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 .
Continued Prosecution Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/24/2025. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the receiver, as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan (US3115014A).in view of Oppedal et al. (NO339027B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hogan teaches a device for compressing a fluid [thermal compressor of high efficiency col. 1, lines 10-13], said device comprising:
a compression chamber [chamber 12 and chamber 10, Figure 12] accommodating a mobile piston [piston 16 and 14, connected via shaft 44, Figure 12];
a first end accommodating a first end of the compression chamber [at chamber 12, Figure 12];
a second end accommodating a second end of the compression chamber [at chamber 10, Figure 12], the piston being able to move in translation between the first and second ends of the compression chamber [via shaft 44 driven by drive shaft 30, driven member 31 and wheel 31, Figure 12; col. 7, lines 34-36];
a regeneration circuit [passages 32 and 33, 37 and 38, including Regenerators R, Figure 12] connecting the first and second ends of the compression chamber [where subchamber 18 and 22 are joined through a passage 37 and 38 and sub chambers 17 and 21 are joined through a passage 32 and 33, Figure 12] and having a regenerator [regenerators R, Figure 12];
a supply pipe [56, Figure 12] comprising an upstream end intended to be connected to a source of fluid to be compressed [where fluid ballast 53 furnishes a volume of fluid via valve 57 and valve 55; col. 7, lines 36-42] and a downstream end opening into the first end of the compression chamber [chamber 12, Figure 12], the supply pipe comprising a set of one or more valves [valve 57, Figure 12]; and
at least one discharge pipe configured to discharge the compressed fluid [where Figure 12 may be used as a source of compressed fluid with conduits connected to subchambers 21 and 22 as in Figure 14; col. 8, lines 13-15], said discharge pipe comprising an upstream end connected to the compression chamber [chamber 12, Figure 12] and a downstream end intended to be connected to a receiver of the compressed fluid [where an object of the invention is to be used as a source of compressed fluid; col. 1, lines 44-55], the regeneration circuit comprising, between the regenerator and the first end of the compression chamber, a heat exchanger [cooler 36, Figure 12] that is configured to ensure an exchange of heat between the flow of fluid that has passed through the regenerator during the first movement of the piston towards the second end of the compression chamber [where when piston 14 moves toward subchamber 17, fluid from chamber 17 passes through heater 34, regenerator R, and then cooler 36, Figure 12] and a cold source [where the cooler may be a heat exchanger suitable for circulating a coolant fluid by way of conduit 41 in out-of-contact heat exchange with the fluids of the cycle; col. 3, lines 50-53, where manner in which the hot or cold heat exchange liquids are furnished is within the skill of the art ; col. 3, lines 53-55].
wherein the source of fluid to be compressed comprises a tank of liquefied fluid [where fluid ballast 53 furnishes a volume of fluid via valve 57 and valve 55; col. 7, lines 36-42] and is connected to the upstream end of the supply pipe [upstream of 56, Figure 12];
Hogan teaches the cold source comprises of a passage for said flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid through the heat exchanger [conduit 41, Figure 12] to absorb heat from the flow of fluid that has passed through the regenerator [from passage 32 through regenerator R, Figure 12; where hot fluid from sub chamber 17 is forced out downwardly as shown in the embodiment of Figure 3 and passes through the heater, regenerator, and then the cooler; col. 4, lines 34-45, where Figure 3 shares the features with Figure 12] but does not teach the cold source comprises of a tap-off pipe configured to withdraw a flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid from said tank of liquefied fluid, and return said flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid to said tank of liquefied fluid to form a closed-loop thermosiphon.
However, Oppedal teaches a system for conditioning the pressure in a LNG storage tank [Abstract] comprising of a tap-off pipe [pressure build-up inlet conduit 8, Figure 1] configured to withdraw a flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid from said tank of liquefied fluid [where pressure build-up unit inlet conduit 8 to transfer LNG, Figure 1; p.5, lines 1-4], provide a passage for said flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid through the heat exchanger [pressure build up unit (PBU) 3, Figure 1, where PBU 3 heats LNG and evaporates it before returning the LVG to the top of tank; p.1, lines 17-23], and return said flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid to said tank [where LNG is returned to tank 2, Figure 1; p.1, lines 17-23] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a pressure-building circuit to the fluid tank, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have the cold source comprise of a tap-off pipe configured to withdraw a flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid from said tank of liquefied fluid, and return said flow of liquefied cryogenic fluid to said tank of liquefied fluid to form a closed-loop thermosiphon in view of the teachings of Oppedal where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchange system with large heat capacity .
Additionally, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “liquified fluid.” and “…a downstream end intended to be connected to a receiver of the compressed fluid.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 2, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tap-off pipe branches off from the supply pipe.
However, Oppedal teaches a system for conditioning the pressure in a LNG storage tank [Abstract] where the tap-off pipe [pressure build-up inlet conduit 8, Figure 1] configured branches off from the supply pipe [feed conduit 7, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a pressure-building circuit to the fluid tank, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the tap-off pipe branches off from the supply pipe in view of the teachings of Oppedal where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity .
Regarding Claim 3. Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the tap-off pipe describes a loop that is connected to the source of fluid and configured to form a thermosiphon.
However, Oppedal teaches a system for conditioning the pressure in a LNG storage tank [Abstract] where the tap-off pipe [pressure build-up inlet conduit 8, Figure 1] describes a loop [inlet 8, return 9 and tank inlet conduit 10, Figure 1, where PBU 3 heats LNG and evaporates it before returning the LVG to the top of tank; p.1, lines 17-23] that is connected to the source of fluid [tank 2, Figure 1] and configured to form a thermosiphon [where fluid circulation is driven by heat exchange and pressure build up; p.4, liens 35-41] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a pressure-building circuit to the fluid tank, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the tap-off pipe branches off from the supply pipe in view of the teachings of Oppedal where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity.
Regarding Claim 6, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the second end of the device [chamber 10, Figure 12] comprises a heating system [heater 34, Figure 12].
Regarding Claim 7, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first end of the device [on the side of chamber 12, Figure 12] comprises a cold end heat exchanger [cooler 36, Figure 12] configured to cool fluid flowing towards [where hot fluid from sub chamber 17 is forced out downwardly as shown in the embodiment of Figure 3 and passes through the heater, regenerator, and then the cooler; col. 4, lines 34-45, where Figure 3 shares the features with Figure 12].
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Claims 9 and 10 recite functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Further regarding Claim 11, Hogan, as modified, teaches the positively recited structure of claim 10, and further teaches the invention configured to regulate a flow rate of the cryogenic fluid tapped from the tank [where fluid ballast 53 furnishes a volume of fluid via valve 57 and valve 55; col. 7, lines 36-42] and be used in the cooling step to control a temperature of the fluid transferred towards the first end of the compression chamber during step c) [where PBU 3 absorbs heat, Figure 1 of Oppedal, see Oppedal as applied to the rejection of claim 1].
Claim 11 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 13, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tap-off pipe is configured to withdraw liquefied cryogenic fluid from the source of fluid to pass through the heat exchanger as the cold source.
However, Oppedal teaches a system for conditioning the pressure in a LNG storage tank [Abstract] where the tap-off pipe [pressure build-up inlet conduit 8, Figure 1] is configured to withdraw liquefied cryogenic fluid from the source of fluid [tank 2, Figure 1; where tank 2 supplies LNG to consumers via conduit 11, Figure 1] to pass through the heat exchanger as the cold source [where PBU absorbs heat to vaporize LNG; p.1, lines 17-23] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a pressure-building circuit to the fluid tank, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the tap-off pipe is configured to withdraw liquefied cryogenic fluid from the source of fluid to pass through the heat exchanger as the cold source in view of the teachings of Oppedal where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity.
Regarding Claim 14, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tap-off pipe is further configured to return the cryogenic fluid to the source of fluid after said cryogenic fluid has passed through the heat exchanger, thereby forming a closed loop for the cold source.
However, Oppedal teaches a system for conditioning the pressure in a LNG storage tank [Abstract] where the tap-off pipe [pressure build-up inlet conduit 8, Figure 1]
further configured to return the cryogenic fluid to the source of fluid [tank 2, Figure 1; where tank 2 supplies LNG to consumers via conduit 11, Figure 1] after said cryogenic fluid has passed through the heat exchanger [where PBU 3 heats LNG and evaporates it before returning the LVG to the top of tank; p.1, lines 17-23], thereby forming a closed loop for the cold source [inlet 8, return 9 and tank inlet conduit 10, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a pressure-building circuit to the fluid tank, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the tap-off pipe is further configured to return the cryogenic fluid to the source of fluid after said cryogenic fluid has passed through the heat exchanger, thereby forming a closed loop for the cold source in view of the teachings of Oppedal where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing a simple cooling heat exchanger system with large heat capacity.
Regarding Claim 15, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1, and further teaches where the heat exchanger [cooler 34] is a counterflow heat exchanger [where fluid flows in opposing directions in passage 32 and 37 through coolers 36, see arrows of Figure 3, where Figure 3 shares features with embodiment of Figure 12].
Regarding Claim 16, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where said heat exchanger [cooler 36, Figure 12] is distinct from any heat exchanger used for heating fluid at the second end of the compression chamber [heater 34, Figure 12] or for primary regeneration [regenerators R, Figure 12].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan (US3115014A) in view of Oppedal et al. (NO339027B1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Drube et al. (US20030126867A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the tap-off pipe comprises at least one valve for regulating pressure and flow rate of the cryogenic fluid therein.
However, Drube teaches a system dispensing cryogenic liquid [0002] where the tap-off pipe [liquid feed line 18, Figure 1A] comprises at least one valve [pressure building regulating valve 26 and redund and check valves 28a and b, Figure 1A; 0028] for regulating pressure and flow rate of the cryogenic fluid therein [in tank 11, Figure 1; 0028] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, a pressure-building circuit with a regulating valve to the fluid tank, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., protecting against blow-by from the pressure building coil [Drude, 0028]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the tap-off pipe comprises at least one valve for regulating pressure and flow rate of the cryogenic fluid therein in view of the teachings of Oppedal where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., protecting against blow-by from the pressure building coil [Drude, 0028]
Claims 5, 8and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogan (US3115014A) in view of Oppedal et al. (NO339027B1) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Joffroy (US9273681B2), hereinafter Joffroy ‘681.
Regarding Claim 5, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the set of one or more valves [valve 57, Figure 12] of the supply pipe [fluid inlet 19, Figure 1] comprises a non-return valve.
However, Joffroy ‘681 teaches a gaseous fluid compression device [col. 1, lines 3-5] including a set of one or more valves of the supply pipe [where the inlet 81 can be fitted with a valve 81 a or check valve 81 a, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 35-42] comprising a non-return valve [check valve 81 a, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 35-42 ] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., regulating the direction of fluid flow
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the set of one or more valves of the supply pipe comprises a non-return member such as a non-return valve in view of the teachings of Joffroy ‘681 where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., regulating the direction of fluid flow
Regarding Claim 8, Hogan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the regenerator comprises a heat exchanger tube, in particular a cylindrical tube, that is filled with a material configured to store and release the heat and to allow the fluid in the liquid and/or gaseous state to pass through.
However, Joffroy ‘078 teaches a regenerative thermal compressor [col. 1, lines 6-9] where a regenerator [regenerator 9, Figure 1] comprises a heat exchanger tube, in particular a cylindrical tube [where regenerator 9 is around a cylindrical sleeve 50, Figure 1; col. 7, lines 29-38], that is filled with a material configured to store and release the heat [where the regenerator 9 comprises of elements for storing thermal energy; col. 7, lines 29-38] and to allow the fluid in the liquid and/or gaseous state to pass through [where the regenerator comprises fluid channels; col. 7, lines 29-38], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing integration of regenerator components
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the regenerator comprises a heat exchanger tube, in particular a cylindrical tube, that is filled with a material configured to store and release the heat and to allow the fluid in the liquid and/or gaseous state to pass through in view of the teachings of Joffroy ‘078 where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., providing integration of regenerator components
Further regarding Claim 12, Hogan, as modified, teaches the positively recited structure of claim 9 and further teaches where the invention is configured to have where cooling the flow of fluid that has passed through the regenerator (step c) reduces the temperature of said fluid [where hot fluid from sub chamber 17 is forced out downwardly as shown in the embodiment of Figure 3 and passes through the heater, regenerator, and then the cooler; col. 4, lines 34-45, where Figure 3 shares the features with Figure 12] but does not teach a predetermined temperature differential of the fluid in the tank of liquefied fluid.
However Joffroy ‘681 teaches a gaseous fluid compression device [col. 1, lines 3-5] including a predetermined temperature differential [where heat exchanger 5 is for cooling and stabilizes fluid temperature to 50 degrees Celsius before fluid enters first chamber 11; col. 5, lines 14-19; and where fluid from the first chamber 11, which is the cold chamber comprising the fluid inlet at intake valve 81a, leaves at 50 degrees Celsius, demonstrating the ability to set a predetermined temperature relative to the fluid supply; col. 6, lines 23-30] of the fluid tank [where fluid is suction from an upstream tank; col. 7 lines 1-7] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., contribute to high thermal efficiency during heat exchange by precooling fluid before entering the cold end chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Hogan to have where the temperature of said fluid to within a predetermined temperature differential of the fluid in the tank of liquefied fluid in view of the teachings of Joffroy ‘681 where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., contribute to high thermal efficiency during heat exchange by precooling fluid before entering the cold end chamber.
Claim 12 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The function limitations include “…of liquified fluid” where the phase of the fluid does not change the structural limitation of tank. When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. MPEP § 2114.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 6-12 filed on 11/24/2025 in regards to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the remarks, Applicant summarizes Hogan as a thermal compressor that operates with a gaseous fluid at non-cryogenic temperatures and argues Hogan does not teach nor suggest operating with liquefied cryogenic fluids nor does Hogan teach or suggest tapping form a primary liquid source tank to provide coolant. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Hogan is from a non-analogous field of art to the field of cryogenic liquid compression, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Also see In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 230 USPQ 313 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Applicant describes challenges faced in cryogenic liquid compressor include phase change, two-phase flow, and minimizing heat leak. Hogan states a primary objective of the heat engine or thermal compressor is to minimize heat loss and obtain maximum efficiency from a regenerator [col. 1, lines 26-51]. Therefore, Hogan is considered to share a field of endeavor, as pumps and compressors are in the same field of endeavor, and is considered reasonably pertinent, in addressing how to minimize heat loss.
Further a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Hogan does not teach a gaseous working fluid nor non-cryogenic temperatures. Hogan is silent to the phase of the fluid in fluid ballast 53 operates, however the phase and cryogenic nature of the working fluid is drawn toward intended use and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Accordingly, the rejection of record is considered proper and remain.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the tap-off pipe have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 9, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking improve the efficiency of Brunnhofer would not have been motivated to look to Hogan’s disclosure of a gaseous heat engine. Again, Hogan does not limit the compression device to gaseous working fluid. Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of Brunnhofer and Hogan have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hogan in view of Oppedal above.
On page 9, Applicant preemptively argues the branch passage 33 of Hogan, as previously cited, is not a separate closed loop returning to the ballast as amended. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hogan in view of Oppedal above.
On page 9-10, Appliant argues the distinction of a “tank of liquefied fluid” versus Hogan’s gaseous “fluid ballast” is a non-structural “intended use” is overcome by the recitation of the closed-loop thermosiphon. Examiner notes the fluid of fluid ballast 53 is not taught to be in a specific phase. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hogan in view of Oppedal above
On page 10, Applicant argues Joffroy ‘681 does not teach the distinct structural placement of the heat exchanger between the regenerator and the first end of the compression chamber. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hogan in view of Oppedal above.
On page 11, Applicant argues Lee’226 does not teach the thermosiphon feature because the heat exchanger 14 as taught absorbs ambient heat rather than internal process fluid where the purpose is not to build pressure but to actively cool the process fluid to remove thermal inefficiencies. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hogan in view of Oppedal above. In response to applicant's argument the purpose of the tapping liquid is not to build pressure but remove thermal efficiencies, spec., para. 0047, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
On page 11, Applicant further argues in regard to combining Brunnhofer and Lee ‘226 as illogical because Lee’226’s pressure-building circuit is designed to gather ambient heat whereas the Applicant’s problem requires dumping internal process heat, in a specific synergistic system, and in doing so creates a passive thermosiphon. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature have been considered but are not persuasive. A pressure building circuit is considered a thermosiphon loop because it relies on passive fluid forces rather than a pump or compressor to drive fluid flow. Further, in regards to the source of heat, the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection, in light of the amendments of claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claim 1 over Hogan in view of Oppedal above.
Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763