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 .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Drawings
The drawings dated 7/28/2026 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the fluids associated with the evaporator are properly related as described in the specification and fail to show how the refrigerant is cycled in the heat pump and is misleading by merely showing that refrigerant is not recirculated. The drawing of the wet amine CO2 capture scheme fails at least for being mis-spelled as the “wet amine CO2 capture cheme”. The drawing further fails for implying that the engine exhaust gas becomes the refrigerant and fails to show any refrigerant into the evaporator. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). In the present case, the amendment dated 7/28/2026 is an improvement by distinguishing the water flow and the steam flow; indicating the parallel compressor, but fails to show the refrigerant flow from the condenser and its relation to the evaporator and internal heat exchanger. The drawings should elucidate the invention, not obfuscate the invention. The applicant is required to amend at least Fig. 2 to clearly show how the refrigerant is cycled in the heat pump.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “from ship exhaust gas onboard a ship…engine exhaust gas discharged from an engine of the ship” introduces new matter as there is no support for an “engine exhaust gas” and for a separate “ship exhaust gas” as recited.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “from ship exhaust gas onboard a ship…engine exhaust gas discharged from an engine of the ship” introduces new matter as there is no support for an “engine exhaust gas” and for a separate “ship exhaust gas” as recited.
In regard to claim 15, the recitation, “from ship exhaust gas onboard a ship…using engine exhaust gas discharged from an engine of the ship” introduces new matter as there is no support for an “engine exhaust gas” and for a separate “ship exhaust gas” as recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitations, “from ship exhaust gas onboard a ship” and “an evaporator into which engine exhaust gas discharged from an engine of the ship at a temperature of 70C to 150C is input” is indefinite for reciting a ship exhaust gas and an engine exhaust gas and it is not clear how to interpret the recited gas since the disclosure only describes a single exhaust gas.
Further the recitation of “a temperature below 150C” and the recitation, “a temperature of 70C to 150C” are inconsistent with one another and it is unclear whether these are the same temperatures or different temperatures and it is unclear what range of temperature is required by the claim.
The recitation, “steam recompression” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what “recompression” encompasses. The specification uses the term but never teaches anything other than compression.
The recitation, “a wet amine CO2 capturing scheme” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure is required of the recited scheme. Further, a scheme is a plan and it is unclear whether this is referencing a step or a structure.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the refrigerant is heated or evaporated by using the engine exhaust gas, in the evaporator” is indefinite for being entirely redundant.
In regard to claim 8, the recitations, “from ship exhaust gas onboard a ship” and “an evaporator into which engine exhaust gas discharged from an engine of the ship at a temperature of 70C to 150C is input” is indefinite for reciting a ship exhaust gas and an engine exhaust gas and it is not clear how to interpret the recited gas since the disclosure only describes a single exhaust gas.
Further the recitation of “a temperature below 150C” and the recitation, “a temperature of 70C to 150C” are inconsistent with one another and it is unclear whether these are the same temperatures or different temperatures and it is unclear what range of temperature is required by the claim.
The recitation, “a wet amine CO2 capturing scheme” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure is required of the recited scheme. Further, a scheme is a plan and it is unclear whether this is referencing a step or a structure.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “the refrigerant is heated or evaporated by using the engine exhaust gas, in the evaporator” is indefinite for being entirely redundant.
In regard to claim 14, the recitation, “the compressed stream supplied to the wet amine CO2 capturing scheme has a pressure of 3 to 5 bar” is entirely redundant.
In regard to claim 15, the recitations, “from ship exhaust gas onboard a ship” and “using engine exhaust gas discharged from an engine of the ship” is indefinite for reciting a ship exhaust gas and an engine exhaust gas and it is not clear how to interpret the recited gas since the disclosure only describes a single exhaust gas.
Further the recitation of “a temperature below 150C” and the recitation, “a temperature of 70C to 150C” are inconsistent with one another and it is unclear whether these are the same temperatures or different temperatures and it is unclear what range of temperature is required by the claim.
The recitation, “steam recompression” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what “recompression” encompasses. The specification uses the term but never teaches anything other than compression.
The recitation, “a wet amine CO2 capturing scheme” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what structure is required of the recited scheme. Further, a scheme is a plan and it is unclear whether this is referencing a step or a structure. The specification does not define what specifically qualifies and what structure may be optional.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG chemical (KR 10-2230950) in view of Lee (KR 10-2022-0005663). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, LG chemical teaches a steam supply system (see whole disclosure; including Fig. 3, 4) comprising:
an evaporator (1001, 1003) into which a heat source fluid (831, 833)
at a temperature between 70C and 150C (see heat source is desirably 120C, which is clearly between 70C to 150C - page 4, para. 3 and second to last para.) is input;
a refrigerant (“refrigerant” page 4, para. 3-4) that is heated or evaporated by heat recovered from the heat source fluid (831, 833) in the evaporator (1001, 1003);
an internal heat exchanger (1101, 1103) configured to recover heat from the refrigerant (refrigerant) discharged from the evaporator (1001, 1003);
a main compressor (2001, 2003) configured to compress the refrigerant (refrigerant after compression) having passed through the internal heat exchanger (1101, 1103);
a condenser (1201, 1203) configured to heat exchange the compressed refrigerant (refrigerant after compression) and water (1221, 1223) to generate steam (1231, 1233; page 6, para. 6) having a pressure of 1.5 to 3 bar (page 6, para. 6 - 2 kgf /cm2g is about 1.96 bar); and
a steam compressor (4001, 4101, 4103) configured to compress the steam (1231, 1233) generated by the condenser (1201, 1203) to a pressure of 3 to 5 bar (page 6, see 4 kgf/cm2 is 3.9 bar).
LG chemical does not explicitly teach that the heat source fluid is ship engine exhaust gas and that the steam supply system aides carbon dioxide capture. However, ship engine exhaust gas is a well-known and routinely used heat source fluid for heating steam and carbon dioxide is routinely captured from ship engine exhaust gas as taught by Lee. Lee teaches ship engine exhaust gas (Flue F, page 5) from an engine (100) is a routinely used as a heat source fluid to heat steam (“steam” page 5) and carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide page 5) is routinely captured in a wet amine CO2 capturing scheme (see capturing device 40) from the ship engine exhaust gas (F).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the steam supply system of LG chemical to ship exhaust treatment for the purpose of providing the thermal efficiency benefits of LG chemical to ship emissions and to modify the heat source fluid (831, 833) of LG chemical to be ship exhaust gas to provide useful steam heating from the ship engine exhaust gas and to provide the carbon capture system of Lee with the steam supply system of LG chemical for the purpose of providing useful carbon capture. Further note that the system, as modified, provides for capturing carbon dioxide from ship engine exhaust gas (Lee-F) onboard a ship (Lee-“ship” page 3) and note that the compressed steam (LG - 4011, 4111, 4113) is supplied to the wet amine CO2 capturing scheme (Lee-40) onboard the ship (Lee-ship).
In regard to claim 3, LG chemical, as modified, teaches that the refrigerant (refrigerant) is heated or evaporated by using the engine exhaust gas (F as modified above from Lee), and is discharged from the evaporator (1001, 1003).
In regard to claim 4, LG chemical, as modified, teaches that the evaporator (1001, 1003) evaporates the refrigerant into a fully saturated vapor state (fully capable thereof). Further such operation would be obvious in order to provide the maximum energy transfer from the exhaust gas (F as modified above from Lee).
In regard to claim 8, LG chemical, as modified above, teaches all of the claim limitations of claim 8, including the recited steam supply method, comprising:
inputting, by the evaporator (1001, 1003), the ship engine exhaust gas (Lee - F) discharged from the engine (Lee - 100) of the ship (ship) at a temperature of 70C to 150C (see heat source is desirably 120C, which is clearly between 70C to 150C - page 4, para. 3 and second to last para.);
heating or evaporating the refrigerant (refrigerant) in the evaporator (1001, 1003) by heat recovered from the ship engine exhaust gas (Lee - F);
recovering, by the internal heat exchanger (1101, 1103), heat from the refrigerant evaporated and discharged by the evaporator (1001, 1003);
compressing the refrigerant (refrigerant) with a main compressor (2001, 2003);
heat-exchanging the compressed refrigerant (1231, 1233) with water (1221, 1223) in the condenser (1201, 1203) to generate the steam (1231, 1233) having a pressure of 1.5 to 3 bar (page 6, para. 6 - 2 kgf /cm2g is about 1.96 bar); and
compressing, by the steam compressor (4001, 4101, 4103), the steam (1231, 1233) generated by the condenser (1201, 1203) to a pressure of 3 to 5 bar (page 6, see 4 kgf/cm2 is 3.9 bar) and supplying the compressed steam (4011, 4111, 4113) to a wet amine CO2 capturing scheme (Lee - 40) onboard the ship (Lee - ship).
In regard to claim 10, LG chemical, as modified, teaches that the refrigerant (refrigerant) is evaporated by using the ship engine exhaust gas (Lee-F) in the evaporator (1001, 1003) and is discharged from the evaporator (1001, 1003).
In regard to claim 11, LG chemical, as modified, teaches the evaporator (1001, 1003) evaporates the refrigerant (refrigerant) into a fully saturated vapor state (see that the vapor leaving the evaporator just evaporated and therefore is fully saturated vapor). However, supposing for any reason that the evaporator of LG chemical alone is not considered to teach that the refrigerant is fully saturated vapor, official notice is taken that 100% saturated vapor is routine and ordinary for evaporators for the purpose of providing all of the heat exchange available from phase changing the refrigerant so as to easily maximize the heat absorbed thereby.
In regard to claim 14, LG chemical, as modified, teaches that the compressed steam (4011, 4111, 4113) is at a pressure between 3 and 5 bar (page 6, see 4 kgf/cm2 is 3.9 bar) and that the compressed steam (4011, 4111, 4113) is used to provide heating to a wet amine CO2 capture system (see 40 of Lee)
In regard to claim 15, LG chemical, as modified, teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, including a stream supply system (steam system, Fig. 3, 4) for capturing carbon dioxide (Lee - carbon dioxide captured by 40) from ship exhaust gas (Lee - F) onboard a ship (Lee - ship, page 3) at a temperature below 150C (page 6), comprising:
a heat pump (see part of Fig. 3, 4) configured to generate steam (1231, 1233) having a pressure of 1.5 to 3 bar (page 6, para. 6 - 2 kgf /cm2g is about 1.96 bar) by using the ship engine exhaust gas (Lee - F) discharged from the engine (Lee-100) of the ship (Lee - ship) at the temperature of 70C to 150C (see heat source is desirably 120C, which is clearly between 70C to 150C - page 4, para. 3 and second to last para.) as a heat source (“heat source”, page 4, para. 5); and the stream compressor (4001, 4101, 4103) configured to compress the steam (1231, 1233) generated by the heat pump (part of Fig. 3, 4) to the pressure of 3 to 5 bar (page 6, see 4 kgf/cm2 is 3.9 bar) and to supply the compressed stream (after 4001, 4101, 4103) to the wet amine CO2 capturing scheme (Lee - 40) onboard the ship (Lee - ship), wherein the heat pump (part of Fig. 3, 4) includes the evaporator (1001, 1003), the internal heat exchanger (1101, 1103), the main compressor (2001, 2003), and the condenser (1201, 1203), and wherein the condenser (1201, 1203) is configured to heat-exchange the compressed refrigerant (after compression, see 2011, 2013) and water (1221, 1223) to generate the steam (1231, 1233, page 6, para. 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG chemical (KR 10-2230950) in view of Lee (KR 10-2022-0005663) and Shaw (US 4594858).
LG chemical, does not appear to explicitly teach a parallel compressor operating in conjunction with the main compressor (2001, 2003). However, providing parallel compression is routine and ordinary to increase refrigerant capacity. Shaw teaches a main compressor (16) and a parallel compressor (14; column 2, line 45) providing greater capacity (than the main compressor could provide alone, see column 4, line 40-46 as the system is turned down, the parallel compressor is able to be taken off duty). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify LG chemical with a parallel compressor to provide greater refrigerant flow capacity and thereby increased heating capability for the steam (which is what the cycle of LG chemical is provided for - steam generation), thus providing improved steam generation efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the grounds of rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 7) are an allegation that the amended drawings are compliant. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the drawings submitted on 7/28/2026 still have deficiencies.
Applicant's arguments (page 9-10) are an allegation that LG chemical fails to teach utilizing waste heat within the claimed temperature range. In response, it is not persuasive to make false allegations and the applicant is directed to the detailed rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that the claimed temperature and pressure ranges are “synergistic” and not arbitrary.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the primary reference already teaches the temperatures and pressures recited.
Applicant's arguments (page 11) are an allegation that the parallel compressor of Shaw does not heat steam. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the primary reference already teaches heating steam with compressed refrigerant and the teachings of Saw are fully probative to providing a parallel compressor. Shaw is not required to teach all of the features of the primary reference to be properly relied upon for showing that parallel compressors are routine and obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights