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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “alkaline” is used seemingly interchangeably with “alkali” when the invention is interpreted to be drawn to solely alkali elements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “alkaline” in Claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “alkali,” while the accepted meaning of “alkaline” differs from that of “alkali” in the respective groups of elements on the Periodic Table. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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, 4-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievers et al. (US 6239350 B1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0332047 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sievers teaches an alkali metal thermal-to-electric converter (AMTEC) cell comprising a closed container separated into high- and low-pressure regions by a solid electrolyte wherein alkali metal is in thermal contact with a heat source in the higher-pressure region and alkali metal is condensed by the removal of heat in the lower pressure region (Page 6, Col. 1). Sievers teaches AMTEC cells to employ at least one solid electrolyte structure in the form of a beta-alumina solid electrolyte (BASE) tube of varying geometries, and the BASE tube inner and outer surfaces are overlaid with permeable electrodes which function as the anode and cathode respectively (Page 6, Col. 1). Thus, a layered structure of an anode, solid electrolyte, and cathode is achieved.
Sievers teaches an embodiment of the BASE tube may have a corrugated shape (Page 9, Col. 7) which necessarily includes successively arranged ridges and grooves corresponding respectively to convex and concave portions appearing in an alternating pattern. Since the anode and cathode are disposed on respective inner and outer sides of the solid electrolyte in the form of a BASE tube, the anode and cathode necessarily conform to the shape of the BASE tube and thus the resulting electrode stack conforms to the corrugated shape.
Sievers teaches utilizing the BASE tubes for collecting and holding liquid alkali metal as it condenses from the vapor state (Page 6, Col. 2), after which the liquid alkali metal evaporates at a high pressure at the surface of an evaporator wick and then the high-pressure alkali metal vapor is returned to the inside of the BASE tubes through a plenum at the heated end of the AMTEC cell (Page 6, Col. 1) and thus continuous alkali metal ions migrate into the solid electrolyte with concomitant loss of electrons to the external circuit due to the resulting electrochemical potential difference between regions of different vapor pressure across the solid electrolyte (Page 6, Col. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the corrugated BASE tube shape as taught by Sievers with an AMTEC cell in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as increasing the power output of the BASE tube by increasing the number of sides and active surface area for the BASE tube at which alkali metal can interface as taught by Sievers (Page 9, Col. 7). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Furthermore, Kim teaches an AMTEC cell (Paragraph [0004]) utilizing a BASE (Paragraph [0005]), echoing the teachings of Sievers. Kim also teaches one convex-concave iteration in Fig. 4 and then multiple repeat units in Figs. 2 and 3. Increasing the number of iterations and further integrating them to arrive at the claimed invention would be merely a duplication of parts and the court held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, multiple convex-concave iterations which are then integrated with each other would not be expected to produce unexpected results from what is taught in the prior art, such as in the teachings of Sievers above regarding the increase in active BASE surface area (Page 9, Col. 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Sievers does not teach the high temperature portion to be disposed on the upper side and the low temperature portion to be disposed on the lower side. However, Sievers teaches the behavior of the evaporated and condensed alkali metal liquid in the context of high and low temperature and pressure regions, the particular locations of which are not described to any benefit or unexpected test result in the instant disclosure in view of the teachings of the prior art. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to optimize the placement of high and low temperature regions in such an apparatus with a vapor pressure gradient in a configuration to collect and deliver evaporated and condensed liquid to the process cycle as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Further, the designation of high and low provides only identifiers, not structural or functional limitations.
Regarding Claim 5, Sievers teaches the liquid alkali metal to evaporate at a high pressure at the surface of an evaporator wick as in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Sievers teaches the evaporator wick to be coupled to an artery membrane, wherein the alkali metal condensate flows through the artery and the condensate forms at a low temperature condenser surface (Page 6, Col. 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to control the condensed liquid flow using a well-known device, such as a funnel having inherent features such as an upper portion that is wider than a lower portion, as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 7, Sievers teaches a cylindrical liquid anode wick on the inside of the BASE tube which acts as the inner electrode and current collector, wherein a preferred embodiment, the wick has a concentric, cylindrical, porous capillary structure (Page 8, Col. 6).
Sievers does not teach a cathode current collector, or the disposition of an anode current collector in contact with the cathode layer and a cathode current collector in contact with the anode layer. Kim teaches a current collector which is located between adjacent thermal-to-electric power generation cells and connects them in series (Paragraphs [0053], [0054]) and may be made of a porous structure like a metal felt which has a high electrification property and buffering effect (Paragraph [0032]). Kim teaches current collectors located outside of the BASE tubes (Fig. 2, Item 200) while Sievers teaches BASE tube inner and outer surfaces to be overlaid with permeable electrodes which function as the anode and cathode respectively as in Claim 1 above. As a result, the external current collectors of Kim would contact the outer electrode or cathode of Sievers.
Furthermore, it is well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the range of materials used for anode and cathode current collectors overlap and the current collector materials may be the same material contacting each electrode, thereby fulfilling that an “anode” current collector contacts the cathode layer and a “cathode” current collector contacts the anode layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the external current collector as taught by Kim with the external cathode as taught by Sievers in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as maximizing the current collecting effect due to low interfacial resistance between the cells due to wet contact of the liquid metal absorbed into a porous material such as a metal felt current collector as taught by Kim (Paragraphs [0032], [0033]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Regarding Claim 8, Sievers teaches a metallic cell wall (Page 6, Col. 1), wherein metallic components are well-known to be both electrically and thermally conductive, but does not teach a conductive lower case in contact with the outermost anode current collector.
As in Claim 7 above, the cathode of Sievers as the outer surface the BASE tube in combination with the external current collectors of Kim could result in an “anode” current collector material outermost of the BASE tube and between adjacent BASE tubes as taught by Kim. Sievers teaches the advantages of bringing a non-conductive element (NCE) and BASE tube into better thermal contact with the hottest part of the cell (Page 7, Col. 4). Kim teaches a heat source which heats the lower portion of the cell (Paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the heated lower portion of the cell as taught by Kim with the advantages of bringing an NCE and BASE tube into contact with the hottest part of the cell as taught by Sievers in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as enabling a more efficient transport of thermal energy to the BASE tube and improving its energy conversion performance as taught by Siever (Page 7, Col. 4). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Regarding Claim 9, Sievers does not teach an insulator between a thermal-to-electric conversion cell and an upper case. Sievers incorporates by reference US Patent 4808240 A which teaches an insulator means to electrically isolate first and second conducting means from a shell and outer wick (Page 10, Col. 6; Fig. 8: Item 58), wherein the shell of the incorporated prior art reference is analogous to the case of the instant claims.
Regarding Claim 12, Siever teaches an alkali metal working fluid such as sodium (Page 8, Col. 5).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievers et al. (US 6239350 B1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0332047 A1) as in Claim 1 above, further in view of Gaugler et al. (US 2017/0324112 A1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Siever does not teach the structure of current collectors as pins. Gaugler teaches an electrode arranged inside a cavity to be contacted by a pin-shaped current collector which has a first terminal section completely embedded in the electrode and thus in direct contact with the electrode, and a second section not directly in contact with the electrode, wherein the current collector may have a conically extending tip and a flange (Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pin-shaped current collector used in electrode cavities as taught by Gaugler with the cavity formed between convex-concave zones in the AMTEC cell as taught by Sievers in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as preventing lithium deposition on the current collector as taught by Gaugler (Paragraph [0045]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievers et al. (US 6239350 B1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0332047 A1) as in Claim 1 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2011/0303257 A1) hereinafter “Kim ‘257”.
Regarding Claim 13, Siever does not teach a heat supply unit surrounding the upper and side surfaces of a high temperature portion. Kim ‘257 teaches an AMTEC cell having an end portion heated by a heat source to become a high temperature portion (Paragraph [0046]) wherein the heat source may heat a first end portion or a second end portion of the case (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of a heat source for a high-temperature end of an AMTEC cell as taught by Kim ‘257 with the AMTEC cell as taught by Sievers in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as generating power by heating end portions of the case as taught by Kim ‘257 (Paragraph [0053]). See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 89 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 2008) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievers et al. (US 6239350 B1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0332047 A1) as in Claim 1 above and Kim et al. (US 2011/0303257 A1) as in Claim 13 above, further in view of Lodhi et al. (“Performance parameters of material studies for AMTEC cell”, Journal of Power Sources 85 (2000), Pages 203-211).
Regarding Claim 14, Sievers teaches sodium as the working fluid as in Claim 12 above, but does not teach a high temperature sodium fluid from nuclear power generation to be supplied to the heat supply unit. Lodhi teaches an optimized AMTEC to utilize heat as input fuel from most of any source like fossil fuel, the sun, radioisotopes, or a nuclear reactor (Page 203) wherein the AMTEC cell converts heat to mechanical energy via a sodium-based heat engine using liquid sodium as the working fluid (Page 204).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the utilization of a nuclear heat source for the liquid sodium of an AMTEC cell as taught by Lodhi with the AMTEC cell as taught by Sievers in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as compatibility with direct conversion from such nuclear space power reactors for application to deep space missions as taught by Lodhi (Page 204). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievers et al. (US 6239350 B1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0332047 A1) as in Claim 1 above, further in view of Shim et al. (KR 101240395 B1).
Regarding Claim 15, Sievers does not teach the alkali metal fluid to come into contact with the anode layer of the thermal-to-electric conversion cell in a molten form. Shim teaches a geothermal power generation system using heat exchange between a working fluid and molten salt capable of generating electricity by causing heat exchange between the working fluid and the molten salt, comprising a heat collector; a plurality of molten salt receivers which receive the molten salt thereinside and are disposed apart from the ground by a regular interval; a heat exchanger which transfers the heat source of the heat collector to the molten salt of the molten salt receiver; a plurality of working fluid receivers which receive thereinside the working fluid receiving the heat source of the molten salt through the heat exchange, cover each of the molten salt receivers, and is disposed separately from the ground by a certain distance; a turbine which is connected to the working fluid receiver and generates mechanical energy by using steam energy generated by the working fluid receiver; and a power generator which is connected to the turbine and generates electrical energy by using the mechanical energy (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capabilities of molten salt heat exchange as taught by Shim with the alkali metal fluid of the AMTEC cell as taught by Sievers in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as storing heat in the molten salt and achieving power generation, such as that which is capable of rotating a turbine, by heat exchange to the working fluid and molten salt as taught by KR 101240395 B1 (Paragraph [0011]). See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 189 USPQ 257 (1976) in MPEP §2143 for KSR obviousness rationale (D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The closest prior art to claims 2 and 3 is cited above. None of the reference teach or suggest the plurality of concave and convex portions in alternating horizontal and vertical directions.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
