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 Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the fluids associated with the heat pump and the steam condenser are properly related as described in the specification. 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 drawing appears to present arrows that indicate refrigerant flow and appears to show refrigerant flow from the heat pump to the steam compressor and this is inconsistent and misleading. The drawings should elucidate the invention, not obfuscate the invention. The applicant is required to amend at least Fig. 2 to clearly show what fluid relations exist between the components of the invention.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: PG. pub. para. 70 appears to errantly reference the internal heat exchanger reference number.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 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 claims 1, 8, 15, the recitation, “for capturing carbon dioxide ship onboard under 150C” is indefinite for being grammatically illogical and it is unclear how the system is related to a ship and unclear what is onboard and what is under 150C. There is no carbon dioxide ship in the disclosure and no way to discern what is being claimed.
In regard to claims 2, 9, the recitation, “wherein the engine exhaust gas is a heat source that recovers heat of the refrigerant” is indefinite for being inconsistent with the disclosed invention. The disclosed engine exhaust gas heats the refrigerant. The heat source does not recover any heat from the refrigerant. Rather the heat flow is from the engine exhaust gas to the refrigerant; the refrigerant recovers heat from the engine exhaust gas. Identifying the heat flow improperly is inappropriate and unacceptable.
In regard to claims 3, 10, the recitation, “which is the engine exhaust gas” is redundant.
The recitation, “and discharged from the evaporator” is unclear what is being referenced by this phrase, the engine exhaust gas or the refrigerant.
In regard to claims 4, 11, the recitation, “wherein the evaporator evaporates the refrigerant into gas having a humidity of 100%” is indefinite for improperly using the term humidity. Humidity is an amount of water in a gas. The applicant is not permitted to mis-use plain English terminology and fails to appropriately define this term in the disclosure.
In regard to claims 5, 12, the recitation, “of which heat” is indefinite as it is not clear what of which refers to. Further the recitation does not properly reference the already recited “heat” and it is unclear if this heat is the same or other heat.
In regard to claims 2-7, 9-13, the recitation, “for capturing carbon dioxide ship onboard under 150C” is additionally indefinite for reintroducing carbon dioxide improperly when it was already previously introduced and this creates ambiguity as to whether this is other carbon dioxide or the carbon dioxide previously recited.
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, except for the steam recompression unit which is interpreted as a compressor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaughn (US 4087974). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 15, Vaughn teaches a steam supply system (see whole disclosure including Fig. 4) capable of capturing carbon dioxide on a ship at a temperature under 150°C (fully capable thereof), comprising: a heat pump (160) generating a steam (120’) by using engine exhaust gas (engine 100’ exhaust, column 4, line 35-40; column 12, line 59) discharged from an engine (100’) as a heat source (source of waste heat column 2, line 55-60); and a steam recompression unit (116’) recompressing the steam (120’) generated by the heat pump (160).
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaughn (US 4087974) in view of Korea inst energy (KR 10-1947098) see translation. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claims 1, 8, Vaughn teaches a steam supply system and method (see whole disclosure including Fig. 4) capable of capturing carbon dioxide on a ship at a temperature under 150°C (fully capable thereof), comprising: an evaporator (176) into which engine exhaust gas (from 100’) discharged from an engine (100’) is input.
Vaughn does not explicitly teach an internal heat exchanger recovering heat of a refrigerant evaporated and discharged by the evaporator (176). However, Korea teaches that internal heat exchangers are well known. Korea teaches providing heat to generate steam with a heat pump (110, 230), the heat pump (110, 230) having an internal heat exchanger (115, 240) recovering heat of a refrigerant (134) evaporated and discharged by an evaporator (114, 235) to provide heat recuperation to assist in cooling down the refrigerant from the condenser (112; 233, 232) to minimize vapor sent to the evaporator (114, 235) and increase a condensation heat amount of the condenser (112; 232, 233) by raising the temperature (para. 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Vaugh with the internal heat exchanger of Korea to provide heat recuperation to assist in cooling down the refrigerant from the condenser to minimize the vapor sent to the evaporator and increase the condensation heat amount of the condenser by raising the temperature (para. 26).
In regard to claims 2, 9, Vaughn teaches that the engine exhaust gas (from 100’) is a heat source (see it is a source of waste heat) that heats the refrigerant (see engine exhaust heats the refrigerant, column 13, line 45-50).
In regard to claim 3, 10, Vaughn teaches that the refrigerant (“refrigerant”, column 13, line 45-50) is heated or evaporated (column 13, line 5-10) by using the heat source (heat of engine exhaust gas), and discharged from the evaporator (176).
In regard to claim 4, 11, Vaughn teaches that the evaporator (176) evaporates the refrigerant (refrigerant) into a fully saturated vapor (per evaporation from liquid).
In regard to claim 5, 12, Vaughn, as modified, teaches a main compressor (162) compressing the refrigerant (refrigerant), at least some heat is recovered by the internal heat exchanger (Korea 115, 240).
In regard to claim 6, 13, Vaughn teaches a condenser (118’) heat-exchanging the refrigerant (refrigerant) compressed by the main compressor (100’) and water to generate a steam (120’; column 11, line 30-35).
In regard to claim 7, 14, Vaughn teaches a steam compressor (116’) recompressing the steam (120’) generated by the condenser (118’).
Conclusion
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
JFPIII
June 6, 2025