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 .
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting:
a system comprising: a turbine; a first fluid; and a second fluid, wherein the turbine comprises a. a rotor assembly comprising at least one first rotor and at least one second rotor affixed to a shaft and within an enclosure configured to contain the first fluid and the second fluid, wherein the at least one second rotor is positioned on the shaft downstream of the at least one first rotor, the at least one first rotor is configured to draw the first fluid into the turbine, the at least one second rotor is configured to extract energy from a mixture of the first fluid and the second fluid by contacting the mixture and providing rotational energy to the rotor assembly, and the at least one first rotor and at least one second rotor are also configured to mix the second fluid with the first fluid to form the mixture, b. a first fluid inlet positioned upstream of the at least one first rotor, c. a second fluid inlet positioned between the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor and configured to direct the second fluid into the turbine, d. a fluid outlet positioned downstream of the at least one second rotor, and e. a gas outlet positioned downstream of the at least one second rotor, wherein the energy in the mixture provided to the at least one second rotor results from vaporization and expansion of the second fluid resulting in pressurization of the mixture.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the rotor assembly is vertically orientated.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the rotor assembly is horizontally orientated.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: further comprising a condenser configured to condense vapor of the second fluid downstream of the turbine and recycling the condensed second fluid.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the rotor assembly further comprises at least one third rotor configured to oppose the flow of the mixture and to compress a second fluid vapor phase of the mixture, wherein the at least one third rotor is positioned between the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the at least one third rotor has the opposite directionality of the at least one first and second rotors.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the gas outlet is positioned after the fluid outlet in the direction of fluid flow.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the at least one first rotor comprises 1 to 500 first rotors, the at least one second rotor comprises 1 to 500 second rotors, and the at least one third rotor comprises 1 to 500 third rotors.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite: wherein the at least one first, second, and third rotors are each independently at least one of an axial rotor, a radial rotor, a screw rotor, a Francis rotor, or a Kaplan rotor.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid is a heat transfer fluid.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid is at least one of water, ethylene glycol, ethylene glycol-water mixtures, propylene glycol, propylene glycol-water mixtures, a paraffin oil, a mineral oil, hydrogenated mineral oil, a synthetic hydrocarbon oil, an alkylated aromatic oil, a hydrogenated terphenyl, a silicone oil, a polydimethylsiloxane, a diphenylsiloxane-dimethylsiloxane copolymer, a diphenyl ether, or a polyphenylene ether.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting:
wherein the second fluid is at least one of trichlorofluoromethane, dichlorodifluoromethane, bromochlorodifluormethane, chlorotrifluoromethane, bromotrifluoromethane, triifluoroiodomethane, tetrachloromethane (carbon tetrachloride), dichlorofluoromethane, chlorodifluoromethane, trifluoromethane, dichloromethane (methylene chloride), chlorofluoromethane, difluoromethane (methylene fluoride), chloromethane (methyl chloride), fluoromethane (methyl fluoride), methane, 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, 1,2-dichloro- 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoromethane, chloropentafluoroethane, hexafluoroethane, 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1- trifluoroethane, 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, pentafluoroethane, 1,2,2,3,3- pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane, 1- chloro-1,1-difluoroethane, 1,1,1-trifluoroethane, 1,1-difluoroethane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, 2-methylpropane (isobutane), 2-methylbutane (isopentane), octafluorocyclobutane, methoxymethane, ethoxyethane, methyl formate, methanamine (methyl amine), ethanamine (ethyl amine), trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1-difluoroethylene, trans-1,2-difluoroethene, ethene (ethylene), 1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene, trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene, propene (propylene), trans-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexaflouro-2-butene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl ether (HFE-347pfc),_or trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene (HFO-1233zd), ammonia, carbon dioxide, or sulfur dioxide.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: a power generation system comprising: the system of claim 1 and an electrical power generator driven by the turbine.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting:
a continuous process for converting heat to kinetic energy utilizing the system of claim 1,wherein the heat is extracted from the first fluid and converted to rotational motion, comprising the following simultaneous steps: a. drawing the first fluid into the turbine through the first fluid inlet and imparting flow downstream of the first fluid by rotation of the at least one first rotor; b. pumping a second fluid into the second fluid inlet; c. mixing the second fluid with the first fluid to form a mixture of first fluid and second fluid; d. vaporization of the second fluid by heat transfer from the first fluid to form a pressurized mixture; and e. contacting the at least one second rotor with the pressurized mixture to impart rotational motion to the rotor assembly by means of mixture flow through the at least one second rotor.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid is water having a temperature of 30 °C to 100 °C.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the second fluid has a boiling point of -20 °C to 60 °C.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid is water, and the second fluid has a boiling point of -20 °C to 40 °C.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid and second fluid are miscible.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid and second fluid are not miscible.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid and second fluid of the mixture are both in the liquid phase.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the first fluid of the mixture is in the liquid phase and the second fluid of the mixture is in the vapor phase.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the mixture exits the turbine as a liquid solution or a liquid with entrained vapor.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein mixing of the first fluid and the second fluid occurs between the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the rotor assembly further comprises at least one third rotor configured to oppose the flow of the mixture and to compress a second fluid vapor phase of the mixture, wherein the at least one third rotor is positioned between the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein the least one third rotor has the opposite directionality of the at least one first and second rotors.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting:
wherein: the first fluid in the turbine upstream of the at least one first rotor is at a first temperature Ti and first pressure Pi; the mixture in the turbine downstream of the at least one first rotor and upstream of the at least one second rotor is at a second temperature T2 and second pressure P2; and the mixture in the turbine upstream of the at least one second rotor is at a third temperature T3 and third pressure P3, wherein T1 is 40 to 500 °C; T2 is 40 to 400 °C; T3 is 20 to 100 °C; P1 is 0 to 10 atm; P2 is 1 to 40 atm; and P3 is 0 to 3 atm.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,467,380. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in this case they are identical both reciting: wherein: T1> T2> T3; and P2>P3≥P1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Reference character “10” in figure 2 should be “102” for the condenser.
Reference character “104” in figure 5 is not on the same line.
Paragraph 0085 discloses “System 500 includes pump 110” however pump 110 is not shown in the system 500 of figure 5.
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.
The drawing of figure 4 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 126. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, “are both in the liquid phase” should be changed to “are both in a liquid phase”
Claim 21, “mixture is in the liquid phase and the second fluid of the mixture is in the vapor phase” should be changed to “mixture is in a liquid phase and the second fluid of the mixture is in a vapor phase”
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-27 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 1 and claims dependent thereon, the prior art of record when considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a system as recited by independent claim 1, comprising:
a turbine;
a first fluid; and
a second fluid, wherein the turbine comprises
a. a rotor assembly comprising at least one first rotor and at least one second rotor affixed to a shaft and within an enclosure configured to contain the first fluid and the second fluid, wherein the at least one second rotor is positioned on the shaft downstream of the at least one first rotor,
the at least one first rotor is configured to draw the first fluid into the turbine, the at least one second rotor is configured to extract energy from a mixture of the first fluid and the second fluid by contacting the mixture and providing rotational energy to the rotor assembly, and
the at least one first rotor and at least one second rotor are also configured to mix the second fluid with the first fluid to form the mixture,
b. a first fluid inlet positioned upstream of the at least one first rotor,
c. a second fluid inlet positioned between the at least one first rotor and the at least one second rotor and configured to direct the second fluid into the turbine,
d. a fluid outlet positioned downstream of the at least one second rotor, and
e. a gas outlet positioned downstream of the at least one second rotor,
wherein the energy in the mixture provided to the at least one second rotor results from vaporization and expansion of the second fluid resulting in pressurization of the mixture.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biddle (US 2007/0007771), Cangioli (US 12,326,095) disclose an energy recovery system with a fluid and gas outlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 PM.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834