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 Amendments
The amendments filed on March 17, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Lifson et al. (US 20100077777 A1), herein Lifson.
As per claim 1, Lifson discloses a closed-loop, transcritical, recuperated heat pump cycle (10; figs. 1-4; see at least first sentence of ¶ 21), comprising:
a heat transfer source (40);
a heat transfer target (30);
a working fluid (represented by arrows); and
a working fluid circuit (70) transferring heat from the heat transfer source (40) to the heat transfer target (30) via the working fluid (evident from at least fig. 1), the working fluid circuit including:
a recuperator (60); and
a fluid expansion process (50, 70F, 74, 80, etc.) that bypasses a portion of the working fluid (via 50, 70F, 70E, etc.) around the recuperator (60) to optimize1 the exergetic efficiency of the recuperator (60), thereby improving the coefficient of performance of the heat pump (of figs. 1-4) for applications in which heat is transferred from the heat transfer source (40) to the heat transfer target (30) over a limited temperature range (e.g., the range between the lowest temperature at 40 and the highest temperature at 30).
As per claim 2, Lifson discloses wherein the fluid expansion process (50, 70F, 74, 80, etc.) includes a first expansion device (50 combined with 70F) and a second expansion device (80 combined with 74).
As per claim 3, Lifson discloses wherein the fluid expansion process (50, 70F, 74, 80, etc.) further includes a respective flow control valve (50, per se, and 74) for each of the first expansion device (50 combined with 70F) and the second expansion device (80 combined with 74).
As per claim 4, Lifson discloses a working fluid that, when the heat pump cycle (10) is operating, circulates through the working fluid circuit (as evidenced by the arrows in figs. 1-4).
As per claim 5, Lifson discloses wherein the working fluid is Carbon dioxide (CO2; see ¶ 21).
As per claim 7, Lifson discloses a programmed control system (90).
As per claim 8, Lifson discloses a compression process (20A, 20B), the compression process including a plurality of compression stages (20A and 20B) with steam generation after each stage (e.g., by generating supercritical refrigerant vapor; see at least ¶ 23).
As per claim 9, Lifson discloses a method for generating steam (e.g., by evaporation inside 40), comprising:
circulating a working fluid (see arrows) through a working fluid circuit (70) of a closed-loop, transcritical, recuperated heat pump cycle (10), the heat pump cycle (10) including a fluid expansion process (50, 80, etc.) and a recuperator (60); and
bypassing a portion of the working fluid (via 50) during the fluid expansion process around the recuperator (60) to optimize2 the exergetic efficiency of the recuperator (60) and improving the coefficient of performance of the heat pump (10) for applications in which heat is transferred from the heat transfer source (40) to the heat transfer target (30) over a limited temperature range (e.g., the range between the lowest temperature at 40 and the highest temperature at 30).
As per claim 10, Lifson discloses wherein circulating the working fluid through the working fluid circuit includes circulating Carbon dioxide (CO2; see ¶ 21) through the working fluid circuit (70; see arrows).
As per claim 12, Lifson discloses controlling the method through a programmed control system (90).
As per claim 13, Lifson discloses a heat pump system (10), comprising:
a heat transfer source (40);
a heat transfer target (30);
a working fluid (see arrows); and
a working fluid circuit (70) through which, when the heat pump system (10) is operating, the working fluid circulates (as evidenced by the arrows), the working fluid circuit (70) including:
a recuperator (60) disposed on:
a first flow path (62) between3 a heat transfer source (40) and a steam generation process (80); and
a second flow path (64) between4 the steam generation process (80) and the heat transfer source (40), the second flow path including a fluid expansion process (50) that bypasses a portion of the working fluid around the recuperator (60) to optimize5 the exergetic efficiency of the recuperator (60), thereby improving the coefficient of performance of the heat pump (10) for applications in which heat is transferred from the heat transfer source (40) to the heat transfer target (30) over a limited temperature range (e.g., the range between the lowest temperature at 40 and the highest temperature at 30).
As per claim 14, Lifson discloses wherein the heat transfer source (40) includes heat from an ambient atmosphere (as evidenced by fan 42).
As per claim 16, Lifson discloses a compression process (20), the compression process including a plurality of compression stages (20A and 20B) with steam generation after each stage (e.g., by generating supercritical refrigerant vapor; see at least ¶ 23).
As per claim 17, Lifson discloses closed-loop, transcritical, recuperated heat pump cycle (10) that includes a fluid expansion process (50, 80, etc.) that bypasses a portion of a working fluid (via 50) around a recuperator (60) to optimize6 the exergetic efficiency of the recuperator (60), thereby improving the coefficient of performance of the heat pump (10) for applications in which heat is transferred to the target over a limited temperature range (e.g., the range between the lowest temperature at 40 and the highest temperature at 30).
As per claim 18, Lifson discloses wherein the closed-loop, transcritical, recuperated heat pump cycle (10) comprises: a heat transfer source (40); a heat transfer target (30); a working fluid (see arrows); and a working fluid circuit (70) transferring heat from the heat transfer source (40) to the heat transfer target (30) via the working fluid (evident from at least fig. 1), the working fluid circuit (70) including: the recuperator (60); and the fluid expansion process (50, 80, etc.).
As per claim 19, Lifson discloses, wherein the fluid expansion process (50, 80, etc.) includes a first expansion device (50) and a second expansion device (80).
As per claim 20, Lifson discloses a working fluid that, when the heat pump cycle (10) is operating (as evidenced by the arrows), circulates through the working fluid circuit (70).
As per claim 22, Lifson discloses a programmed control system (90).
As per claim 23, Lifson discloses a compression process (20A, 20B), the compression process including a plurality of compression stages (20A and 20B) with steam generation after each stage (e.g., by generating supercritical refrigerant vapor; see at least ¶ 23).
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 6, 11, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lifson (US 20100077777 A1) in view of Held et al. (US 10934895 B2), herein Held.
As per claim 6, Lifson discloses wherein the heat pump cycle (10) is a steam generating system (e.g., by evaporating refrigerant inside 40).
However, Lifson may not appear to explicitly disclose that the heat transfer target is water.
On the other hand, Held, directed to a heat engine system, discloses that the heat transfer target is water (see col. 17, lines 4-5).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.7
As per (1), Held explicitly teaches that waste heat can be converted into useful energy by using a steam-based process (e.g., Rankine cycle) that recovers and uses the waste heat to generate steam to drive a turbine, electric generator, or other device (col. 1, lines 30-37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Held has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to using water, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Lifson. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Lifson and Held are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat generation systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Lifson may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Held, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Lifson by virtue of suggesting the utilization of waste heat to generate steam to drive other thermodynamic cycles, such as turbines or electric generators.
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 Lifson and to have modified them with the teachings of Held, by having the heat transfer target be water, in order to use the waste heat to generate steam and power other devices, as similarly suggested by Held, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 11, Lifson may not appear to explicitly disclose generating steam from a heat transfer target during the steam generating process.
On the other hand, Held, directed to a heat engine system, discloses generating steam from a heat transfer target during the steam generating process -(col. 1, lines 30-37).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.8
As per (1), Held explicitly teaches that waste heat can be converted into useful energy by using a steam-based process (e.g., Rankine cycle) that recovers and uses the waste heat to generate steam to drive a turbine, electric generator, or other device (col. 1, lines 30-37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Held has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to using water, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Lifson. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Lifson and Held are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat generation systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Lifson may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Held, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Lifson by virtue of suggesting the utilization of waste heat to generate steam to drive other thermodynamic cycles, such as turbines or electric generators.
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 Lifson and to have modified them with the teachings of Held, by generating steam from a heat transfer target during the steam generating process, in order to use the waste heat to generate steam and power other devices, as similarly suggested by Held, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 15, Lifson discloses wherein the heat pump system (10) is a steam generating system (by evaporating refrigerant inside 40).
However, Lifson may not appear to explicitly disclose that the heat transfer target is water.
On the other hand, Held, directed to a heat engine system, discloses that the heat transfer target is water (see col. 17, lines 4-5).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.9
As per (1), Held explicitly teaches that waste heat can be converted into useful energy by using a steam-based process (e.g., Rankine cycle) that recovers and uses the waste heat to generate steam to drive a turbine, electric generator, or other device (col. 1, lines 30-37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Held has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to using water, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Lifson. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Lifson and Held are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat generation systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Lifson may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Held, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Lifson by virtue of suggesting the utilization of waste heat to generate steam to drive other thermodynamic cycles, such as turbines or electric generators.
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 Lifson and to have modified them with the teachings of Held, by having the heat transfer target be water, in order to use the waste heat to generate steam and power other devices, as similarly suggested by Held, without yielding unpredictable results.
As per claim 21, Lifson discloses wherein the heat pump cycle (10) is a steam generating system (by evaporating refrigerant inside 40).
However, Lifson may not appear to explicitly disclose that the heat transfer target is water.
On the other hand, Held, directed to a heat engine system, discloses that the heat transfer target is water (see col. 17, lines 4-5).
Furthermore, it has been held that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is a support for a conclusion of obviousness which is consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham, if the following findings can be articulated: (1) a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; (2) a finding that there was reasonable expectation of success; and (3) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.10
As per (1), Held explicitly teaches that waste heat can be converted into useful energy by using a steam-based process (e.g., Rankine cycle) that recovers and uses the waste heat to generate steam to drive a turbine, electric generator, or other device (col. 1, lines 30-37). As per (2), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since the prior art of Held has successfully implemented its own teachings with regards to using water, there would also be a reasonable expectation of success if said teachings were to be incorporated into the teachings of Lifson. Said reasonable expectation of success is apparent from the fact that both Lifson and Held are analogous to each other, as well as are analogous to the claimed invention, by virtue of being within the same field of endeavor (i.e. heat generation systems). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of the prior art are compatible and combinable, without yielding unpredictable results. As per (3), one of ordinary skill in the art, when considering the aforementioned evidence, would comprehend that the prior art teachings of Lifson may be significantly improved by incorporating the prior art teachings of Held, since the teachings thereof serve to complement the teachings of Lifson by virtue of suggesting the utilization of waste heat to generate steam to drive other thermodynamic cycles, such as turbines or electric generators.
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 Lifson and to have modified them with the teachings of Held, by having the heat transfer target be water, in order to use the waste heat to generate steam and power other devices, as similarly suggested by Held, without yielding unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 17, 2026 (“the Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as explained below.
Applicant provides arguments against the § 102 rejection by asserting that each and every claim limitation must be taught,11 and by describing the claimed limitations and focusing on the “fluid expansion process that bypasses a portion of the working fluid around the recuperator”.12 Then, applicant provides three main points which are summarized and responded to below:
Applicant argues that the claim language of “fluid expansion process that bypasses a portion of the working fluid around the recuperator” is not taught by the prior art of Lifson. Applicant posits that the specification “expressly describes and claims a complete bypass of the recuperator for a portion of the fluid during expansion”, and that such bypass optimizes recuperator exergetic efficiency by adjusting mass-flow rates.13 Applicant then appears to allege that Lifson “has no such complete bypass” and that “every portion of refrigerant” supposedly “traverses at least one side of the economizer”. They then describe the high-pressure pass (62) and the low-pressure pass (64), and cite ¶ 12 to support their arguments, and concludes that the Office action’s mapping “conflates partial routing with complete bypass”.14 However, these arguments are considered unpersuasive for the following reasons.
At the outset, MPEP § 2111.01 (II) & (IV) states that it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, absent a special definition. Rather, words in the claims must be given their customary meaning in light of the specification. The language of “fluid expansion process that bypasses a portion of the working fluid around the recuperator” explicitly requires that only “a portion of the working fluid” be bypassed around the recuperator. Lifson clearly anticipates this argued feature, as shown by the arrows in Fig. 1. Namely, a portion of the fluid flowing through 70B enters the valve 50, then line 70F, then 70E and finally compressor 20. This portion completely bypasses the recuperator 60. It is noted that the Office action does not cite neither the high-pressure portion (62) nor the low-pressure portion (64) as the claimed fluid bypass. Therefore, the first point in Applicant’s arguments is considered unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues the subject matter regarding steam generation. They posit that the specification consistently uses steam to mean water vapor, and that Lifson contains no water, no steam, and no steam generation process. They appear to allege that the interpretation from Lifson of generating supercritical vapor is inconsistent with the specification and claim context.15 However, this argument is also considered unpersuasive.
As above, it is noted that importing limitations from the specification into the claims is improper (absent a special definition). In this case, there does not appear to be anything of record in the specification that would indicate a special definition for the term “steam”. Rather, the described preferred embodiments (e.g., ¶¶ 40-41)16 are deemed to be exemplary of the claimed invention, not exclusive. The claims are thus being construed as encompassing a genus of the preferred embodiments. This interpretation is deemed consistent with the specification, and is supported by the fact that a number of dependent claims (i.e., claims 6, 15, 21) distinctively recite water as the heat transfer target (rather than any generic fluid). In other words, it is understood that “steam” covers a broader scope than water in all relevant claims except the ones that specifically limit the steam generation heat transfer target to water. Nonetheless, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established for any such claims that specify the heat transfer target as water. Therefore, the second point argued by Applicant is also considered unpersuasive.
The Applicant appears to argue that the functional limitations are tied to specific structures and applications. They also argue that Lifson is a refrigeration system rather than a heat pump, and that the economizer bypass therein serves as a fluid injection for the compressor rather than for optimizing the exergetic efficiency. They assert that functional limitations “receive patentable weight when they limit the claimed structure or application”, and concludes that Lifson does not anticipate any claim because it “lacks at least the complete-recuperator-bypass structure, the steam-generation elements, and the claimed application/purpose”. However, these arguments are also unpersuasive.
First, Applicant is reminded that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.17 The argued limitations in at least claims 1, 13 and 17 are recitations of intended use or results, rather than structural limitations. Since Lifson is deemed to teach all the structural limitations, then it is reasonable to assume that Lifson is capable of performing the claimed functions. There appears to be nothing of record that would show that the structures as claimed, which are taught by Lifson, are somehow inherently unique in their functionality such that the same results cannot be obtained by the prior art. Regarding the method claim(s), a similar reasoning would apply. The claimed steps (in claim 9) simply require “circulating a working fluid through a working fluid circuit” that includes “a fluid expansion process and a recuperator”, and “bypassing a portion of the working fluid during the fluid expansion process around the recuperator” to achieve intended results: namely, “to optimize the exergetic efficiency of the recuperator and improving the coefficient of performance”. The prior art of Lifson teaches a closed-loop (fig. 1), transcritical (¶ 21), recuperated (at 60) heat pump cycle (10) that circulates the working fluid and includes an expansion process (at 80) along with a recuperator (60). The bypassed portion (flowing through 50, 70F, 70E) is therefore deemed to achieve the same results, since there are otherwise no materially different distinctions recited in the claims. Moreover, assuming arguendo, it is noted that the claimed intended results of the method can even be considered conditional limitations, given the recitation of “for applications in which heat is transferred from a heat transfer source […]”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.18 The method claim 9 explicitly requires a step of “bypassing”, but does not necessarily require the intended optimization results because there is no explicit step for transferring heat over a limited temperature range. The phrase “for applications in which heat is transferred […]” is analogous to “when heat is transferred”, which means that anticipation can occur without such heat transfer, and therefore without the resulting optimization. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant provides arguments against the § 103 rejection by asserting that the combination of Lifson and Held would not yield the claimed subject matter. They posit that Lifson involves refrigeration and that Held is a power-generation heat engine, concluding that neither reference suggests a heat pump. They argue that modifying Lifson to include a complete bypass would render its liquid injection feature inoperable. They also argue that there is no reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the claimed invention given the combination of references, because Lifson teaches a refrigeration system and Held teaches a power-generation heat engine. They state that combining the systems is disparate and would require a wholesale redesign of the cycle architecture, flow paths, and control strategy with no predictable outcome.19 However, these arguments are also considered unpersuasive.
First, it is noted that Lifson is not being modified for the recuperator, but rather for the heat transfer target. Applicant is also reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.20 Moreover, to rely on references under § 103, they must be analogous art to the claimed invention (i.e., not necessarily analogous to each other). A reference is analogous to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In the instant case, Lifson and Held are deemed to meet these requirements. Lifson is analogous because: (1) the reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (i.e., CO-2-based systems). Held is analogous because: (1) the reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (CO2--based systems). Both references contain working-fluid circuits in which CO2 above or near its critical point is circulated through a pump/compressor, heat exchangers, etc., which pertains the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, the arguments against the prima facie case of obviousness are also considered unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIGUEL A DIAZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 C. 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.
/MIGUEL A DIAZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II).
2 The method step only positively recites (and therefore, only explicitly requires) “bypassing a portion of the working fluid […] around the recuperator” with a claimed result (i.e., “to optimize […] and improve”). Since the prior art teaches the active step of “bypassing”, it would be reasonable to expect the same results.
3 Indirectly between, i.e., downstream 40 and upstream 80.
4 Fluidically between, wherein fluid may flow through 80, 74, 64, 20, 30, and eventually 40.
5 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II).
6 The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, since apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP § 2114 (II).
7 See MPEP § 2143.
8 See MPEP § 2143.
9 See MPEP § 2143.
10 See MPEP § 2143.
11 See page 7 of the Remarks.
12 See page 8, id.
13 Id.
14 See page 9, id.
15 See page 9, id.
16 See printed publication: US 20240210072 A1.
17 MPEP § 2114 (II).
18
19 See page 11, id.
20 See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Prosecution Insights