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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 4, the drawing and the label “figure 4” are oriented in different directions. 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 Objections
Claim 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 line 2, “comprising” needs to be changed to “wherein”.
Examiner recommend changing “the gas” to “the stabilizing gas” in claim 8 line 2.
Examiner recommend changing “it” to “the nitrate salt melt” in in claim 9 line 5.
In claim 9 line 12, “has” needs to be deleted.
It looks like there are two “d)” in claim 9
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “at least one receiving unit” in claim 9.
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 § 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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “one or more nitrogen oxides”. It’s not clear as to if this limitation includes “at least one nitrogen oxide” from claim 1. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to claim 3 line 2 to “wherein the at least one nitrogen oxide is selected from…”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the receiving unit" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one receiving unit”.
Claim 9 recites “a nitrate salt melt” in line 10. It’s not clear as to if it refers to the same nitrate salt melt in line 4. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the nitrate salt melt”.
Claim 9 recites “at least one first subcomponent”. It’s not clear as to what structural limitation is required for the at least one first subcomponent.
Claim 10 recites “at least one second subcomponent”. It’s not clear as to what structural limitation is required for the at least one second subcomponent.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first subcomponent " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one first subcomponent”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second subcomponent " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommend applicant to amend this limitation to (and for examining purpose, examiner interprets this limitation is) “the at least one second subcomponent”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one second subcomponent " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wortmann (US 20170009749).
Regarding claim 9, Wortmann teaches a device for carrying out a method according to claim 1, comprising
a) at least one receiving unit (13, fig 2) for receiving thermal energy, from solar radiation,
b) at least one first storage unit (17, fig 2) in which a nitrate salt melt ([0031] “molten nitrate salt is used as heat transfer medium”) can be stored after the nitrate salt melt has absorbed thermal energy from the at least one receiving unit,
c) at least one consumer ([0034] “the heat transfer medium is carried over from the hot store into the cold store and emits heat, for example for the generation of superheated steam which is used to drive turbines”. Turbines can be consumer) in which the thermal energy from the nitrate salt melt is converted to electric power,
d) at least one second storage unit (15, fig 2) in which the nitrate salt melt can be stored after the thermal energy has been converted to electric power, and
d) conduits (7 and 11, fig 2) in which the nitrate salt melt is circulated,
e) at least one first subcomponent, in which a stabilizing gas ([0031] “an oxygen-containing gas, since, in the event of conversion from nitrate into nitrite, the nitrite is converted into nitrate again by means of the oxygen present. An undesirable reduction in thermal stability can thereby be prevented.” A first subcomponent inherently has to be provided in order to allow oxygen containing gas to flow into the system) is fed to the nitrate salt melt, wherein the at least one first subcomponent is provided upstream or downstream of the at least one receiving unit for receiving thermal energy in the direction of flow of the nitrate salt melt (Gas displacement system 35 supplies oxygen to downstream of the receiving unit).
Regarding claim 11, Wortmann teaches the first subcomponent has a device for introducing the stabilizing gas (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, Wortmann teaches the at least one first and/or at least one second subcomponent has a device for active or passive recirculation (the first device can be a passive device) in order to increase the residence time of the nitrate salt melt in the respective subcomponent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KO-WEI LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30 Eastern Time.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571)272-9059. 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.
/KO-WEI LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights