such that the refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62 in Kapich) with the increased desired temperature (increased via the multistage compressor of Husmann incorporated into Kapich) is applied to an industrial application (recovered fluid line 62/74 of Kapich) and afterwards is expanded using at least one of a turbine expander (refrigerant is expanded via 30 in figure of Kapich), an expansion valve, or a capillary tube.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4413348 A to Kapich and US 8869531 B2 to Held in view of WO 2018050402 A1 to Husmann et al. (Husmann) as applied to claim7 above, and further in view of US 6964168 B1 to Pierson et al. (Pierson).
Regarding claim 11:
Kapich discloses:
The integrated nuclear-powered heat pump system of claim 7, wherein the heat pump (24 of Kapich) is configured such that the refrigerant (carbon dioxide; column 2, lines 55-62) with the increased desired temperature (pressure increase in the refrigerant after the compressor 28 is released via heat exchanger 35) is applied to an industrial application (applied to an industrial application via heat exchanger 36 as shown in figure 1).
Kapich, Held and Husmann fail to disclose:
The increased desired temperature is applied to an industrial application and afterwards is expanded to yield a saturated liquid and a saturated vapor that is separated from the saturated liquid.
Pierson teaches:
A power plant (figure 1A) that includes a turbine (19), a condenser (22), a pump/compressor (24) and heat exchanger (17) with a separator/demister (18) arranged before the turbine (19). The separator prevents liquid from entering the turbine (column 4, lines 55-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kapich, Held and Husmann to include a separator arranged between the compressor/heat exchanger (24/36) and turbine (30) in Kapich as taught by Pierson in order to prevent liquid from entering the turbine and prevent damage to the turbine (Kapich, column 4, lines 55-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 6, 14, 16 and 18-21 is/are allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the heat pump is configured to operate in a direct cycle such that the nuclear reactor coolant from the nuclear power plant is utilized directly as the refrigerant in the heat pump” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 6; and
the prior art of record does not teach ““performing a compression of the refrigerant in the heat pump using electricity generated by the nuclear power plant so as to achieve an increased desired temperature for the refrigerant relative to a temperature of the nuclear reactor coolant exiting a nuclear reactor” and “wherein the integrating includes the heat pump being configured to operate in a direct cycle such that the nuclear reactor coolant from the nuclear power plant is utilized directly as the refrigerant in the heat pump”” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 16.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1:
The applicant has provided several arguments as to why the previous rejection is improper however the office is not persuaded.
First, the applicant argues that it is not clear what is being substituted from the Held reference to the Kapich reference and for this reason the rejection is improper (see page 9 of the remarks). The office disagrees with this assertion. First, all of the structure required by the claim is taught by the Kapich reference and the only different between the Kapich reference and the claim is that it is not explicitly mentioned that the refrigerant cycle is a trans-critical or sub-critical cycle. Held was relied upon to teach that these cycles (such as the cycle in Kapich) can be operated as a trans-critical or sub-critical cycle as required by the claim. For this reason alone it modifies the rejection to read on the claim. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what modification would need to be made to the Kapich reference to operate in this manner (trans-critical or sub-critical cycle) including different working fluid and different structures (turbines, condensers and heat exchangers for example). For this reasons, the applicant’s arguments that because the combination does not explicitly layout off the structures that would have to be changed in order for the modification to be valid are not persuasive.
Second, the applicant has argued that the combination is improper because the cycle of Held operates at a different temperature then the cycle of Kapich (see page 11 of the remarks). However, this argument is not persuasive since the Held reference indicates that the cycle can be used for the same type of systems as used by Kapich. As indicated above, the Held reference indicates that the trans-critical or sub-critical cycle can be connected to a nuclear reactor (Held, column 4, lines 1-10) so the applicant’s argument that the system can not operate of the amount of heat supplied by the nuclear reactor in Kapich and as required by the claim is incorrect. With the modification of Held, the system would work in the manner described by the claim and within the structure of Kapich and for this reason would read on the claim.
Third, regarding the applicant’s argument that the modification by held would not have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art (see page 12 of the remarks), the office is not persuaded by this argument since the Held reference teaches using trans-critical or sub-critical cycles in combination with nuclear reactors.
Fourth, the applicant has argued that the temperature used in the Held system do not correspond to the temperatures for the working fluids used in the Kapich system. However, the office is not persuaded by this argument (see page 12 of the remarks). Specifically, the applicant argues that the working fluid in Held is not directed to systems where the boiling point of the working fluid is 600ºF. While the reference does indicate this (Held, column 1, lines 45-55) it also indicates that the working fluid in the Held reference is capable of operating at higher temperatures such as 500ºC as shown in figure 2 in the fluid line downstream of the heat exchanger 101. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments that the system in Held is not capable of working at the temperatures of Kapich is incorrect. For this reason, the above rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 15:
The applicant has argued that the CO2 working fluid taught by Kapich is not capable of working at a trans critical conditions. However, the secondary reference Held discloses that the working fluid in its system can be CO2 (Held, column 7, lines 20-26) and that this system is capable of operating as a trans-critical or sub-critical cycle (as indicated above). for this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. For this reason, the above rejection is maintained.
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 WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783