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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Ref. No. 100 in Fig. 1 is not in Spec. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because “system” in each of the respective preambles should be changed to --industrial system-- (to improve clarity in claims 2-9 as claim 1 introduces three distinct systems).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purola (WO2023062279A1) in view of McBay (U.S. 2013/0232973).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
941
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10:
Purola discloses a method of producing cement (Figs. 1A-1B (see Page 12, Lines 26-28)), the method comprising:
heating a heat transfer fluid (Page 22, Lines 8-9 - “…Fluidic medium 1 such as for example air…) via heat transfer
receiving, by a kiln (118, kiln - Page 16, Line 3), a cement precursor (Modified Fig. 1B above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of cement precursor at element A per description at Page 17, Line 26 - Page 18, Line 4 - “…cement raw material…”))(see Modified Fig. 1B above);
sintering, by the kiln (118), the received cement precursor (Modified Fig. 1B above - A) using heat derived, at least in part, from the heated heat transfer fluid (Modified Fig. 1B above - B), thereby generating a clinker (Modified Fig. 1B above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of clinker; element C corresponds to the “cement clinker” referenced at Page 15, Line 20 and at Page 18, Line 1))(see Figs. 1A-1B, Modified Fig. 1B above, and Page 15, Line 14 - Page 18, Line 4); and
mixing the clinker (Modified Fig. 1B above - C) with one or more other components (Modified Fig. 1B above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of other component at element D; element D corresponds to the “additive” of “additive mixer” 122 referenced at Page 19, Line 17)) to generate the cement (Modified Fig. 1B above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of cement; element E corresponds to the “cement” of the “cement production process referenced at Page 19, Lines 13-14))(see Modified Fig. 1B above and Page 19, Lines 6-19).
Purola fails to disclose heating a heat transfer fluid via heat transfer with an underground magma reservoir.
McBay teaches heating a heat transfer fluid (Para 63 - “…heated fluid…”) via heat transfer with an underground magma reservoir (Para 57 - “applied to…wells which extend deep enough to encounter molten rock or magma within the Earth…”)(see Figs. 5-6, Para 57, 59-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heating of heat transfer fluid of Purola after that of McBay, thereby heating the heat transfer fluid of Purola via heat transfer with an underground magma reservoir in the way taught by McBay, for the advantage of being able to extract energy from the earth (McBay; Para 23) to drive an industrial process (McBay; Para 63).
Re claim 11:
Purola in view of McBay teaches the method (Purola; Figs. 1A-1B) of claim 10 (as described above).
Purola further discloses the method (Figs. 1A-1B) comprising, by an air heater (100, rotary apparatus - Page 22, Line 1 (see Page 22, Lines 8-9)), heating air using the heated heat transfer fluid (3) to form heated air (Page 22, Lines 8-9), wherein the heated air is provided into the kiln (118)(see Figs. 1A-1B and Page 22, Lines 1-17)
Re claim 18:
Purola in view of McBay teaches the method (Purola; Figs. 1A-1B) of claim 10 (as described above).
Purola further discloses the method (Figs. 1A-1B) comprising collecting carbon dioxide from a gas (see Fig. 1B at 2 and Page 19, Lines 10-11 - “…hot fluidic medium 2, such as…carbon dioxide…”) exiting the kiln (118); and directing all or a portion of the collected carbon dioxide into the kiln (118)(see Fig. 1B at element 2 entering element 118), such that at least a portion of carbon from the carbon dioxide directed into the kiln (118) is incorporated into the clinker (Modified Fig. 1B above - C)(See Figs. 1A-1B, Modified Fig. 1B above, Page 15, Line 14 - Page 18, Line 4, Page 19, Lines 6-19 (see also Page 22, Lines 29-35)) .
Re claim 19:
Purola discloses a cement production system (1000, cement manufacturing process facility - Page 12, Line 27), comprising:
a kiln (118, kiln - Page 16, Line 3) configured to:
receive a cement precursor (Modified Fig. 1B above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of cement precursor at element A per description at Page 17, Line 26 - Page 18, Line 4 - “…cement raw material…)); and
sinter the received cement precursor (Modified Fig. 1B above - A) at least in part using a heated heat transfer fluid (Modified Fig. 1B above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of heated heat transfer fluid received from a system at element 100; element B corresponds to the “heated fluidic medium” referenced at Page 16, Line 23 and at Page 18, Line 5)) received from a
a mill (124, cement mill - Page 19, Line 16) configured to mix the clinker (Modified Fig. 1B above - C) with one or more other components (Modified Fig. 1B above - D (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of other component at element D; element D corresponds to the “additive” of “additive mixer” 122 referenced at Page 19, Line 17)) to generate cement (Modified Fig. 1B above - E (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element E as a type of cement; element E corresponds to the “cement” of the “cement production process referenced at Page 19, Lines 13-14))(see Modified Fig. 1B above and Page 19, Lines 6-19).
Purola fails to disclose a heated heat transfer fluid received from a geothermal system.
McBay teaches a heated heat transfer fluid (Para 63 - “…heated fluid…”) received from a geothermal system (Figs. 5-6 (system of Figs. 5-6 is a type of geothermal system per description at Paras 57 and 59-63))(see Para 57 and 59-63 (element 560 is a thermal pool per Para 60 which is “any geothermal heat source” per Para 57 and heat transfer with heated transfer fluid is described in Para 63)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the receiving of heat transfer fluid of Purola after that of McBay, thereby receiving the heated heat transfer fluid of Purola from a geothermal system in the way taught by McBay, for the advantage of being able to extract energy from the earth (McBay; Para 23) to drive an industrial process (McBay; Para 63).
Re claim 20:
Purola in view of McBay teaches the cement production system (Purola; 1000) of claim 19 (as described above).
Purola further discloses the system (1000) comprising an air heater (100, rotary apparatus - Page 22, Line 1 (see Page 22, Lines 8-9)) configured to heat air provided into the kiln (118) using the heated heat transfer fluid (Modified Fig. 1B above - B)(see Modified Fig. 1B above and Page 20, Line 13 - Page 21, Line 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claims 12-17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-9 are allowed and claims 12-17 would be 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.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “a geothermal system comprising a wellbore extending from a surface into an underground magma reservoir” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 1-9.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “by a heat exchanger disposed in or on a surface of a lining of the kiln: receiving the heated heat transfer fluid; and transferring heat from the heated heat transfer fluid into the kiln” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 12-13.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “heating the burner pipe by flowing the heated heat transfer fluid through a heat exchanger” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claims 14-16.
Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach “by a heat-driven chiller: receiving the heated heat transfer fluid; generating a cooling fluid using the received heated heat transfer fluid; and providing the cooling fluid to a cooler configured to cool the clinker prior to the clinker being mixed with the one or more other components” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 17.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant’s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant’s claimed invention obvious by one or more references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Georgii (U.S. 3,967,675).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 12/19/25