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 .
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Claims 1-3 are rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1-3 define a method, but do not clearly have method steps. The claims have several terms in parenthesis that are not give weight since they are not positively recited. The terms “other plants” and “etc.” has no meets and bounds since it could literally define any plant or special equipment respectively. Claim 2 seems to be two separate sentences and where claims should be a single sentence. Any use of abbreviation should be defined when first used (e.g. TPP, RM). The claims also seem to recite the intended use of the system rather than method steps (e.g. in order to eliminate…, in order to significantly…) the intended use is not given weight since proper method steps would/should produce the intended outcome. The claims call back to examples in the specification (e.g. claim 2 states example 1 and 2). These do not actually define anything in the claim and cannot be read into the claim from the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
"the electrical network",
“the territory”,
“the heat pump mode”.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
“the cost of accumulation”
“the heat power equipment”
Claim 3 recites the limitations:
“the cost of fuel”
“the burners”
“the main fuel”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in their respective claim.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The method which goes to make up the process must be clearly and positively specified. The process must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative method. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s)/ US PG pubs. cited. Examiner suggest consulting an attorney that specialized and/or familiar with patent prosecution. This is not mandatory merely a suggestion.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Buscheck (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0295088).
As to claim 1, Buscheck teaches a method of direct use of excess electricity that occurs in the electrical network during periods of consumer load decline, is novel since in order to convert excess electricity of unlimited capacity into thermal, chemical or other types of energy, on the territory of manufacturing facilities connected to the unified energy system (TPP, metallurgical, chemical, oil refineries, cement and other plants)[0048], special equipment is installed (electric water and air heaters, RM, operating in the heat pump mode, plants for producing hydrogen from water by electrolysis, etc.)[0048 – furnace], designed to convert excess electricity into thermal, chemical or other energy types [0048 – thermal energy is created and used in the asphalt manufacturing].
As to claim 2, Buscheck teaches in order to eliminate the cost of accumulating and storing converted energy, as well as to reduce fuel consumption in thermal power equipment (boilers, gas turbines, furnaces, and dryers) of the previously mentioned manufacturing facilities [0048 – shows that excess electricity can be used from the grid without storage], water and air used in the operation cycles of heat power equipment, is preheated using excess electricity before entering the heat power equipment[0085, or 0121]. This is accomplished by either using electrical water and air heaters or with the help of refrigerating machines (RM) operating in the heat pump mode, which they enter directly into the above heat power equipment immediately after heating (examples 1 and 2) [0085, or 0121].
As to claim 3, Buscheck teaches in order to significantly reduce the cost of fuel used by thermal power plants, using excess electricity, hydrogen is obtained from water by electrolysis in the plants installed on the above-mentioned manufacturing facilities[0220] and fed directly to the burners of boiler units, gas turbines, and furnaces, partially or completely replacing the main fuel used in these thermal power plants[0258].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon for the current rejection is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pmsvvsv (U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0260234) teaches using excess power on bus to create heat energy [0057].
Blaies (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0279563) teaches generating hydrogen using electrolysis for combustion of a furnace.
Rether (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0125269) teaches using excess grid energy for executing electrolysis.
McDeed (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0340896) teaches using hydrogen to create steam for driving a turbine.
Ruiz (U.S. PG Pub. 2022/0003130) teaches using excess energy to power a furnace that can ultimately turning a turbine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119