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 Office action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/8/2025 for application. Claims 1-25 & 29 are canceled by Applicant. Claims 26-28 & 30-48 are pending.
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:
“a control system configured for automated control of at least one act in operation of the power production plant, said control system including one or more control paths configured to control automated passage of the cooling stream to the turbine” (claim 26),
“a control system configured for automated control of at least one act in operation of the power production plant, said control system including one or more control paths configured to controllably operate at least a first valve and a second valve so that a portion of the recycle stream is passed to the turbine as a cooling stream” (claim 41), and
“one or more components configured to purify the combustion product stream” (claim 41).
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 § 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 26-28 & 30-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolvick 20150059350 in view of Allam 20130213049.
Regarding Independent Claim 26, Kolvick teaches a power production plant (Figs. 3 & 6) comprising:
a combustor (160);
a turbine (156) arranged to receive a combustion product stream from the combustor and expand the combustion product stream to generate power with a generator (106; para. [0041]);
one or more lines configured for passage of a stream capable of use as a cooling stream (lines from 250 to inlets e.g. 278/298); and
a control system (100) configured for automated control of at least one act in operation of the power production plant (para. [0045]), said control system including one or more control paths configured to control automated passage of the cooling stream to cause cooling of one or more components of the turbine (controller includes control paths, i.e. the controller is configured to provide control, for flow control system 250 to automate passage of the cooling stream to the turbine for cooling; para. [0106]).
Kolvick fails to teach a compressor and a recuperator heat exchanger arranged to receive an expanded combustion product stream from the turbine and a compressed stream from the compressor for exchange of heat from the expanded combustion product stream to the compressed stream.
Allam teaches a power generation plant (Fig. 5) with a compressor (620) and a recuperator heat exchanger (two heat exchangers in series at 420; para. [0216]) arranged to receive an expanded combustion product stream from a turbine (320) and a compressed stream from the compressor (from 620) for exchange of heat from the expanded combustion product stream to the compressed stream (para. [0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kolvick’s power production plant to include a recuperator heat exchanger, as taught by Allam, in order to cool the turbine discharge stream while providing the recirculated exhaust stream in a desired temperature range (Allam; para. [0216]) and to increase the pressure of recirculated fluid with the compressor (Allam; para. [0232]), consistent with Kolvick’s teaching of providing a recirculated exhaust gas at a desired temperature using a heat exchanger. Note that the inclusion of the compressor from Allam is consistent with Kolvick’s teaching that the EGR system 58 can include compressors (blowers; Kolvick, para. [0033]) in combination with the presence of a separate compressor (152).
Regarding Dependent Claim 27, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 26, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths are configured to control one or more of mass flow, pressure, temperature, and source of the cooling stream (para. [0078]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 28, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 26, and Kolvick further teaches the stream capable of use as a cooling stream is a stream comprising carbon dioxide (the exhaust gas stream used as the cooling stream contains carbon dioxide as evidenced at para. [0036]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 30, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 26, and Kolvick in view of Allam teaches, as discussed for claim 26 above, the recuperator heat exchanger comprises at least two heat exchange units operating in different temperature ranges (two heat exchangers in series; para. [0216]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 31, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 26, and Kolvick in view of Allam, as discussed above for claim 26, teaches the stream capable of use as a cooling stream is a stream passing through the recuperator heat exchanger (Kolvick’s exhaust stream through EGR system 58 passes through the recuperator heat exchanger as modified with Allam above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 32, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 31, and Kolvick in view of Allam teaches, as discussed for claim 26 above, the stream passing through the recuperator heat exchanger is heated during passage through the recuperator heat exchanger (Allam; para. [0216]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 33, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 26, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths are configured to control operation of one or more valves arranged in the one or more lines configured for passage of the stream capable of use as the cooling stream (valves in 58 and also in 250, which can be controlled to selectively divert exhaust gas via different outlets 332 of 250; paras. [0033], [0046], & [0108]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 34, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 33, and Kolvick further teaches the operation of the one or more valves is biased to maintain a cooling temperature setpoint range for the cooling stream (the valves can be operated as claimed, and Kolvick teaches supplying the exhaust gas at desired temperatures; para. [0077]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 35, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 34, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths compares a differential between the cooling temperature set point range and an actual, measured temperature of the cooling stream (feedback control of temperature; para. [0113]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 36, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 35, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths further compares a differential between a mass flow set point for the cooling stream and an actual, measured mass flow of the cooling stream (feedback control of flow rate, which will inherently adjust mass flow; para. [0112]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 37, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 36, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more valves includes at least two valves arranged in the one or more lines to provide flow of the cooling stream at different temperatures (valves in 58 and 250 are arranged in the one or more lines and are capable of providing the cooling stream at different temperatures; para. [0113]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 38, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 26, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths are configured to control operation of at least a first valve and a second valve arranged in the one or more lines configured for passage of the stream capable of use as the cooling stream (interpretation 1: valves in 58 and also in 250, which can be controlled to selectively divert exhaust gas via different outlets 332 of 250, see paras. [0033], [0046], & [0108], interpretation 2: valves in 250 which can respectively selectively divert flows via different outlets and adjust flow rates; para. [0077]),
PNG
media_image1.png
4
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first valve being positioned at a location in the one or more lines where the stream capable of use as the cooling stream is at a first temperature (interpretation 1: valve in 250, interpretation 2: first valve in 250), and the second valve being positioned at a location in the one or more lines where the stream capable of use as the cooling stream is at a second temperature (interpretation 1: valve in 58, interpretation 2: second valve in 250) that is greater than the first temperature (interpretation 1: valves are positioned such the exhaust gas stream can be at different temperatures where valve in 58 may be at a higher temperature, interpretation 2: valves in 250 are positioned such that they are capable of handling exhaust gas stream at different temperatures, whether at different points in operation or as a function of the adjustment of temperature in 250 and diversion of flow).
Regarding Dependent Claim 39, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 38, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths control the first valve based on a differential between a cooling temperature set point for the cooling stream and an actual, measured temperature of the cooling stream (interpretations 1 & 2: feedback control of temperature, with 250 used to provide desired temperatures of gas; paras. [0077] & [0113]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 40, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 38, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths control the second valve based on a differential between a mass flow set point for the cooling stream and an actual, measured mass flow of the cooling stream (interpretation 2: feedback control of flow rate of exhaust gas stream in 250 inherently adjusts mass flow; para. [0077]).
Regarding Independent Claim 41, Kolvick teaches a power production plant (Figs. 3 & 6) comprising:
a combustor (160) configured to combust a fuel and form a combustion product stream;
a turbine (156) configured to expand the combustion product stream and generate power;
one or more components configured to purify the combustion product stream cooled in the recuperator heat exchanger and form a recycle stream (EG processing system 54);
one or more lines (through 54/58) arranged to pass at least a portion of the recycle stream through a heat exchanger so that the recycle stream is heated (temperature controlled, which would include heating; para. [0033]); and
a control system (100) configured for automated control of at least one act in operation of the power production plant (para. [0045], said control system including one or more control paths configured to controllably operate at least a first valve and a second valve (valves in flow control system 250) so that a portion of the recycle stream is passed to the turbine as a cooling stream (from 250 as streams 252; para. [0106]), wherein the first valve is operable to pass the portion of the recycle stream at a first temperature range and the second valve is operable to pass the portion of the recycle stream at a second temperature range that is greater than the first temperature range (valves in 250 capable of passing streams at different temperature ranges via feedback control of temperature of streams 252; paras. [0033] & [0113]).
Kolvick fails to teach the heat exchanger is a recuperator heat exchanger arranged to receive the combustion product stream from the turbine and configured to cool the combustion product stream.
Allam teaches a power generation plant (Fig. 5) with a recuperator heat exchanger (two heat exchangers in series at 420; para. [0216]) which cools exhaust from a turbine (320) while heating a recirculated exhaust stream (85) (para. [0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kolvick’s power production plant to include a recuperator heat exchanger arranged to receive the combustion product stream from the turbine and configured to cool the combustion product stream, as taught by Allam, in order to cool the turbine discharge stream while providing a recirculated exhaust stream in a desired temperature range (Allam; para. [0216]), consistent with Kolvick’s teaching of providing a recirculated exhaust gas at a desired temperature using a heat exchanger.
Regarding Dependent Claim 42, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 41, and Kolvick further teaches a flow control element is in communication with one of the first valve and the second valve (any of various flow control elements in 250; para. [0077]) and a temperature control element is in communication with another of the first valve and the second valve (components 194-210 which may include a cooler that is in communication with 250 and valves within it; para. [0063]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 43, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 41, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths are configured to control passage of the portion of the recycle stream through one or both of the first valve and the second valve so that a temperature of the cooling stream is biased to a cooling temperature setpoint range (feedback control of temperature; paras. [0112]-[0113]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 44, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 43, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths compares a differential between the cooling temperature set point and an actual, measured temperature of the cooling stream (paras. [0113]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 45, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 44, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths further compares a differential between a mass flow set point for the cooling stream and an actual, measured mass flow of the cooling stream (feedback control of flow rate inherently adjusts mass flow within a range; para. [0112]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 46, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 41, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths control the first valve based on a differential between a cooling temperature setpoint range for the cooling stream and an actual, measured temperature of the cooling stream (feedback control of temperature; para. [0113]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 47, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 46, and Kolvick further teaches the one or more control paths control the second valve based on a differential between a mass flow set point for the cooling stream and an actual, measured mass flow of the cooling stream (feedback control of flow rate inherently adjusts mass flow within a range; para. [0112]).
Regarding Dependent Claim 48, Kolvick in view of Allam teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 41, and Kolvick further teaches a compressor configured to compress the recycle stream (54 may include a compressor; para. [0106]).
Kolvick fails to expressly teach the compressor compresses the recycle stream prior to passage through the recuperator heat exchanger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (pp. 9-10 of Remarks) that Allam’s recuperator heat exchanger and Kolvick’s HRSG cannot coexist in the EG processing system 54 of Kolvick is unpersuasive. Applicant states that “[b]oth the recuperator heat exchanger of Allam and the HRSG of Kolvick require that a bulk of the available [heat] must be utilized for a dedicated purpose” and that “[o]peration of the HRSG in Kolvick means that the recuperator heat exchanger of Allam would not have sufficient heat to perform the function taught by Allam[, l]ikewise, addition of the recuperator heat exchanger of Allam to perform the function taught by Allam means that the HRSG of Kolvick would not have sufficient heat to perform the functions taught by Kolvick.” Arguments presented by Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Neither Kolvick nor Allam specify how much heat is necessary for the HRSG or the recuperator heat exchanger, respectively, to properly function or how much residual heat is available in the exhaust gas downstream from these components. However, Kolvick teaches that the exhaust does not have to pass successively through the HRSG and additional heat exchangers of the EGR system 58 (see last sentence of para. [0042]), but rather that the exhaust gas may be recirculated through the EGR system 58 (including its additional heat exchangers) with or without passing through the HRSG. Applicant’s argument is therefore moot since the exhaust gas is not required to pass through the HRSG. Additionally, however, even if the exhaust gas were to pass through the HRSG and the EGR system 58 successively, Kolvick does teach additional heat exchangers other than the HRSG in the EGR system 58 portion of the EG processing system 54 which suggests that there is sufficient residual heat in Kolvick’s exhaust gas to be useful in other heat exchange arrangements (see last sentence of para. [0042]). Complementary to this, Allam teaches that recuperator heat exchanger 420 may include two or more heat exchangers, which suggests there is sufficient residual heat in the exhaust to be useful in further heat exchange arrangements if the recuperator heat exchanger 420 includes one or even two recuperative heat exchangers. The evidence on the record, therefore, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Allam’s recuperator heat exchanger could be successfully used in Kolvick’s power production plant Applicant’s argument, therefore, is unpersuasive.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741