DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on February 13, 2026. Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 16. Claims 1, 5, 6, 9 – 16, and 22 – 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous double patenting rejections are withdrawn due to submission and approval of a terminal disclaimer.
With regards to previous prior art rejections, applicant amended the independent claims to add the turbine and the first compressor are directly coupled on a single shaft, arguing that the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to teach the claim limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by applicant the primary reference of Bandhauer explicitly teaches the turbine (532) and the first compressor (534) are directly coupled via single shaft (536, see Figure 12). As also noted by applicant, Bandhauer further teaches that “[d]irect mechanical coupling of the turbo-compressor avoids unnecessary energy mechanical-to-electrical penalties, yielding much higher power transmission efficiencies than electrical ORC and vapor compression systems” (Paragraph 143). While Yanagi may teach a clutch or coupling between the turbine and compressor, Yanagi is only relied on only to combine the condenser of Bandhauer into a single common unit. The modification with Yanagi does not alter the connection between the turbine and first compressor in Bandhauer. Zhang is relied on only to teach the condenser being an evaporative spray condenser. Again, the modification with Zhang does not alter the connection between the turbine and first compressor in Bandhauer.
Previous art rejections stand.
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 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 of this title, 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, 5, 9, 10, 15, 16, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandhauer et al. (hereafter “Bandhauer” – US 2021/0156597) in view of Yanagi (US 2017/0241679), further in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter “Zhang” – CN 109386332).
With regards to Claims 1 and 16:
Bandhauer discloses a system and method thereof for turbo-compression cooling (Figure 21, with TCCS based on labels from Figure 12, see Paragraph 147) in a facility having a cooling loop (chilled water loop 514x) and a generator (generator 500) having a plurality of waste heat streams (see e.g. Fig. 10), the system comprising:
a power cycle (power cycle 516) comprising:
a first working fluid (fluid 530);
a mechanical pump (pump 524);
a waste heat boiler (waste heat boiler 528) configured to evaporate the working fluid (Paragraph 134), the waste heat boiler configured to receive waste heat from one or more of the plurality of waste heat streams from the generator (Paragraph 133);
a turbine (turbine 532) configured to receive the evaporated first working fluid from the waste heat boiler, the turbine having a plurality of vanes disposed around a central shaft and configured to rotate about the central shaft, the plurality of vanes configured to rotate as the first working fluid expands to a lower pressure (see Claim 1); and
a first condenser (condenser 522) configured to receive the first working fluid from the turbine and configured to condense the first working fluid to a saturated or subcooled liquid (Paragraph 133);
a recuperator (recuperator 526, Figures 12 and 21 of Bandhauer) configured to receive heat rejected by the first working fluid from the turbine, and wherein the recuperator is configured to transfer the rejected heat to the saturated or subcooled liquid from the first condenser as the first working fluid re-enters the waste heat boiler (see Figures 12 and 21 of Bandhauer).
a cooling cycle (cooling cycle 518) comprising:
a second working fluid (fluid 538);
a first compressor (compressor 534) configured to increase the pressure of the second working fluid;
a second condenser (condenser 544) configured to receive the second working fluid from the first compressor and configured to condense the second working fluid to a saturated or subcooled liquid (Paragraph 135);
an expansion valve (“expansion valve”, Figure 12) configured to receive the second working fluid from the second condenser and configured to expand the second working fluid to a lower pressure (Paragraph 135);
an evaporator (evaporator 540) configured to receive the second working fluid from the expansion valve and configured to reject heat from a circulating fluid (“chilled water”, Figure 21) to the second working fluid, thereby cooling the circulating fluid;
controlling the amount of second working fluid flowing through the second condenser (Paragraph 115); and
wherein the turbine and first compressor are directly coupled on a single shaft (via shaft 536 to form turbo-compressor 520, see Figure 12, Paragraph 133, 143), thereby coupling the power cycle and the cooling cycle.
Bandhauer does not explicitly disclose the first evaporative condenser and second evaporative condenser are a common unit forming a single unit condenser. However, in Paragraph 163, Bandhauer teaches that “the condensers … may be combined into a single condenser”. Nevertheless, Yanagi (Figure 1) teaches a similar system including a power cycle including a turbine (16), a pump (20), and an evaporator (14), wherein the turbine is coupled to and drives a compressor (44) of a cooling cycle including an expansion valve (46) and an evaporator (42). Yanagi teaches that the power cycle and cooling cycle share a common condenser (18), as shown in Figure 1 and described in Paragraph 28. Yanagi teaches that “[t]he condenser 18 which is common to both the ORC system 12 and the heat pump system 40 is advantageous as the heat recovered via the heat output 62 is from both the ORC system 12 and the heat pump system 40” (Paragraph 34), in addition to the well-known advantage of reducing the number of components in the overall system. Given the teachings of Bandhauer and Yanagi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bandhauer by making the condensers of both cycles into a shared common single unit condenser in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Bandhauer does not explicitly disclose the single unit condenser is an evaporative condenser. Zhang (Figures 1, 2) teaches an organic Rankine cycle including a turbine (4) and a condenser (7) which is of the evaporative type, wherein the condenser comprises a common coil (coil 14, Figure 2 of Zhang) receiving the first and second working fluid, respectively, a fan (fan 11) configured to pull air over the common coil, and a recirculating water system (recirculating via pump 16, Figure 2 of Zhang) configured to deposit spray water on an exterior of the common coil (via spray nozzle 13, Figure 2 of Zhang). Zhang teaches that with an evaporative condenser “the ORC theoretical efficiency of the device is increased by more than 5%” (Paragraph 13) partially due to the lower power consumption of the circulating pump and fan, and the lower condensation temperature (Paragraph 13). These advantages are equally desirable in a cooling cycle. Given these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bandhauer to utilize an evaporative type condenser in order to yield the predicable benefits described above.
Bandhauer does not explicitly disclose a cross-cycle economizer configured to receive and cool the second working fluid exiting the first compressor and heat the first fluid exiting the single unit condenser. In another embodiment (Figure 23), Bandhauer teaches “the three-fluid recuperator 526 is replaced with a two-fluid recuperator 602 and an economizer 604” (Paragraph 157) configured to receive and cool the second working fluid exiting the first compressor and heat the first fluid exiting the condenser (as seen in Figure 23). Separating the recuperator and economizer into separate units allows for each unit to be tailored to the specific ranges of working fluid temperature, thereby improving efficiency of the system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bandhauer as modified in Claim 1 by separating the recuperator into separate recuperator and economizer sections as shown in the embodiment of Figure 23 in order to yield the predictable results described above.
With regards to Claim 5:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 teaches the first and second working fluid is a single refrigerant (“the first working fluid and the second working fluid are the same fluid” – Paragraphs 10, 15, 39, 47, 85 of Bandhauer).
With regards to Claims 9 and 22:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 teaches a suction-line heat exchanger SLHX 542, Figures 12 and 21 of Bandhauer) configured to receive and heat the second working fluid prior to compressing the second working fluid via the first compressor (see Figures 12 and 21 of Bandhauer).
With regards to Claims 10 and 23:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 teaches a second compressor (unlabeled second compressor in Figure 21) configured to discharge the second working fluid to the first compressor wherein the second compressor is electrically powered; and wherein the first compressor is powered via the waste heat from the waste heat boiler (see Figure 21 and Paragraph 148 of Bandhauer: “Still referring to FIG. 21, the overall electric power requirement to generate an equivalent amount of cooling will be significantly reduced by using two compressors, one heat driven and the other electrically driven”).
With regards to Claim 15:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 teaches the circulating fluid is at least one of water, water glycol mixture, ammonia, and air and is part of the cooling loop (“chilled water”, Figure 21, Paragraph 153 of Bandhauer).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandhauer et al. (hereafter “Bandhauer” – US 2021/0156597) in view of Yanagi (US 2017/0241679), further in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter “Zhang” – CN 109386332), further in view of Okaichi et al. (hereafter “Okaichi” – US 2016/0017760).
With regards to Claim 6:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 mentions the use of R1234ze(e) as a possible fluid in the cooling loop, but does not explicitly teach the single refrigerant working fluid is R1234ze(E). Okaichi (Figure 1) teaches a co-generating system including an organic Rankine cycle (30) including a working fluid which may be R1234ze(E) (Paragraph 51). Given that the claimed refrigerant is known to be used in organic Rankine cycles, which the power cycle of Bandhauer is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bandhauer as modified in Claim 1 by utilizing R1234ze(e) as the working fluid in each cycle in order to yield the predictable result of absorbing/dissipating heat appropriately to operate each cycle.
Claims 11, 14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandhauer et al. (hereafter “Bandhauer” – US 2021/0156597) in view of Yanagi (US 2017/0241679), further in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter “Zhang” – CN 109386332) further in view of Samoilov et al. (hereafter “Samoilov” – EP 2905432).
With regards to Claims 11, 14, and 24:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach a third compressor configured to discharge the second working fluid from the third compressor to the second compressor wherein the third compressor is electrically powered, and a fourth compressor configured to discharge the second working fluid to the first compressor wherein the fourth compressor is powered via the waste heat from the waste heat boiler. However, Bandhauer teaches that “with the use of multiple compressors into the system 700, compressor 714 can operate to the right of the surge line 722 throughout all ranges of use” (Paragraph 167) and that the “the electrical requirements of an additional compressor are more than offset by the total system gains in efficiency” (Paragraph 164). In another example, Samoilov teaches an energy system wherein in one embodiment (Figure 1), a single compressor is used, in another embodiment (Figure 33), two compressors in series are used, and in another embodiment (Figure 11), three compressors in series are used – all to accomplish the same task. As shown via the linkages (16, 21), some of the compressors are driven by turbine expanders (20) and others are driven by electrical sources (4). Given the teachings of both Bandhauer and Samoilov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to add another electrically driven compressor in series with the compressors of Bandhauer and a fourth compressor driven by the turbine in order to reduce the pressure ratio of each compressor, thereby keeping each compressor out of a surge situation.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandhauer et al. (hereafter “Bandhauer” – US 2021/0156597) in view of Yanagi (US 2017/0241679), further in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter “Zhang” – CN 109386332), further in view of Narreau (US 5095712).
With regards to Claims 12 and 25:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach a cooling-cycle economizer configured to receive and cool a first portion of the second working fluid prior to entering the evaporator and to receive a second portion of the second working fluid expanded by a second expansion valve and exiting the single unit condenser prior to entering the cooling-cycle economizer. Narreau (Figure 1) teaches a cooling cycle including multiple compressors (12, 14), a condenser (18), an evaporator (28), and an expansion valve (24). Narreau goes on to teach a cooling-cycle economizer (22) configured to receive and cool a first portion (20) of the second working fluid prior to entering the evaporator and to receive a second portion (20a) of the second working fluid expanded by a second expansion valve (34) and exiting the second evaporative condenser prior to entering the cooling-cycle economizer, said second portion entering the second compressors (via line 36). Narreau teaches that the economizer and second flow path through the second expansion valve allow for accommodation of cycling compressors and matching suction pressures, and for “variable capacity control together with very tight control of the refrigerated space temperature” (Col. 1, Lines 39+). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the addition of an economizer and a second portion pathway with a second expansion valve as shown in Figure 1 of Narreau is known in the art to yield a more stable cooling temperature and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the Bandhauer modification as modified in Claim 1 to add the components above in order to yield these predictable benefits.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandhauer et al. (hereafter “Bandhauer” – US 2021/0156597) in view of Yanagi (US 2017/0241679), further in view of Zhang et al. (hereafter “Zhang” – CN 109386332), further in view of Goethals et al. (hereafter “Goethals” – US 2017/0254223).
With regards to Claim 13:
The Bandhauer modification of Claim 1 does not explicitly teach an intercooler configured to receive and cool the second working fluid from the second compressor prior to compressing the second working fluid via the first compressor. Intercoolers are widely known in the art. Goethals (Figure 5) teaches a pair of compressors (2a, 2b), having an intercooler (14a, 14b) between them, wherein the intercooler is part of a power cycle (12). Intercooling is known to remove heat of compression, thereby improving the efficiency of the compression process (Paragraph 4 of Goethals). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bandhauer as modified in Claim 1 by adding an intercooler between compression stages in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Friday, March 6, 2026