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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A and Embodiment 1 (Claim 2) in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that "the Office Action does not show a search burden for examination of all of Claims 1-9". This argument is not found persuasive because this is not the standard for restriction under 371 PCT Rules. Under 371 PCT, the claims are examined for lack of unity in applications and applicant has shown two distinctly different embodiments/species in claims 2 and 3. This does require additional search and examination.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 3, 4, and 9 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 09/08/2025 and 05/03/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. They have been placed in the application file, but some of the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 8 is missing the "6" label over the combination of turbines 60 and 61. 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 1 objected to because of the following informalities: The indentations in claim 1 are unclear. Why is the 3rd fluid circuit less indented than the preceding first and second circuits? Indentation implies a component-subcomponent relationship. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 6, Applicant claims a heat transfer fluid that is a molten salt or mixture of molten salts adapted to remain in liquid phase over a temperature range of 100 degrees Celsius to 350 degrees Celsius. Applicant states this range and provides a preferred salt mixture for this usage in their specification in paragraphs [0105], [0106], and [0131]. However, the salt mixture that is their preferred embodiment is not liquid over this temperature range. This salt mixture is liquid starting at 149 degrees Celsius, according to the manufacturer. Given the preferred choice of salt, Examiner is not convinced that Applicant possesses salt mixture which is liquid over the claimed range.
Claim 7 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 6.
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, 2, and 5-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second heat exchanger" in lines 7, 8, and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This was only referred to as “a second intermediate heat exchanger” previously.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the steam" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the high-temperature reservoir" and "the low-temperature reservoir" in lines 15 and 19, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first intermediate heat exchanger", and "the second intermediate heat exchanger" in lines 15 and 21, and 17, 19, and 23, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Earlier in claim 1, the language implies there are one or more first intermediate heat exchangers, it is unclear which one of the group of first intermediate heat exchangers is being referred to in lines 15 and 21, and whether it is the same one. Likewise, earlier in claim 1, the language implies there are one or more second intermediate heat exchangers, it is unclear which one of the group of second intermediate heat exchangers is being referred to in lines 17, 19, and 21.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the dry-air cooling device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 refers to a “at least one dry-air cooling device”, which is a group of one or more. Claim 2 recites one specific dry-air cooling device. It is unclear which one of the group of dry-air coolers is being referred to as the specific dry-air cooling device in claim 2.
Claim 5 recites a volume range. It is unclear if this is the volume of the empty space within each reservoir, or if this is the volume of a fluid within each reservoir.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the heat storage loop" in lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the turbine or turbines" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “low-pressure” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without a clear definition of "low-pressure", it is unclear what would be considered a low-pressure cylinder in a turbine.
The term “maximum operating temperature” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “maximum operating temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The "margin of 40 degrees Celsius relative to the maximum operating temperature" is rendered indefinite as the maximum operating temperature of the heat storage loop is never defined. Further, it is unclear if the claimed range is 100 to 350 degrees Celsius, or if the range is 100 ± 40 to 350 ± 40 degrees Celsius, or something else entirely. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 6 and 7 are further indefinite because they conflict with the Specification. Claim 7 recites a molten salt composition that matches [0033] in the Specification, but other parts of the Specification including [0131] and [0106] disclose a different composition. Further, [0033] and [0131] both refer to the composition as “HITEC,” so they cannot both be correct. It is unclear if the claimed composition is the correct one, or if the composition at [0131] and [0106] is the correct one. If the composition at [0131] and [0106] is the correct one, then it is entirely unclear if this composition fulfills the limitations in claim 6 because this composition does not immediately appear to be well-known.
Any claim listed above that is not specifically discussed is dependent upon a rejected claim and is therefore similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Fortescue (US 4000617 A).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art discloses (Fig. 5)
A nuclear cogeneration plant, comprising:
At least one nuclear reactor (2), comprising:
A first fluid circuit (1), called the primary circuit, comprising at least a first intermediate heat exchanger (3)
a second fluid circuit (5), called the secondary circuit, comprising at least one steam generator (16) acting as a second intermediate heat exchanger, at least one turbine (60 and 61) connected to the second heat exchanger, a condenser (7) connected to a turbine (60 and 61) and to a second heat exchanger (16) for cooling the steam leaving the turbine, converting the steam back into water, and returning the water to the second heat exchanger (16);
an alternator (9) coupled mechanically to the turbine and designed to be connected to an electricity grid (21);
a third fluid circuit configured as a closed loop for storing thermal energy (13), in which there flows a heat transfer fluid, comprising:
at least a first reservoir, called the high-temperature reservoir (14), connected to the first intermediate heat exchanger;
at least a first hydraulic pump (17), connected to the high- temperature reservoir and to the second intermediate heat exchanger;
at least a second reservoir, called the low-temperature reservoir (15), connected to the second intermediate heat exchanger;
at least a second hydraulic pump (18), connected to the low- temperature reservoir and to the first intermediate heat exchanger; and
at least one air cooling device (11) connected in a closed loop (10) to the condenser of the secondary circuit of the reactor.
However, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art does not disclose that the air cooling device is a dry air cooling device, but Fortescue does.
Fortescue is in the same art area of high efficiency nuclear generation and teaches at least one dry-air cooling device (Fig. 1 dry cooling tower 16 and Col. 2 lines 58 – 68) connected in a closed loop to the condenser of the secondary circuit of the reactor.
The combination of the dry-air cooling device of Fortescue with the cogeneration plant of AAPA would have produced a cogeneration plant with a heat storage loop and a dry-air cooling device, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior teachings of AAPA, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Fortescue’s dry-air cooling device with AAPA’s cogeneration plant would have produced Applicant’s claimed invention of a cogeneration plant with a heat storage loop and a dry-air cooling device. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Fortescue (Col. 1 lines 24-28), to “minimize environmental impact, since large make-up water requirements or the discharge of large quantities of warm water are avoided. Moreover, the elimination of the need for large quantities of water provides for greater flexibility in the selection of plant site.”
Regarding claim 2, the above-described combination of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art with Fortescue teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Fortescue further teaches wherein the dry-air cooling device being is a dry-air cooling tower (Fig. 1 dry cooling tower 16 and Col. 2 lines 58 – 68). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have utilized a dry-air cooling tower as a dry-air cooling device for the reasons already described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art and Fortescue teach all elements of the parent claim, and AAPA further discloses wherein the heat transfer fluid of the heat storage loop being a molten salt or a mixture of molten salts ([0033]).
With respect to “adapted to remain in liquid phase over a temperature range from 100°C to 350°C, with a margin of 40°C relative to the maximum operating temperature of the heat storage loop”, given that the temperature range is unclear and indefinite and Applicant’s own preferred molten salt mixture cannot meet the range requirement, Examiner can only assume there is an error in the range. As best understood by Examiner, this limitation is taught in [0033]: “the temperature of this heat transfer fluid is 310° C.”
Regarding claim 7, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, and Fortescue teach all elements of the parent claim, and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art further discloses wherein the heat transfer fluid has the following chemical composition: 7% NaNO3, 40% NaNO2, 53% KNO3 ([0033]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art and Fortescue (US 4000617 A), in further view of Shinnar (US20100202582A1).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, and Fortescue teach all elements of the parent claim, but they do not teach wherein each of the low-temperature and high-temperature reservoirs having has a volume of between 10,000 m3 and 30,000 m3.
However, Shinnar teaches heat storage tanks that are sized for intended amount of heat storage capacity ([0043]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that “the capacity of the tank(s) should be sufficient to accommodate the maximum volume of storage needed ([0043]).” It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to size the heat storage reservoirs to have a volume of 10,000 m3 to 30,000 m3, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant's Admitted Prior Art and Fortescue (US 4000617 A), in further view of Vance (US 4039846 A).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, and Fortescue teach all elements of the parent claim, but they do not teach wherein the turbine or turbines have no low-pressure cylinders.
Vance does. Vance is in the same nuclear cogeneration art area and teaches wherein the turbine or turbines having no low-pressure cylinders (col. 4 lines 40-51). The combination of Vance’s turbines, which include no low-pressure cylinders, and AAPA’s modified cogeneration plant would have produced a cogeneration plant with a heat storage loop and no low-pressure turbine cylinders, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of AAPA, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted that combining Vance’s turbines with AAPA’s modified cogeneration plant would have produced Applicant’s claimed invention of a cogeneration plant with a heat storage loop, a dry-air cooling device, and turbines without low-pressure cylinders. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Vance (col. 2 lines 3-9), being able to “employ the exhausted steam at a lower pressure and temperature for use in manufacturing processes”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY MARIE COOPERRIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-0532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/K.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights