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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0186891, filed on 12/28/2022.
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: The reference character “200” has been used to designate both steam recompression unit and internal heat exchanger (paragraph 0071 and 0107).
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “for capturing carbon ship onboard” should read “for capturing carbon onboard a ship”
In claim 5, line 1, “a main compressor compressing the refrigerant” should read “a main compressor that compresses the refrigerant”
In claim 6, line 1, “a condenser heat-exchanging the refrigerant compressed by the main compressor and water to generate a steam” should read “a condenser that heat-exchanges refrigerant compressed by the main compressor and water to generate a steam”
In claim 8, line 1, “for capturing carbon ship onboard” should read “for capturing carbon onboard a ship”
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahata et al. EP 3051111 A1, August 03, 2016 (hereinafter “Kuwahata”) in view of Hwang KR 20140023113 A, February 26, 2014 (hereinafter “Hwang”).
Regarding claim 1, Kuwahata teaches a waste-heat system onboard a ship (paragraph 0009), comprising: an engine jacket cooling water supplied to heat recovery heat exchangers (paragraph 0036). Kuwahata fails to teach an internal heat exchanger recovering heat of a refrigerant evaporated and discharged by the evaporator.
However, Hwang teaches a heat pump refrigerant evaporated using recovered heat (paragraph 0039), and an internal heat exchanger in heat-pump cycle (paragraph 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a steam supply system onboard a ship in which the engine coolant discharged from an engine is supplied to an evaporator and heat of an evaporated refrigerant is recovered by an internal heat exchanger, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, because combining shipboard engine waste-heat recovery with a heat-pump refrigerant cycle is known technique for efficiently generating steam for thermal applications such as carbon capture.
Regarding claim 2, Kuwahata teaches the engine cooling water (jacket water) at intermediate temperature used as a heat source (paragraph 0056). Engine jacket cooling water is a well-known mid-temperature heat source in marine systems, operating at a temperature between exhaust gas and seawater cooling, and is therefore properly considered “mid-temperature water”.
Regarding claim 3, Kuwahata teaches the engine cooling water at intermediate temperature used as a heat source (paragraph 0056), but fails to teach that it is discharged from the evaporator. However, Hwang teaches the refrigerant evaporation is discharged via heat pump (figure 3 – evaporator 154, paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to evaporate the refrigerant using the heat of mid-temperature engine coolant, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, because applying recovered engine coolant heat to a heat-pump refrigerant evaporation process is a predictable use of known thermal recovery techniques.
Regarding claim 4, Kuwahata fails to teach wherein the evaporator evaporates the refrigerant into gas having a humidity of 100%. However, Hwang teaches the evaporation of a refrigerant in an evaporator of a heat-pump system (paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the evaporator to evaporate the refrigerant into gas having a humidity of 100%, as taught by Hwang, because evaporation inherently produces saturated vapor under equilibrium conditions, making the claimed humidity an expected and predictable result. MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, Kuwahata teaches a waste-heat recovery method onboard a ship (paragraph 0009), comprising: an engine jacket cooling water supplied to heat recovery heat exchangers (paragraph 0036). Kawahata fails to teach an internal heat exchanger recovering heat of a refrigerant evaporated and discharged by the evaporator.
However, Hwang teaches a heat pump refrigerant evaporated using recovered heat (paragraph 0039), and an internal heat exchanger in heat-pump cycle paragraph (0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a steam supply system onboard a ship in which the engine coolant discharged from an engine is supplied to an evaporator and heat of an evaporated refrigerant is recovered by an internal heat exchanger, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, because combining shipboard engine waste-heat recovery with a heat-pump refrigerant cycle is known technique for efficiently generating steam for thermal applications such as carbon capture.
Regarding claim 9, Kuwahata teaches the engine cooling water (jacket water) at intermediate temperature used as a heat source (paragraph 0056). Engine jacket cooling water is a well-known mid-temperature heat source in marine systems, operating at a temperature between exhaust gas and seawater cooling, and is therefore properly considered “mid-temperature water”.
Regarding claim 10, Kuwahata teaches the engine cooling water at intermediate temperature used as a heat source (paragraph 0056), but fails to teach that it is discharged from the evaporator. However, Hwang teaches the refrigerant evaporation is discharged via heat pump (figure 3 – evaporator 154, paragraph 0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to evaporate the refrigerant using the heat of mid-temperature engine coolant, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, because applying recovered engine coolant heat to a heat-pump refrigerant evaporation process is a predictable use of known thermal recovery techniques.
Regarding claim 11, Kuwahata fails to teach wherein the evaporator evaporates the refrigerant into gas having a humidity of 100%. However, Hwang teaches the evaporation of a refrigerant in an evaporator of a heat-pump system (paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the evaporator to evaporate the refrigerant into gas having a humidity of 100%, as taught by Hwang, because evaporation inherently produces saturated vapor under equilibrium conditions, making the claimed humidity an expected and predictable result. MPEP 2112.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahata et al. and Hwang ‘113, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Lee et al. KR 101947098 B1, February 17, 2016 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 5, Kuwahata teaches a heat exchanger integration (general heat recovery systems) (paragraph 0026), but fails to teach a main compressor compressing the refrigerant of which heat is recovered. However, Lee teaches a main compressor (paragraph 0007), compressing the refrigerant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a main compressor configured to compress the refrigerant and to recover heat generated by compression using an internal heat exchanger as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 6, Kuwahata teaches a steam generation via recovered heat but fails to teach a condenser heat-exchanging the compressed refrigerant by the main compressor and water to generate a steam. However, Hwang teaches a condenser transferring heat to water (figure 3 -condenser 152, paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a condenser that heat-exchanges compressed refrigerant with water to generate steam, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, because using condenser heat to generate steam is a conventional application of recovered thermal energy.
Regarding claim 7, Kuwahata fails to teaches a steam compressor that recompresses the steam generated by the condenser. Lee teaches a steam recompression/mechanical vapor recompression (paragraph 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recompress the steam generated by the condenser using a steam compressor, as taught by Lee, because steam recompression is a known technique for increasing steam pressure and temperature to improve system efficiency.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahata et al. and Hwang ‘113, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Lee et al. KR 101947098 B1, February 17, 2016 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 12, Kuwahata teaches a heat exchanger integration (general heat recovery systems) (paragraph 0026), but fails to teach a main compressor compressing the refrigerant of which heat is recovered. However, Lee teaches a main compressor (paragraph 0007), compressing the refrigerant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a main compressor configured to compress the refrigerant and to recover heat generated by compression using an internal heat exchanger as taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 13, Kuwahata teaches a steam generation via recovered heat but fails to teach a condenser heat-exchanging the compressed refrigerant by the main compressor and water to generate a steam. However, Hwang teaches a condenser transferring heat to water (figure 3 -condenser 152, paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a condenser that heat-exchanges compressed refrigerant with water to generate steam, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, because using condenser heat to generate steam is a conventional application of recovered thermal energy.
Regarding claim 14, Kuwahata fails to teaches a steam compressor that recompresses the steam generated by the condenser. Lee teaches a steam recompression/mechanical vapor recompression (paragraph 0082). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to recompress the steam generated by the condenser using a steam compressor, as taught by Lee, because steam recompression is a known technique for increasing steam pressure and temperature to improve system efficiency.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahata et al. EP 3051111 A1, August 03, 2016 (hereinafter “Kuwahata”) in view of Hwang KR 20140023113 A, February 26, 2014 (hereinafter “Hwang”), in further view of Lee et al. KR 101947098 B1, February 17, 2016 (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 15, Kuwahata teaches a waste heat source (paragraph 0056) by using mid- temperature water (paragraph 0056) but fails to teach a heat pump generating a steam and a steam recompression unit for recompressing the steam generated by the heat pump. Hwang teaches a heat pump (figure 3 – evaporator 154, paragraph 0041) but fails to teach a steam recompression unit. However, Lee teaches a compressor (paragraph 0082) that can be used to recompress the steam generated by the heat pump.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a steam supply system onboard a ship that includes a heat pump generating steam using mid-temperature engine coolant as the heat source and a steam recompression unit to recompress the generated steam, as taught by Kuwahata in view of Hwang, further in view of Lee, because combining engine waste-heat recovery, heat-pump steam generation, and steam recompression yields predictable efficiency improvements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM N EZELUOMBA whose telephone number is (571)272-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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.
/M.N.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776