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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendment and remarks filed May 27, 2026. Claims 5, 7 and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 6 and 9 have been amended. Claims 2-4 and 10 are original. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 10 are pending and under examination in this action.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"work extraction mechanism" in claim 1, and as incorporated in claims 2-4, 6, 9 and 10, is understood to be a turbo-expander or a condensing turbine (see the publication ¶¶ 0016, 0024).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-4, 6, 9 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "a work extraction mechanism fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas line." The claim as amended is not line numbered, and the limitation is therefore identified by the recited language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the exhaust gas line" in the claim, the only previously recited line being "an exhaust line for channeling a gas stream including carbon dioxide gas." It is unclear whether "the exhaust gas line" is intended to refer to the previously recited exhaust line, or to a further line distinct from it. For examination purposes, "the exhaust gas line" is treated as referring to the previously recited exhaust line.
Claim 6 recites "a hydraulic line coupling the multi-pass heat exchanger to the work extraction mechanism," and claim 9 recites that "the hydraulic line facilitates a dedicated circulation of warming fluid between the multi-pass heat exchanger and the work extraction mechanism." Claim 1, from which claims 6 and 9 depend, recites the work extraction mechanism as "including" the housing, the at least one moving implement, and "a multi-pass heat exchanger coupled to one of the housing and the at least one implement." The multi-pass heat exchanger is thus positively recited in claim 1 as a constituent of the work extraction mechanism itself, and it is unclear how a constituent of the work extraction mechanism is thereafter coupled by a hydraulic line to, and circulates a warming fluid between itself and, the very work extraction mechanism of which claim 1 recites it to be a part. The metes and bounds of claims 6 and 9 are therefore unclear, in that it cannot be determined whether the multi-pass heat exchanger is claimed as internal to or external to the work extraction mechanism. The specification does not resolve the ambiguity, as it describes the multi-pass heat exchanger as the recuperator 170, which is a separate unit located upstream of and connected to the work extraction mechanism 185 by the network 184 (see the publication ¶ 0018; figs. 1 of the elected species). For examination purposes, claims 6 and 9 are treated as requiring a hydraulic line that conveys warming fluid to the housing or the at least one implement of the work extraction mechanism.
Claims 2-4 and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hofer (US 2013/0125580 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hofer teaches a cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system (10) comprising:
an exhaust line (101/111) for channeling a gas stream including carbon dioxide gas (flue gas from a coal or natural gas-fired power plant containing carbon dioxide) (¶¶ 0029-0030, 0032, 0052; figs. 1, 2, 5-9);
a work extraction mechanism (expander 100) fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas line (101/111) to condense the carbon dioxide gas from the gas stream (101) into a solid form by work extraction (the gas stream is cooled as work is extracted from the expanding gas stream such that the carbon dioxide primarily forms solid carbon dioxide within the expander) (¶¶ 0006, 0027, 0033-0034, 0041, 0047; figs. 1-3, 5-9), the work extraction mechanism (100) including:
a housing (114) for receiving the gas stream (101 via inlet 111) and containing at least one moving implement (rotating component/rotor 115 carrying rotor blades 122) for extracting work from the gas stream (101) (¶¶ 0027-0029, 0033; figs. 2, 3); and
a multi-pass heat exchanger (heated blade 119 having internal gas flow channels 125 of Z-shape, U-shape or E-shape through which the heating gas is circulated along the multi-pass flow path of fig. 10C) coupled to one of the housing (114, carrying stationary component 116) and the at least one implement (115/122) to target one of an interior surface (123) within the housing (114) and the at least one implement for maintaining a temperature thereof above a de-sublimation temperature of the carbon dioxide gas to substantially prevent surface accretion at one of the interior surface (123) and the at least one implement (the heated component is heated to preclude adhesion of solid carbon dioxide to a surface of the expander component) (¶¶ 0028, 0045-0046, 0067; figs. 2, 10A-10C).
In regard to claim 2, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the work extraction mechanism (100) is one of a dynamic mechanism (a radial, axial or mixed flow turbo-machine through which the gas mixture is expanded to produce work) and a positive displacement mechanism (¶¶ 0027-0028; figs. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 3, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 2 wherein the dynamic mechanism (100) is one of a condensing turbine and a turbo-expander (a radial, axial or mixed flow turbo-machine having a rotor 115, stationary component 116 and blades 119/122, through which the gas stream is expanded to produce work) and the positive displacement mechanism is a piston (¶¶ 0027-0029; figs. 2-4). Claim 2 recites the work extraction mechanism in the alternative, and Hofer's work extraction mechanism (100) satisfies the dynamic mechanism alternative; the further recitation directed to the positive displacement mechanism is accordingly an alternative that need not be present in the prior art. See MPEP § 2117 (prior art that anticipates one alternative of a claim reciting alternative limitations anticipates the claim).
In regard to claim 4, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the temperature of the gas stream (101) reaching the work extraction mechanism (100) is between about -80° C. and about -120° C. (the gas stream is cooled in the cooling stage 200 to a temperature in a range from about -50° C. to about -100° C. prior to the expansion step in the expander 100) (¶ 0070; figs. 5-9). Hofer's disclosure of cooling the gas stream to about -100° C. before it reaches the expander is a specific disclosure falling within the claimed range of about -80° C. to about -120° C., and anticipates that range. See MPEP § 2131.03(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 2013/0125580 A1) in view of Gibble (US 2015/0354414 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1, including the multi-pass heat exchanger (heated blade 119 with internal gas flow channels 125) of the work extraction mechanism (100), one or more components of the expander (100) being heated by circulating air or gas through those channels (¶¶ 0045-0046, 0067; figs. 10B, 10C).
Hofer does not explicitly teach a hydraulic line coupling the multi-pass heat exchanger to the work extraction mechanism.
However, Gibble teaches a hydraulic line (second branch 42 of the working fluid circuit line 12a) coupling a heat exchanger (vaporizer/boiler 10) to an expander (14) by way of a heating jacket (30) in heat transfer contact with the expander (14), the heating jacket (30) being formed of one or more passageways carrying working fluid in heat transfer contact with the expansion machine structure, with a valve (44) apportioning flow between the expansion branch (40) and the heating branch (42) (¶¶ 0018-0020, 0022, 0024; figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hofer to include a hydraulic line coupling the multi-pass heat exchanger to the work extraction mechanism as taught by Gibble, in order to circulate warming fluid in heat transfer contact with the expansion machine structure so as to heat the machine before it becomes operational and to maintain its temperature between operational phases (Gibble ¶¶ 0018-0019). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Hofer heats the components of the expander (100) by circulating air or gas through the internal flow channels (125) of the blade (119) and therefore requires a flow path by which that heating fluid is delivered to and returned from those channels (Hofer ¶¶ 0046, 0067; fig. 10C). See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
In regard to claim 9, Hofer in view of Gibble teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 6, including the hydraulic line and the heating of the expander components by a circulating warming fluid (Hofer ¶¶ 0045-0046, 0067; figs. 10B, 10C).
Hofer does not explicitly teach that the hydraulic line facilitates a dedicated circulation of warming fluid between the multi-pass heat exchanger and the work extraction mechanism.
However, Gibble teaches that the hydraulic line (branch 42) facilitates a dedicated circulation of warming fluid between the heat exchanger (10) and the expander (14), the heating jacket (30) circulating the working fluid as a warming fluid around the expander (14) in a circuit that is separate from the expansion branch (40), with check valves (52, 54) at the outlets of the heating jacket (30) and the expander (14) preventing back flow into the heating jacket and expander, and with a recuperator (70) receiving the warming fluid exiting the heating jacket (30) by way of line (12e) and returning it to the circuit (¶¶ 0018-0020, 0023-0024; figs. 3-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hofer so that the hydraulic line facilitates a dedicated circulation of warming fluid between the multi-pass heat exchanger and the work extraction mechanism as taught by Gibble, in order to warm the expansion machine before it becomes operational and to maintain its temperature between operational phases while preventing the warming fluid from flowing back into the expander and while recovering the energy of the circulated fluid. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Hofer requires the warming fluid circulated through the blade channels (125) to remain warmer than the expanding gas stream so as to preclude adhesion of solid carbon dioxide to the expander surfaces (123), a result that a circulation dedicated to the heating duty, rather than shared with the expanding process stream, reliably provides (Hofer ¶¶ 0045-0046, 0067).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer and Gibble as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Dutt et al. (US 2007/0271932 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Hofer in view of Gibble teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 9, including the dedicated circulation of warming fluid between the multi-pass heat exchanger and the work extraction mechanism, Hofer teaching that the warming fluid is circulating air or gas (Hofer ¶¶ 0046, 0067; figs. 10B, 10C) and Gibble teaching the dedicated circulation of the warming fluid through the heating jacket (30) associated with the expander (14) (Gibble ¶¶ 0018-0020; figs. 3-5).
The modified Hofer does not explicitly teach that the warming fluid is propane.
However, Dutt teaches an intermediate heat exchange fluid comprising propane circulated in a closed loop (surge vessel 140, pump 150, heat exchanger 110, lines 105/112/114/115/122, expansion turbine 120, vaporizer 130) to transfer heat from a heat source to a cryogenic fluid, the heat exchange fluid being selected to have a suitably low freezing point so that it does not solidify when exchanging heat with the cryogenic fluid, and propane being identified as an exemplary such fluid that condenses and remains liquid over the cryogenic operating range (¶¶ 0017-0020, 0035-0039; figs. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hofer in view of Gibble so that the warming fluid is propane as taught by Dutt, in order to employ a warming fluid having a suitably low freezing point that does not solidify while exchanging heat at cryogenic temperatures and that undergoes a partial phase change so as to transfer latent heat during circulation (Dutt ¶¶ 0018-0020). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because the gas stream (101) of Hofer is cooled to a temperature as low as about -100° C. before reaching the expander (100) (Hofer ¶ 0070), such that any fluid circulated through the blade channels (125) to keep the expander surfaces (123) above the de-sublimation temperature must remain fluid at those temperatures, and the substitution of propane for Hofer's circulating air or gas is the simple substitution of one known heat transfer fluid for another to obtain the predictable result of warming the expander components.
It is further noted that the previous Office action took Official Notice that propane is an old and well-known manner of providing a refrigerant to provide thermal energy. Applicant's reply filed May 27, 2026 does not traverse that taking of Official Notice, and a traverse was required to be made in the reply to the Office action in which the notice was taken. The statement that propane is a well-known fluid for providing thermal energy is accordingly taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03(C). That admitted prior art constitutes a further and independent basis for the rejection of claim 10, in addition to the teachings of Dutt set forth above.
The next ground is presented in the alternative to the rejections set forth above and does not withdraw, qualify or limit them.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofer (US 2013/0125580 A1) in view of Gibble (US 2015/0354414 A1) and further in view of Dutt et al. (US 2007/0271932 A1).
Solely for purposes of this alternative ground, and without conceding either point, it is assumed arguendo that "a multi-pass heat exchanger" as recited in claim 1 requires a discrete heat exchange unit distinct from the internal gas flow channels (125) of the blade (119) of Hofer.
In regard to claim 1, Hofer teaches a cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system (10) comprising:
an exhaust line (101/111) for channeling a gas stream including carbon dioxide gas (flue gas from a coal or natural gas-fired power plant containing carbon dioxide) (¶¶ 0029-0030, 0032, 0052; figs. 1, 2, 5-9);
a work extraction mechanism (expander 100) fluidly coupled to the exhaust gas line (101/111) to condense the carbon dioxide gas from the gas stream (101) into a solid form by work extraction (¶¶ 0006, 0027, 0033-0034, 0041, 0047; figs. 1-3, 5-9), the work extraction mechanism (100) including:
a housing (114) for receiving the gas stream (101 via inlet 111) and containing at least one moving implement (rotating component/rotor 115 carrying rotor blades 122) for extracting work from the gas stream (101) (¶¶ 0027-0029, 0033; figs. 2, 3); and
a heat exchange arrangement (heated blade 119 with internal gas flow channels 125 supplied with circulating air or gas) coupled to one of the housing (114) and the at least one implement (115/122) to target one of an interior surface (123) within the housing (114) and the at least one implement for maintaining a temperature thereof above a de-sublimation temperature of the carbon dioxide gas to substantially prevent surface accretion at one of the interior surface (123) and the at least one implement (¶¶ 0045-0046, 0067; figs. 2, 10A-10C).
Under the assumption stated above, Hofer does not teach that the heat exchange arrangement coupled to the housing or the at least one implement is a multi-pass heat exchanger in the sense of a discrete heat exchange unit.
However, Gibble teaches a discrete heat exchange unit (heating jacket 30) structurally associated with and in heat transfer contact with an expander (14), the unit being formed of one or more passageways carrying warming fluid through the expansion machine structure, supplied by a branch (42) of the working fluid circuit and provided with a valve (44) and outlet check valves (52, 54), so as to heat the expander (14) before it becomes operational and to maintain its temperature between operational phases (¶¶ 0018-0020, 0024; figs. 3, 5).
However, Dutt teaches that a single multi-pass heat exchanger is among the conventional heat exchanger configurations selected for low temperature, high volume throughput heat exchange duty in cryogenic heat transfer circuits, along with shell and tube, core-in-kettle and plate-fin exchangers (¶¶ 0023, 0027; figs. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hofer to provide a discrete heat exchange unit coupled to the housing or the at least one implement as taught by Gibble, in order to carry warming fluid in heat transfer contact with the expansion machine structure so as to heat the machine before it becomes operational and to maintain its temperature between operational phases. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Hofer heats the components of the expander (100) so as to preclude adhesion of solid carbon dioxide to the surfaces (123) thereof and circulates air or gas for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured that heat exchange unit as a multi-pass heat exchanger as taught by Dutt, in order to employ a heat exchanger configuration conventionally selected for low temperature, high volume throughput heat exchange service. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because the warming duty in Hofer is performed against a gas stream cooled to about -100 degrees Celsius (Hofer ¶ 0070), which is the low temperature service for which Dutt identifies the multi-pass configuration, and the selection among the conventional exchanger configurations Dutt enumerates is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to claim 2, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the work extraction mechanism (100) is one of a dynamic mechanism (a radial, axial or mixed flow turbo-machine through which the gas mixture is expanded to produce work) and a positive displacement mechanism (¶¶ 0027-0028; figs. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 3, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 2 wherein the dynamic mechanism (100) is one of a condensing turbine and a turbo-expander (a radial, axial or mixed flow turbo-machine having a rotor 115, stationary component 116 and blades 119/122, through which the gas stream is expanded to produce work) and the positive displacement mechanism is a piston (¶¶ 0027-0029; figs. 2-4).
In regard to claim 4, Hofer teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claim 1 wherein the gas stream (101) is cooled in the cooling stage (200) to a temperature in a range from about -50 degrees Celsius to about -100 degrees Celsius, and in particular embodiments to a temperature in a range from about -60 degrees Celsius to about -80 degrees Celsius, prior to the expansion step in the expander (100) (¶ 0070; figs. 5-9).
Hofer teaches a temperature range that overlaps, rather than describes, the range of about -80 degrees Celsius to about -120 degrees Celsius recited in claim 4. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have operated Hofer at a temperature of the gas stream reaching the work extraction mechanism within the claimed range of about -80 degrees Celsius to about -120 degrees Celsius, in order to deliver the stream to the expander at a temperature above the condensation temperature for the carbon dioxide while placing it within a manageable range of that temperature, so that the solidification is achieved by work extraction rather than by surface-based temperature reduction. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because the temperature to which the stream is cooled before expansion is a result-effective variable in Hofer, determining the extent of the cooling and solidification duty remaining to be performed within the expander and thus the propensity of solid carbon dioxide to form at the expander surfaces (Hofer ¶¶ 0041, 0044-0045, 0070); the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art.
In regard to claims 6, 9 and 10, Hofer in view of Gibble and further in view of Dutt teaches the cryogenic-based carbon dioxide capture system of claims 6, 9 and 10 for the reasons set forth in the rejections of those claims above, the hydraulic line and the dedicated circulation of warming fluid being taught by Gibble (¶¶ 0018-0020, 0023-0024; figs. 3-5) and the propane warming fluid being taught by Dutt (¶¶ 0017-0020, 0035-0039; figs. 1, 2) and further being admitted prior art as set forth above, and the multi-pass heat exchanger of parent claim 1 being supplied by Gibble and Dutt as set forth in this ground. The motivation statements set forth in the rejections of claims 6, 9 and 10 above apply in full to this ground.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
US 8,887,513 - Three-shell cryogenic fluid heater; heat transfer medium comprising propane and other hydrocarbons for staged heating of cryogenic fluids.
US 9,339,752 - Configurations and methods of CO2 capture from flue gas by cryogenic desublimation; addresses accumulation of solid carbon dioxide on process surfaces.
US 5,214,935 - Fluid conditioning apparatus and system; heat transfer arrangements maintaining metal surfaces above freezing at the discharge of an expansion turbine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to claims 1, 6 and 9 and the cancellation of claim 8 are acknowledged. Relocating the multi-pass heat exchanger of former claim 7 into claim 1 as a constituent of the work extraction mechanism, while leaving claims 6 and 9 reciting that same element as coupled to the work extraction mechanism, created the inconsistency addressed in the new rejection.
Applicant’s argument that Hofer does not teach a multi-pass heat exchanger.
In response, the argument is not persuasive because the premise is not adopted. The previous Office action mapped former claim 7 to the recuperator alternative recited in that claim; mapping one alternative is not a finding that Hofer lacks the other. Hofer discloses the feature expressly. The blade (119) is heated by circulating air or gas through internal gas flow channels (125) that are Z-shaped, U-shaped or E-shaped, and fig. 10C shows the heating gas traversing the blade, reversing, and traversing it again (¶ 0046). A channel arrangement in which the heat exchange fluid crosses the heat transfer surface more than once is a multi-pass heat exchanger under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and the specification supplies no narrower definition, describing the recuperator 470 only as "a multi-pass heat exchanger or other device which presents more of a temperature gradient effect on the gas stream running therethrough" (publication ¶ 0031). The heated blade is coupled to a component within the housing (114) and targets the interior surface (123) so as to preclude adhesion of solid carbon dioxide (¶¶ 0045-0046), which is the function recited in claim 1.
In the alternative, and without conceding the narrower construction, claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 10 stand separately rejected over Hofer in view of Gibble and further in view of Dutt as set forth above.
Applicant’s argument that the multi-pass heat exchanger presents an intermediate pressure that minimizes compression work.
In response, the argument is not commensurate with the claim. Claim 1 recites a multi-pass heat exchanger coupled to one of the housing and the at least one implement, for maintaining a temperature above the de-sublimation temperature of the carbon dioxide gas. It recites no intermediate pressure, no supply of the gas stream at a lower pressure than the initial gas stream, and no reduction in compression work. The arrangement relied upon is the fig. 4C embodiment (not elected species), in which the network 486 draws a separate line supply through a further air cooler 430, chiller 440, separator 445 and dryer 455 (publication ¶ 0033); none of that structure appears in claim 1. See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights