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 § 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 17-28 and 30-32 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.
Claims 17-20, 22, 24-25 and 27-28 are dependent on cancelled Claim 15 thus causing the claim to be indefinite. For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claims 17-20, 22 and 24-28 are interpreted as if amended to depend from independent Claim 16.
Claims 21, 23 and 26 are rejected due to their dependency on Claims 19 and 22 respectively.
In addition, regarding Claim 18, the phrase "preferably" 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). For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claim 18 is interpreted as if the limitation(s) following the phrase are optional and thus not required.
In addition, Claim 23 recites the limitation "the return air pipe". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claim 23 is interpreted as if amended to depend from Claim 22 which is the first instance of the introduction of the “a return air pipe” limitation.
In addition, Claim 26 recites the limitation "the thermal gas is nitrogen or air". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claim 26 is interpreted as if amended to depend from Claim 25 which is the first instance of the introduction of “the thermal fluid is a gas” limitation. The Examiner respectfully suggest amending Claim 26 in one of the following two options:
26. (Currently Amended) The system of claim [[24]] 25 wherein the
26. (Currently Amended) The system of claim [[24]] 25 wherein the thermal fluid is nitrogen or air.
Claims 30 and 31 are dependent on 28 however, the preamble of Claims 30 and 31 recite “The solar energy receiver of claim…” which suggest that these claims should depend from independent Claim 29 rather than dependent Claim 28, especially since Claim 28 is dependent on cancelled Claim 15 (see above) and the preamble of Claim 28 references “The system of Claim 15” rather than “The solar energy receiver of claim…” thus causing the claims to be indefinite. For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claims 30 and 31 are interpreted as if amended to depend from independent Claim 29.
In addition, regarding Claim 31, the phrase "preferably" 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). For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claim 31 is interpreted as if the limitation(s) following the phrase are optional and thus not required.
Regarding Claim 32, the phrase "preferably" 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). For purposes of this Office Action, in order to advance prosecution, Claim 32 is interpreted as if the limitation(s) following the phrase are optional and thus not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 16-20 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100043779 A1 (hereinafter “INGRAM”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1148
1720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 16-20 and 24-28, INGRAM discloses a solar energy collection system comprising: (a) an elongate solar collector unit (10) comprising a horizontally elongate, hemi- parabolic mirror (12, see also 20) having a linear focus line configured to concentrate reflected solar radiation; (b) an elongate receiver (14) having at least one linear gap (see 42; Fig. 5) which lies along the focus line of the reflector, the elongate receiver comprising a heat pipe (30) configured to retain a thermal fluid, and the receiver further comprising at least one heat transfer structure to heat the thermal fluid within the heat pipe with the solar radiation, wherein the heat transfer structure comprises a Concentrated Radiation Impact Surface (CRIS) (see 36, 38; Fig. 5) for receiving the concentrated solar radiation, and a Channeled Air Stream Heater (CASH) (see 31; Fig. 5) attached to the CRIS and having a surface for transferring heat energy to the thermal fluid, wherein the CASH comprises at least one pair of outer fins (52) projecting into the heat pipe, and defining a partially enclosed volume (i.e., a volume between respective fins) within the heat pipe; and (c) a subsystem configured to move the thermal fluid through the receiver ([0041] Turning to FIG. 5, the receiver 14 comprises a generally longitudinally-extending tube 30, the interior of which functions as a fluid passageway 31 that accommodates the generally longitudinal flow of heat-transfer fluid 34 that is pumped through the tube to absorb the solar energy as heat.); wherein the CRIS and the CASH comprise surfaces on either side of a trough member, the CRIS comprising a curved portion (see again 36, 38; Fig. 5) of which extends into an interior of the heat pipe (30), and which is sealingly attached to an inside surface of the heat pipe, wherein the CRIS and CASH are aligned along the at least one linear gap (see again 42; Fig. 5); wherein the at least one pair of outer fins comprise unattached longitudinal edges that are displaced towards one another so as to define the partially enclosed volume (see fins 52 which are displaced towards one another); wherein the CASH further comprises at least one central fin disposed within the partially enclosed volume (see any three fins 52 which are displaced towards one another); wherein the receiver comprises two linear gaps (see the portions of gap 42 defined by curved portions 36, 38; Fig. 5), and two heat transfer structures, disposed on opposing sides of a vertical center line through the receiver and heat pipe (i.e., the fins 52 attached to either surface 36 or 38; see Figs. 5 and 7); wherein the receiver comprises at least one insulating layer (32) and/or a reflective layer to reduce conductive and radiant heat loss from the heat pipe; wherein the thermal fluid is a gas (see claims 13 of INGRAM which claims: “wherein the fluid is a gas.”); wherein the thermal gas is nitrogen or air (see claim 14 of INGRAM which claims: “wherein the gas is air.”); wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of heat transfer units, connected longitudinally end-to-end (see 14’, 14”; Fig. 8A); further comprising elements within the heat pipe to mix the thermal fluid within the heat pipe (see paras. [0054]-[0057]).
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INGRAM in view of WO 2005090873 A1 (hereinafter “GERWING”).
Regarding Clam 22, INGRAM does not explicitly disclose further comprising a return air pipe for delivering the thermal fluid to the heat pipe.
PNG
media_image2.png
723
1758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
GERWING teaches a solar energy collection system comprising a return air pipe (see 611) for delivering the thermal fluid to the heat pipe (see 43; Figs. 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify INGRAM by further comprising a return air pipe for delivering the thermal fluid to the heat pipe as taught and/or suggested by GERWING, since such a modification would assist in creating a closed circuit wherein said thermal fluid is continuously reused by cycling between a solar energy absorption portion of the circuit, a heat transfer portion of the circuit and a return portion of the circuit.
Claims 21 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INGRAM in view of ES 452240 A1 (hereinafter “TURNHEIM”).
Regarding Claim 21, INGRAM does not disclose further comprising a central supporting beam positioned within the heat pipe, and dividing the heat pipe into lateral halves.
PNG
media_image3.png
618
1022
media_image3.png
Greyscale
TURNHEIM teaches a solar energy collection system comprising a central supporting beam (6) positioned within the heat pipe (1), and dividing the heat pipe into lateral halves (1’, 1”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify INGRAM by further comprising a central supporting beam positioned within the heat pipe, and dividing the heat pipe into lateral halves as taught and/or suggested by TURNHEIM, since such a modification would provide said heat pipe with greater structural rigidity and integrity thus providing resistance against bending or deformation forces which would adversely affect operability and/or longevity.
Regarding Claims 29-32, INGRAM discloses the claimed invention (see the discussion of INGRAM above) except for a central vertical support beam and a support structure supporting a lower edge of the support beam. Regarding the limitations disclosed by INGRAM, in the interest of brevity, the same or equivalent claim limitations, already discussed above, will not be repeated here.
TURNHEIM teaches a solar energy collection system comprising a central vertical support beam (6) and a support structure (5) supporting a lower edge of the support beam.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify INGRAM by further comprising a central vertical support beam and a support structure supporting a lower edge of the support beam as taught and/or suggested by TURNHEIM, since such a modification would provide said heat pipe with greater structural rigidity and integrity thus providing resistance against bending or deformation forces which would adversely affect operability and/or longevity.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INGRAM in view of WO 2013168074 A1 (hereinafter “ROCCARO”).
Regarding Claim 23, INGRAM does not disclose wherein the return air pipe is configured to support the receiver.
ROCCARO teaches a solar energy collection system wherein the return air pipe (103) is configured to support the receiver (102; see Fig. 1a).
PNG
media_image4.png
782
1506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify INGRAM wherein the return air pipe is configured to support the receiver as taught and/or suggested by ROCCARO, since such a modification would eliminate the need for a separate support structure for said receiver thereby saving material costs and minimizing structural complexity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because the references are either in the same field of endeavor or are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned. Please see form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) attached to, or included with, this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A PEREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-3932 and whose fax number is (571) 270-4932. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A PEREIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights