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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 04/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 12/17/2025, 07/17/2024 were filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, the IDSs have been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 04/29/2023 appears to be acceptable.
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, 6, 16, 19, 20, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020097714 A1 to RADKE (RADKE) in view of WO 2021/098985 A1 to NASINI (NASINI).
Re: Claim 1:
RADKE discloses:
A system for converting waste heat into electricity, the system comprising:
- a heat capture subsystem (See Fig.1: a heat capture subsystem 5) configured to hold a liquid heat transfer medium (See Fig.1: See page 54 , liquid flow line 7 as shown in first closed loop as shown) therein, wherein the heat capture subsystem, in use, enables the liquid heat transfer medium to absorb the waste heat (this is implied);
- an evaporator subsystem (See Fig.1: evaporator system 111), comprising a phase-change working fluid, wherein the working fluid is configured to change from a liquid state to a gaseous state by absorbing the waste heat absorbed into the liquid heat transfer medium (See Fig.1: page 21, 1.1 – page 22, 1.11;
- a modular expander subsystem (See Fig.1: expander 11) comprising at least one modular expansion device (See Fig.1: turbine 11), wherein the expander subsystem is coupled to the evaporator subsystem via at least one fluid flow control element (See Fig.1: fluid control element 14), wherein pressurized working fluid in the gaseous state is directed towards the expander subsystem (See Fig.1: expander 11) using the at least one fluid flow control element (See Fig.1: fluid control element 14), and wherein the pressurized gaseous working fluid expands (See Fig.1: expands in turbine 11),
producing mechanical work (typically turbine produces mechanical work via a shaft);
- a modular generation subsystem (See Fig.1: generator 12) coupled to the expander subsystem (See Fig.1: expander 11), wherein a modular generator, when in operation, is configured to produce electrical energy from the mechanical work created by the expansion of the pressurized gaseous working fluid in the modular expansion device (See Fig.1: this is implied, since turbine produces mechanical work and coupled electric generator converts mechanical energy to electrical energy);
- a condenser subsystem (See Fig.1: a condenser subsystem 126) connected to the expander subsystem (See Fig.1: expander subsystem 11), wherein a condenser (See Fig.1: condenser 13), in operation, liquifies expanded working fluid from a gaseous state or a mixed state to the liquid state (See Fig.1: this is implied as typically in an organic Rankine cycle as shown the condenser converts expanded fluid to a liquid phase), and
then returns working fluid in the liquid state to the evaporator subsystem;
- a control subsystem (See Fig.1: control subsystem 60) that controls operations of at least one of the other subsystems; and
RADKE is silent regarding:
- a variable frequency drive (VFD) electrically coupled to the generator, wherein the VFD, in operation, provides an electrical load to the generator.
The problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as providing a system of regulating the expander output to respond to changes in the heat supplied from the heat source, such a system is explicitly taught by WO 2021/098985 A1 to NASINI, because NASINI teaches a heat recovery system using to recover heat from a waste heat source, and that the expander is regulated using variable frequency electric generator in reply to heat variations, NASINI therefore suggests such a system of using VFD coupled to the electric generator (NASINI: ¶0049). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ VFD, since use of VFD is preferred because of the greater rangeability of this kind of appliance, allowing to better matching possible thermal variations of the source which would have yielded similar benefits in the system of RADKE.
Regarding method claim 29: RADKE modified by NASINI discloses all the limitations of method claim 29.
Re: Claim 2:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system of claim 1, modified RADKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the condenser subsystem (RADKE : See Fig.1: a condenser subsystem 126) comprise a cold source, a cooler, a coolant liquid, a condenser (See Fig.1: a condenser 13) and a coolant pump (RADKE :See Fig.1: pump 14) that circulates the coolant liquid between the cooler and the condenser (RADKE :See Fig.1: a condenser subsystem 13, coolant liquid flows via 26, 25 and condenser 13), and wherein the evaporator subsystem comprises a phase-change working fluid that is selected based upon the temperature of the liquid heat transfer medium and the temperature of the cold source that cools the condenser, a working fluid pump that circulates said working fluid and increases its pressure, and a phase- change heat exchange evaporator that transfers heat from said liquid heat transfer medium to said working fluid, causing said working fluid to change from a liquid state to a gaseous state (these are typically the functions of an organic Rankine cycle).
Re: Claim 6:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 2, modified REDKE discloses all the limitations of claim 2 , and wherein the temperature of the cold source is further decreased by ground-source cooling, by water circulated from a natural water body or aquifer, by refrigeration, or by any other means (RADKE: See Figs.1-2: page 13 lines 22-24).
Re: Claim 16:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 1, modified RADKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the temperature of the heated phase-change working fluid is further increase by a solar thermal heating device or by any other means (RADKE: See Fig.4: page 6 lines 2-8: heat energy source 104 comprises heat energy captured from one or more of geothermal, thermal solar, and waste heat sources shown in figure 4, using more than one source is merely for enhancing temperature of the heated phase change working fluid).
Re: Claim 19:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 1, modified RADKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1 , and wherein the phase-change working fluid consists of or comprises a substance that is in a gaseous state at ambient temperatures and at atmospheric pressure (typically organic Rankine cycle includes a phase-change working fluid as is well known in the art), and wherein the condenser is maintained at a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure such that the working fluid emerges from said condenser in liquid form (See Fig.1: this is implied as typically in an organic Rankine cycle as shown the condenser in the instant case condenser 13 converts expanded fluid to a liquid phase via pump 14).
Re: Claim 20:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 1, modified RADKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1 , and wherein a formulation of the phase-change working fluid is varied on a seasonal basis, to optimize the thermodynamic efficiency of the system, taking into account seasonal variations in the ambient temperature . The claim limitations are merely a design choice, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have employed phase-change working fluid depending on seasonal variation to keep the system operative and keep generating power output optimization.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020097714 A1 to RADKE (RADKE) in view of WO 2021/098985 A1 to NASINI (NASINI) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Publication number 2013/0106106 A1 to ANDUJAR (ANDUJAR).
Re: Claim 11:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 1, modified RADKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1, the modified RADKE is silent regarding :
wherein the modular generator is a linear generator.
However, it is well known in the art that linear generators may be coupled to a turbine, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2013/0106106 A1 to ANDUJAR (ANDUJAR: ¶0051-¶0052), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure RADKE as explicitly taught by ANDUJAR provide a linear electric generator coupled to the turbine which is cost effective and would have yielded similar benefits in the system of modified RADKE.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020097714 A1 to RADKE (RADKE) in view of WO 2021/098985 A1 to NASINI (NASINI) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 3M ELECTRONICS MATERIALS SOLUTIONS DIVISION, "Two-Phase Immersion Cooling" 2018.
Re: Claims 12, 13:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the heat capture subsystem is implemented as a bath filled with the liquid heat transfer medium, wherein the liquid heat transfer medium is a phase-change dielectric fluid (RADKE: page 23, lines 16-20), RADKE is silent regarding:
However, NPL teaches:
wherein a source of waste heat includes at least one assemblage of computing equipment (see second page, under heading "2PIC with a 3M™ Novec™ Engineered Fluid") immersed in the phase-change dielectric fluid.
It is therefore considered that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that most effective heat transfer would be achieved in the system of RADKE by a bath of the liquid heat transfer medium. RADKE further does not explicitly teach that the dielectric fluid is cooled by the phase-change working fluid circulating in coils that are placed above the bath. However, RADKE teaches that heat may be exchanged between the phase-change dielectric fluid and the phase-change working fluid by a heat exchanger (page 21, lines 25-30), and coil shaped heat exchangers are well known in the art. It is therefore considered that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchange of the heat capture subsystem of RADKE by circulating the working fluid in coils above the bath of phase-change dielectric fluid.
RADKE modified by NASINI and NPL discloses all the limitations of claim 33.
Re: Claim 14:
RADKE modified by NASINI and NPL discloses:
The system according to claim 12, wherein the phase-change dielectric fluid acts as the working fluid which, in its gaseous state, is introduced into the expander subsystem.
RADKE teaches that the power generation cycle may be a KALINA cycle (page 19, lines 20-23), which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a working fluid comprising multiple components with different boiling points, that is, a zeotropic fluid.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020097714 A1 to RADKE (RADKE) in view of WO 2021/098985 A1 to NASINI (NASINI) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Publication number 2006/0112693 A1 to SUNDEL et al. (SUNDEL).
Re: Claim 23:
RADKE modified by NASINI discloses:
The system according to claim 1, modified RADKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1 , the modified RADKE is silent regarding:
wherein the expander subsystem and the generator are integrated into an expander-generator assembly that performs functions of the expander subsystem and the generator.
However, it is well known in the art that expander subsystems and generators can be integrated into an expander-generator assembly that performs functions of the expander subsystem and the generator, such an integration is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2006/0112693 A1 to SUNDEL et al. (SUNDEL: See Figs.8-9: turbo-generator 22).
Although not disclosed by RADKE, SUNDEL teaches the expander and generator subsystems being integral. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate expanders and generators, since forming an article in one piece which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 V.
Allowable Subject Matter and Prior Art
The prior art fails to discloses the limitations of claims 8, 17, 21, 31 and 34, the claims 8, 17, 21, 31 and 34 are therefore objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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 at (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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights