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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the drawings and specification teach a first condenser (209) which is used to condition a working fluid and the passes that fluid to a compression device (214, understood to be a compressor) to compress the fluid (pages 12-13). This teaching would result in a condensed fluid, which is what would be understood in the art to be coming from a condenser (also see instant specification page 4). As such, the specification is objected to because it discloses compressing a liquid from a condenser, whereas it is generally understood that liquid is incompressible and as such cannot be compressed in a compressor.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings, specifically figure 3 and equivalent components in figure 4 teach a first condenser (209) which is used to condition a working fluid and the passes that fluid to a compression device (214, understood to be a compressor) to compress the fluid (pages 12-13). This teaching would result in a condensed fluid, which is what would be understood in the art to be coming from a condenser (also see instant specification page 4). As such, the drawings are objected to because it discloses compressing a liquid from a condenser, whereas it is generally understood that liquid is incompressible and as such cannot be compressed in a compressor. 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 § 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 8-11, 14, 17, 18-19 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 8 recites “a thermoelectric generator fluidly coupled thereto and in thermal communication with” which is considered indefinite. A thermoelectric generator is a solid-state component, so it is unclear how it can be fluidly coupled to anything. The specification makes no explanation to how this is done; with Figure 5 showing that conduits abut the TEG. Such contact is not a fluidic coupling, and would be understood to be one. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the thermoelectric generator is thermally coupled to one of the components as claimed. Further, as written it is unclear what the thermoelectric generator is meant to be in thermal communication with. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is also understood that it is thermal communication with the respective component that comprises the thermoelectric generator.
Claim 11 recites “the or each thermoelectric generator is configured to heat and/or cool at least one of the first working fluid, the second working fluid, and the third working fluid, and/or generate electricity therefrom” which is considered indefinite. As claimed and because of the use of multiple and/or statements it is unclear what the scope of the claims is. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the or each thermoelectric generator is configured to heat and/or cool at least one of the fluids and/or the or each thermoelectric generator is configured to generate electricity.
Claim 14 recites “a first condenser” in line 11 which is considered indefinite as the claims have already recited “a first condenser” and as such it is unclear if this is a different first condenser or the same. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the same first condenser.
Claim 14 recites a series of action on the first working fluid circuit but does not describe them in a way that connects them resulting in the claims being indefinite as the individual steps appear to be only related in that they are applied to the first mass flow. FO the purpose of
Claim 17 recites “further encoded with instructions” and then described specific operations for the thermoelectric generator; however, claim 15 from which claim 17 depends has already recited specific operations for the for the controller with respect to the generator that instructions are required for, which the specific instruction of claim 17 describe. As such, if claim 17 is requiring specific additional instructions, or is only narrowing the limitation of “regulate a mode of operation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that “further encoded” is specifically describing what the mode of operation of claim 15 is.
Claim 18 recites “instructions to cause the controller to generate the control signal on the basis of one or more condition signals received from one or more sensors” and then discuss the instructions relating to a sensor which is considered indefinite. The claims already require instruction to a control signal sensor and it is unclear if this is the same sensor or a different set of instructions. The claims also already only require a single control signal and a single sensor. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be further defining the limitations of claim 15 such that there can be more than one of the sensors as defined in claim 15 and they are specifically located as claimed for providing the control signals as claimed.
Claim 19 recites “a thermoelectric generator fluidly coupled thereto and in thermal communication with” which is considered indefinite. A thermoelectric generator is a solid-state component, so it is unclear how it can be fluidly coupled to anything. The specification makes no explanation to how this is done; with Figure 5 showing that conduits abut the TEG. Such contact is not a fluidic coupling, and would be understood to be one. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the thermoelectric generator is thermally coupled to one of the components as claimed. Further, as written it is unclear what the thermoelectric generator is meant to be in thermal communication with. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is also understood that it is thermal communication with the respective component that comprises the thermoelectric generator.
Claims 9-10 are rejected as being rejected by a rejected claim.
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.
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:
expansion device in claim 2, understood to be an expander,
compression device in claim 3, understood to be a compressor.
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.
The claims repeatedly use the terms upstream and downstream. Although not explicitly stated, as effectively recited and disclosed the first working fluid circuit is a closed loop, which means that every component is both upstream of every other component and downstream of every other component, which is how the claims are construed. This is consistent with applicant specification, see page 8.
The claims use the term “fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with” to multiple components that can also be understood to be part of the respective circuits they are described as being apart of. This limitation is understood that as long as the fluid flows through those components the limitation is met.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Freund (US PG Pub 20120102996), hereinafter referred to as Freund.
With respect to claim 1, Freund (Figure 1) teaches an apparatus, comprising: a first working fluid circuit comprising a first working fluid (first cycle loop 102 containing CO2, paragraph 30);
a heat exchanger fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit, the heat exchanger to transfer thermal energy from a heat source stream to the first working fluid within the first working fluid circuit (WHR boiler 118 heats stream 116 to become 120 against heat source which enters WHR boiler at 117 and leaves at 119, paragraph 31);
a recuperator fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the heat exchanger (intermediate recuperator 114 is downstream of WHR boiler with respect to stream 120, paragraph 32);
a first condenser fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the recuperator (from the recuperator the stream eventually passes to condenser evaporator 136, paragraph 33);
a second working fluid circuit comprising a second working fluid (loop 104 which is an absorption chiller cycle which has refrigerant, paragraph 34), the second working fluid circuit coupled to and in thermal communication with the first condenser (the refrigerant of the second loop cools the condenser, paragraph 34); a second condenser fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the second working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the first condenser (condenser 150 is downstream of 136 with respect to the output of 136 140 where it cools the fluid in the absorption cycle, paragraph 37); and a third working fluid circuit comprising a third working fluid, the third working fluid circuit coupled to and in thermal communication with the second condenser (the second cycle receives water or ambient air as a coolant stream at 149 and it leaves at 151, paragraph 37, which is also a working fluid circuit).
With respect to claim 2, Freund teaches further comprising: an expansion device fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of the recuperator (expander 122 is between WHR boiler and intermediate recuperator, paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 4, Freund teaches a pump fluidly coupled to the second working fluid, the pump to circulate the second working fluid within the second working fluid circuit (pump 46, paragraph 36).
With respect to claim 6, Freund teaches wherein the expansion device is configured to generate mechanical energy from expansion of the first working fluid therein, the apparatus further comprising: a generator coupled to the expansion device to convert the mechanical energy to electrical energy (the expander 122 can be connected to a generator via a shaft, paragraph 32, which would convert mechanical energy of the shaft to electrical energy).
With respect to claim 14, heating a first mass flow of a first working fluid in a heat exchanger fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with a first working fluid circuit and a heat source stream (first cycle loop 102 containing CO2, paragraph 30, which is heated against heat source 117 in WHR boiler 118, paragraph 31) , wherein the heat exchanger is configured to transfer thermal energy from the heat source stream to the first mass flow of the first working fluid within the first working fluid circuit (WHR boiler 118 heats stream 116 to become 120 against heat source which enters WHR boiler at 117 and leaves at 119, paragraph 31);
transferring, via a recuperator, heat from the first mass flow downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of a first condenser to the first mass flow downstream of the first condenser and upstream of the heat exchanger (intermediate recuperator 114 which heats the fluid from the reboiler 124 that is being recycled back to the condenser 136 with fluid coming from the condenser to the reboiler 112, paragraphs 31-33;
condensing the first mass flow of the first working fluid in a first condenser fluidly coupled to the first working fluid circuit (the CO2 condense in 136, paragraph 33);
condensing a second mass flow of a second working fluid of a second working fluid circuit fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first condenser, the second mass flow condensed using a second condenser fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the second working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the first condenser (coolant stream in absorption chiller cycle 104 is heated in condenser 136, paragraph 13 and is then condensed in condenser 150, paragraph 36;
conditioning, using a third mass flow of a third working fluid within a third working fluid circuit coupled to and in thermal communication with the second condenser, the second mass flow of the second working fluid (water or ambient air which is the third working fluid passed into as 149 and leaves the condenser as 151 to condensed the stream 154 of the second working fluid, paragraph 37).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund and further in view of Bhatia (US PG Pub 20190032967), hereinafter referred to as Bhatia.
With respect to claim 3, Freund does not teach a compression device fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the expansion device and upstream of the recuperator. Freund does teach a pump, but as understood in view of the claim interpretation above, a pump is not a compression device.
Bhatia teaches (Figure 1) that upstream of a condenser (102) that a compressor (10) is provided to compress the working fluid to a higher pressure (paragraph 55).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of providing a pump downstream of the condenser of Freund to have provided a compressor upstream of the condenser based on the teaching of Bhatia since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the compressor upstream of the condenser as the method of driving the fluid would allow what would be common knowledge in the art of compressing the fluid prior to condensing thus increasing the efficiency of the condenser which can reduce the amount of cooling required from the second working fluid. Placing the compressor upstream of the compressor can be a location that is considered both downstream of the expansion device as fluid flows from the expansion device to the compressor as well as upstream of the recuperator as fluid flows from the compressor the recuperator.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund and further in view of Lehar et al. (US PG Pub 20200248592), hereinafter referred to as Lehar.
With respect to claim 5, Freund does not teach a storage vessel fluidly coupled to the second working fluid circuit to store the second working fluid for the second working fluid circuit.
Lehar (Figure 1) teaches in a refrigerant cycle with a liquid that a tank (40) can be provided (paragraph 45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lehar provided a tank in the second working fluid circuit of Freund since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a tank in the second cycle would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of regulating the amount of refrigerant in the circuit while also allowing for storage of refrigerant when it is not needed in the circuit to better regulate the circuit.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund/Bahtia and further in view of Lehar.
With respect to claim 7, Freund as modified teaches the compression device configured to compress the first working fluid for the recuperator (the fluid from the recuperator is ultimately passed to the compression device).
Freund does not teach wherein the expansion device is configured to generate mechanical energy from expansion of the first working fluid therein, and wherein the compression device is coupled to the expansion device whereby to receive mechanical energy therefrom.
Lehar teaches (Figure 1) that a compressor (62) can be connected to an expander (57) via a shaft (56) in the same cycle such that the compressor is driven by the expansion (paragraphs 50-51).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lehar provided a shaft connected the expander and compressor of Bahtia as modified such that the rotation of the expander can be used to drive the compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the shaft would allow the rotation of the turbine to used to generate mechanical energy recoverable by the compressor which would provide what is common knowledge in the art of reducing the amount of external energy needed for operating the system by using the energy from the expander to drive the compressor.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund and further in view of Schumann (US PG Pub 20210302076), hereinafter referred to as Schumann.
With respect to claim 8, Freund does not teach wherein the first condenser comprises a thermoelectric generator fluidly coupled thereto and in thermal communication therewith.
Schumann teaches that a condenser body (100) can include a thermoelectric generator module (40) so that the temperature difference between the vapor and the cooling fluid causes the TEG module to generate electricity (paragraph 30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Schumann provided a thermoelectric generator in the first condenser (136) of Freund as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the thermoelectric generator would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of utilizing the temperature different between the fluids to be generate electricity that can be used or stored for when it is needed.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund/Schumann and Jaffrey (US PG Pub 20210262706), hereinafter referred to as Jaffrey.
With respect to claim 9, Freund does not teach a controller to control a mode of operation of the or each thermoelectric generator in response to a condition signal generated by a sensor configured to generate a measure representing a condition of the first working fluid.
Jaffrey teaches that a sensor can be provided at the inlet of a passage for refrigerant being cooled through condenser attached to a TEG (paragraph 70-71) which measured temperature can be used passed to a thermal management module and a power management module. Jaffrey teaches that is a temperature of a heat source is determined to be greater than the maximum operating temperature of the TEG the electric load can be disconnected to prevent the TEG from being damaged (paragraph 134) and that, it is taught that the temperature of a heat source can be monitored such that based on the temperature a controller can be used to electrically disconnect a TEG such that no power is generated (paragraph 143).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a controller with a sensor at an inlet of the fluid being cooled in the condenser of Freund as modified so that based on the teaching of Jaffrey temperature measurements of a fluid in the condenser can be used to control the TEG such that if the temperature is above a certain temperature, the TEG can be electrically disconnected by the controller to prevent damage to the TEG.
With respect to claim 10, Freund as modified teaches wherein the sensor is provided at an inlet of the first condenser (as modified the sensor is at an inlet of the first condenser).
With respect to claim 11, Freund as modified teaches wherein the thermoelectric generator generates electricity (the thermoelectric generator as modified generates electricity).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund and further in view of Uechi et al. (US PG Pub 20180045080), hereinafter referred to as Uechi.
With respect to claim 12, Freund teaches wherein the heat exchanger is first heat exchanger (the WH boiler is a first heat exchanger).
Freund does not teach the apparatus further comprising: a second heat exchanger fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit, the second heat exchanger to transfer thermal energy from the heat source stream to the first working fluid within the first working fluid circuit.
Uechi (Figure 1) teaches that in a waste heat recovery boiler (110) that multiple individual heat exchangers (112c and 114c) such that the fluid is first heated in the evaporator and then separately heated in the superheater (paragraph 73).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Uechi to have the waste boiler of Freund as modified to have included two separate heat exchangers, including an evaporator and a superheater where fluid heated in the evaporator (which acts as the first heat exchanger) is then heated in a superheater (second heat exchanger) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing multiple heat exchangers would provide what is common knowledge in the art of an efficient way to provide heating of the first working fluid.
With respect to claim 13, Freund teahces wherein the heat exchanger is first heat exchanger (the WH boiler is a first heat exchanger).
Freund does not teach the apparatus further comprising: a second heat exchanger fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit, the second heat exchanger to transfer thermal energy from the heat source stream to the first working fluid within the first working fluid circuit.
Uechi (Figure 1) teaches that in a waste heat recovery boiler (110) that multiple individual heat exchangers (112c and 114c) such that the fluid is first heated in the evaporator and then separately heated in the superheater (paragraph 73).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Uechi to have the waste boiler of Freund as modified to have included two separate heat exchangers, including an evaporator and a superheater where fluid heated in the evaporator (which acts as the first heat exchanger) is then heated in a superheater (second heat exchanger) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing multiple heat exchangers would provide what is common knowledge in the art of an efficient way to provide heating of the first working fluid.
Freund does not teach a second expansion device fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the heat exchanger and upstream of the second heat exchanger.
Uechi teaches that two separate turbines (high pressure turbine 121c) and (low pressure turbine 121a) in series after the heat exchangers (paragraph 69).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Uechi have provided the expansion of Freund as a high pressure expander and a low pressure expander in series since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge providing two expanders in series so that after a first stage of expansion has been provided from a high pressure a second stage at low pressure can be provided which would provide additional power generation as compared to a single stage. With respect to the cycle, both turbines can be considered to be downstream of the first heat exchanger and upstream of the second as the cycle is in a closed loop.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freund and further in view of Schumann and Jaffrey and Rite et al. (US PG Pub 20210270506)
With respect to claim 15, Freund teaches an apparatus including a first working fluid circuit comprising a first working fluid (first cycle loop 102 containing CO2, paragraph 30);
a heat exchanger fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit, the heat exchanger to transfer thermal energy from a heat source stream to the first working fluid within the first working fluid circuit (WHR boiler 118 heats stream 116 to become 120 against heat source which enters WHR boiler at 117 and leaves at 119, paragraph 31);
a recuperator fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the heat exchanger (intermediate recuperator 114 is downstream of WHR boiler with respect to stream 120, paragraph 32);
a first condenser fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the first working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the recuperator (from the recuperator the stream eventually passes to condenser evaporator 136, paragraph 33);
a second working fluid circuit comprising a second working fluid (loop 104 which is an absorption chiller cycle which has refrigerant, paragraph 34), the second working fluid circuit coupled to and in thermal communication with the first condenser (the refrigerant of the second loop cools the condenser, paragraph 34);
a second condenser fluidly coupled to and in thermal communication with the second working fluid circuit and disposed downstream of the first condenser (condenser 150 is downstream of 136 with respect to the output of 136 140 where it cools the fluid in the absorption cycle, paragraph 37);
and a third working fluid circuit comprising a third working fluid, the third working fluid circuit coupled to and in thermal communication with the second condenser (the second cycle receives water or ambient air as a coolant stream at 149 and it leaves at 151, paragraph 37, which is also a working fluid circuit).
Freund does not teach a thermoelectric generator.
Schumann teaches that a condenser body (100) can include a thermoelectric generator module (40) so that the temperature difference between the vapor and the cooling fluid causes the TEG module to generate electricity (paragraph 30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Schumann provided a thermoelectric generator in the first condenser (136) of Freund as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the thermoelectric generator would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of utilizing the temperature different between the fluids to be generate electricity that can be used or stored for when it is needed.
Freund does not teach a controller to modulate and condition the working fluid that is part of the apparatus whereby to whereby to cause the controller to: regulate a mode of operation of at least one thermoelectric generator using a control signal received from a sensor, the control signal representing a condition of the first working fluid.
Jaffrey teaches that a sensor can be provided at the inlet of a passage for refrigerant being cooled through condenser attached to a TEG (paragraph 70-71) which measured temperature can be used passed to a thermal management module and a power management module. Jaffrey teaches that is a temperature of a heat source is determined to be greater than the maximum operating temperature of the TEG the electric load can be disconnected to prevent the TEG from being damaged (paragraph 134) and that, it is taught that the temperature of a heat source can be monitored such that based on the temperature a controller can be used to electrically disconnect a TEG such that no power is generated (paragraph 143).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a controller with a temperature sensor at an inlet of the fluid being cooled in the condenser of Freund as modified so that based on the teaching of Jaffrey temperature measurements of a fluid in the condenser can be used to control the TEG such that if the temperature is above a certain temperature, the TEG can be electrically disconnected by the controller to prevent damage to the TEG. The sensor is providing a signal representing the first working fluid.
Freund does not teach a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with the instructions for modulating and conditioning a working fluid, the instructions executable by a processor of the controller. Jaffrey does discuss the general concept of these limitations but does not specifically recite them as claimed (paragraph 146).
Rite teaches that a controller includes a processor and memory that executes the instructions from a non-transitory machine-readable medium on the memory to provide the functionality of the controller (paragraph 31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the controller of Freund as modified to have had a processor and non-transitory machine-readable medium (memory) with instructions to provide the operation as claimed (which is modulating and conditioning of the working fluid at least at least through the use of the TEG as claimed) based on the teaching of Rite since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the controller with the processor and instructions on the memory would provide what would be common knowledge of a known way to for the controller to ensure the desired operations. This is understood such that any operations provided by the controller are from instruction encoded on the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium.
With respect to claim 16, Freund as modified does not teach further encoded with instructions to cause the controller to heat or cool respective ones of the first working fluid, the second working fluid, and/or the third working fluid.
Jaffrey teaches that a TEG can be operated by a controller such that if the temperature reaches a certain level it can be operated in a cooling mode to cool the heat source (paragraph 143).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have for the controller have also been operated (which would include instructions as claimed) based on the teaching of Jaffrey such that if the first working fluid has a temperature that was at a certain level the TEG was set to operate in a cooling mode to provide cooling to the condenser fluid.
With respect to claim 17, Freund as modified teaches further encoded with instructions to cause the controller to generate electrical energy using the at least one thermoelectric generator (the controller regulates the operation of the thermoelectric generator which would include instructions as part of said operation based on the modification above).
With respect to claim 18, Freund as modified teaches further encoded with instructions to cause the controller to generate the control signal on the basis of one or more condition signals received from one or more sensors provided at an inlet of the first condenser (as modified the controller regulates the operation based on a control signal from a temperature sensor at the inlet of the first condenser which would include instructions as part of said operation based on the modification above).
With respect to claim 19, Freund as modified teaches wherein the first condenser comprises the thermoelectric generator fluidly coupled there to an in communication therewith (as modified the thermoelectric generator and first condenser are thermally connected).
With respect to claim 20, Freund as modified teaches a thermomechanical waste heat recovery system comprising the non- transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15 (the combination of the controller with the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and the apparatus form a thermomechanical waste heat recovery system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pachidis (US PG Pub 20190359340) teaches a general cooling system for a heat source similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights