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.
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) 1-10 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 recitation, “the gas,” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “downstream each adiabatic compression stage,” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing adiabatic compression stages and it is unclear why the recitation is not --downstream of each of the adiabatic compression stages--.
The recitation , two heat exchangers,” appears grammatically errant and it is unclear why the recitation is not --, two heat exchangers[[,]]:--
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “extraction of part of the heat” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the heat”.
The recitation, “extracting of part of the heat” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the heat”.
The recitation, “repetition of steps a) to c) N times,” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing steps anew and it is unclear why the recitation does not recite --repetition for the steps a) to c) N times--.
Note that the dependent claims listed in the rejection heading are also rejected at least for their dependency on indefinite claims.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “organic Rankine cycle module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely uses the term and never defines what structure is sufficient to provide such a module.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the recitation is interpreted as working fluid circuit that is capable of operating a Rankine cycle using heat from the recited compressed gas.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goethals (US 2017/0254223). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Goethals teaches a gas compression energy recovery system (see whole disclosure, Fig. 5-11), the system comprising an organic Rankine cycle module (11; para. 34) and an adiabatic compressor (interpreted as compressor wherein external heat is not added; see 2a, 2b not heat is added in the compressor; para. 25, 56), the organic Rankine cycle module (11) comprising a heat transfer fluid (working medium, para. 45), and the adiabatic compressor (2a, 2b) comprising N adiabatic compression stages (2a, 2b) for a gas (fed thereto), N being greater than or equal to 2 (para. 56), and, downstream of each of the adiabatic compression stages (2a, 2b), two heat exchangers (14a, 14b, 20a, 20b): a first heat exchanger (14a, 14b) configured to extract heat from the gas leaving the adiabatic compression stage (2a, 2b) and to heat the heat transfer fluid (working medium) passing through the first heat exchanger (14a, 14b) and a second heat exchanger (20a, 20b) configured to extract heat from the gas leaving the first heat exchanger (14a, 14b) to a cold source (21; para. 37 “water or different coolant” also see para. 63) passing through the second heat exchanger (20a, 20b).
In regard to claim 2, Goethals teaches that the second heat exchanger (20a, 20b) is a gas-air exchanger (see fig. 8, 9).
In regard to claim 3, Goethals teaches that the second heat exchanger (20a, 20b) is a gas-water exchanger (para. 37).
In regard to claim 4, Goethals teaches that the heat transfer fluid (working medium) has a boiling temperature (para. 45) between an inlet temperature of the cold source (para. 47) and a gas outlet temperature in the adiabatic compression stage (2a, 2b) (para. 45).
In regard to claim 10, Goethals teaches a method (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 5-11) for recovering compression energy from a gas (that is compressed; para. ), the method comprising:
a) adiabatic compression (interpreted as compression wherein external heat is not added, see 2a, 2b) of the gas in an adiabatic compression stage (2a, 2b);
b) extraction of part of heat from the compressed gas in a first heat exchanger (14a, 14b) comprising a heat transfer fluid (working medium) of an organic Rankine cycle module (11; para. 34);
c) extracting part of heat from the gas coming from the first heat exchanger (14a, 14b) in a second heat exchanger (20a, 20b) comprising a cold source (para. 37); repetition of the steps a) to c) N times, where N is greater than or equal to 2 (see Figs. 5-11); use (para. 45) of the heat extracted in the first heat exchanger (14a, 14b) to produce energy in the Rankine organic cycle module (11).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goethals (US 2017/0254223) in view of McEwen (US 3516248). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 5, Goethals teaches most of the claim limitations but does not appear to explicitly state that the heat transfer fluid (working medium) is methanol, isobutane or ethanol. However, these are well known working fluids for organic rankine cycles. McEwen teaches using isobutane (column 3, line 70-75) for working fluid of an organic rankine cycle (column 2, line 1-20). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the heat transfer fluid of Goethals to be isobutane to provide a working fluid that is “outstanding” (column 2, line 1-8) and provide higher efficiencies and lower system costs and provides the capability of utilizing low temperature waste heat (column 2, line 10-16)
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goethals (US 2017/0254223) in view of Fujima (JP 10-238889). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Goethals teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the compressed gas is from a liquefier. However, it is well known to utilize rejected waste heat from compressed gas of a liquefier to run other cycles as taught by Fujima. Fujima teaches utilizing waste heat from a compressed gas (from 14, 15) of a helium liquefier (13; para. 16) to run another heat cycle (31); the liquefier (13) liquefying the gas (helium gas) that is compressed (by 14, 15); the liquefier (13) is a refrigerated liquefier (para. 15-16) comprising at least one cooling circuit (see lines including 11, 10) and the gas (helium) is the gas of the at least one cooling circuit of the refrigerated liquefier (helium liquefier) and the gas to be liquefied (helium is liquefied, para. 15-16).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Goethals to apply the waste heat utilization techniques and structures of Goethals to the helium gas of a helium liquefier as taught by Fujima for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of waste heat utilization in helium liquefaction applications and to provide helium liquefaction for use thereof.
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
February 2, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763