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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mokheimer US 2019/0353100 in view of Prabhudharwadkar US 2023/0366350 hereinafter “P”.
Regarding claim 1, Mokheimer discloses a power plant system configured to generate electricity, see title, the power plant system comprising: a carbon-based fuel-fired power plant including a combustor 208 configured to receive and combust air 202 and a carbon-based fuel, see fig. 2, fuel intake, para. [0042] stating that carbon dioxide is separated from the flue gas from the gas turbine and thus the fuel must be a carbon based fuel, thereby producing heat and exhaust a flue gas, the flue gas is the line exiting turbine 210 to 300, and a turbine 210 configured to generate electricity via 212; a carbon capture system 700 configured to remove at least a portion of carbon-based gasses from the flue gas downstream from the combustor, see fig. 7a, carbon capture system 700 receives flue gas and removes it therefrom at 706; and a thermal storage system including a hot storage unit 720 configured to store heat, the hot temperature greater than ambient temperature, see para. [0045] stating that the solar energy from a collector is stored in 720 and used to vaporize condensate which is necessarily greater than ambient temperature; wherein the power plant is configured to operate in at least a first mode for storing thermal energy in the thermal storage system and a second mode for releasing the stored thermal energy from the thermal storage system; and wherein during the second mode, thermal energy stored in the hot storage unit is used for solvent regeneration in the carbon capture system, see para. [0044] stating that energy from the solar energy collector is transferred to the storage system first and the used at a later time which must include a charging first mode and a discharging second mode; see paras. [0045]-[0046] stating that the solar energy stored in a working fluid may be routed to a heat exchanger 712 to heat condensate that is routed to reboiler 708 to heat the lean carbon dioxide solvent returning to the stripper 706, i.e. the thermal energy is used for solvent regeneration in the carbon capture system. Mokheimer does not expressly teach the heat stored in the hot storage unit is generated at least by resistively heated gas at a hot temperature or what the working fluid is.
P teaches a thermal storage 302 may be used as a bottoming cycle for supercritical CO2 during peak demand. The thermal storage may include heaters embedded in the thermal storage system to resistively heat the thermal storage. See para. [0056]. The surplus power is stored in the thermal storage to keep the system running at its optimum point at all time. Id.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled worker to include resistive heaters embedded in the heat storage of Mokheimer, as taught by P, in order to provide surplus energy to the thermal storage to keep the system running at its optimal point at all time. Id. Additionally, it would have been obvious to use the supercritical CO2 as a bottoming cycle in order to provide additional power at peak demand. Id. The Examiner notes that the use of a resistive heater in addition to the solar collector of Mokheimer would allow for storage of excess electrical energy from the gas turbine plant and allow for thermal storage when solar energy is insufficient.
Regarding claim 2, Mokheimer, in view of P, discloses all elements including that the resistively heated gas is generated by a resistive heater powered by electricity from a power grid. See para. [0053] stating that the thermal storage may be configured to receive power from a power grid 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that P does not teach resistively heating the medium within the thermal storage but rather the thermal storage unit itself and not the gas directly. Furthermore P teaches CO2 as a heat recovery fluid and not a resistively heated gas. Additionally, that P’s thermal storage serves a completely different purpose than that recited in claim 1. Finally, the Applicant argues that the use of a sCO2 bottoming cycle would not arrive at the invention of using the heat for solvent regeneration in carbon capture. The Examiner disagrees.
As to the first argument, the claims do not recite that the thermal storage is directly resistively heated. Rather the limitation states that “a hot storage unit configured to store heat generated at least by resistively heated gas at a hot temperature”. The apparatus of P may heat a thermal storage system where heat is recovered by sCO2, but the relevant teaching being imported into Mokheimer is that the thermal storage is resistively heated. The references must be considered as a whole for what they teach. Mokheimer shows a thermal storage 720 that storage a working fluid that condenses in use in heat exchanger 712. The implementation of the teaching of P would result in the thermal storage 720 being resistively heated. Even arguendo, that the resistive heaters are embedded into the thermal storage 720, the heat being generated therefrom is ultimately transferred into the thermal storage working fluid. Such a combination is obvious since the use of resistive heaters would allows for surplus energy to be used to keep the thermal storage medium at optimal temperatures. The Applicant’s arguments amount to an attack on the reference P alone without consideration of what the totality of references would teach to an ordinary skilled worker.
Furthermore, even arguendo, the claim limitations require resistively heating by direct heat exchange a thermal storage gas, the prior art is aware of such features. Bannari US 2015/0267612 teaching a resistive heater 32 that heats air stored in a storage tank 22.
That P teaches a thermal storage medium where heat is recovered by sCO2 does not address the fact that the combination merely seeks to import resistive heating to the thermal storage of Mokheimer. When implemented in Mokheimer as discussed above, the resistive heating would heat the gaseous working fluid stored in tank 720, either directly or indirectly.
Likewise, that P’s device is used for a separate purpose does not negate the teaching that a thermal storage medium can be heated resistively to maintain optimal temperatures.
Lastly that P teaches a sCO2 bottoming cycle does not negate the fact that Mokheimer teaches the use of thermally stored heat for solvent regeneration. The last three arguments amount to the Applicant attacking the references individually without considering what the combination teaches as a whole.
The Examiner further notes that the present claims are subject to first action final rejection; however, in view of a presumed good faith attempt, finality is withheld.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD LUTHER SUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3765. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GERALD L SUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741