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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2024 and 12/04/2025 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/27/2024. These drawings are Figure 2 and Figure 5.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "8" and "4" have both been used to designate compressor in Figure 1, see p.2 line 2 and p.3 line 16 of Applicant Specification; reference characters "26" and "52" have both been used to designate a piston, see p.10, lines 21-30 of Applicant Specification; Reference characters "31" and "26" have both been used to designate a crank in Figure 2, see p.10, line 1 of Applicant Specification. 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because language “may” in line 5 of the Abstract lacks clarity. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An electrical storage device in at least claim 15;
An electronic control means in at least claim 12;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
an electrical storage device such as a battery, Applicant Specification p.18, lines 1-8.
control means, such as an electrical or electronic controller, a microprocessor, or a general-purpose computer, Application Specification p.13, lines 25-29.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 5,6,15 and 16-24 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.
.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, the recitation of “the vapor return inlet” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
In particular, claim 1 recites a reservoir having a vapor return inlet but not a vapor reservoir inlet. Thus, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitations have been interpreted as - - the vapor return inlet - - for consistent terminology.
Regarding Claim 15, the recitation “the electrical power source” lacks antecedent basis.
In particular, claim 1 which claim 15 depends from recites an external power source but not an electrical power source. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - an electrical power source - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 16, the recitation of “wherein the first volume portion is fluidically connected to the reservoir through the vapor return and the second volume portion is fluidically connected to the reservoir through the liquid return” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, claim 16 further recites “contracting the second volume portion…releasing pressurized fluid to pass through the vapor return to the reservoir” describing how the second volume portion is connected to the reservoir through the vapor return. Claim 16 further recites “emptying the first volume portion by isobarically transferring the working fluid remaining therein through the liquid return to the reservoir” describing how the first volume portion fluidically connects to the reservoir through the liquid return. Therefore, one skilled in the art would not necessarily have the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claim limitation.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as - - wherein the first volume portion is fluidically connected to the reservoir through the liquid return and the second volume portion is fluidically connected to the reservoir through the vapor return - - for clarity.
Claims 17-24 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Try (US20240318645A1) in view of Joffroy (US20150211440A1) and Fischer (US4747271A).
Regarding Claim 1, Try teaches a heat transfer apparatus [fluid compression device 1 with regeneration pipe 7 and reservoir 13, Figure 1], comprising:
a) a compressor-expander [fluid compression device 1] having a bore [compression chamber with a first end 3 and second end 6, Figure 1; 0032] and a piston [mobile piston 5, Figure 1] movable within the bore along a central axis thereof [where piston 5 translates between the first 3 and second 6 end of the compression chamber, annotated Figure 1;0033], the piston hermetically separating [where only direct transit between the ends of the chamber during the movements of the piston are through regeneration pipe 7; 0041] the bore into first [first end 3 of compression chamber, Figure 1] and second volume portions [second end 6 of the compression chamber; 0033]; and wherein the bore has: a liquid compressor inlet [at supply valve 9, Figure 1; 0037] and a liquid compressor outlet [lower line of bypass pipe 12, Figure 1; 0053] situated respectively to receive working fluid into, and discharge working fluid out of, the first volume portion [first end 3, Figure 1;0037;0053]; and a vapor compressor outlet [upper line of bypass pipe 12, Figure 1; 0053] situated to discharge working fluid from the second volume portion [second end 6, Figure 1];
c) a reservoir [tank 13; 0055] having a vapor return inlet [where bypass 12 delivers high pressure fluid from second end 6, the hot end, Figure 1; 0053;0054], a liquid return inlet [where bypass 12 includes a withdrawal point at the first end 3, the cold end, Figure 1; 0053], and a liquid reservoir outlet [via supply pipe 8, Figure 1] that is in fluidic communication with the liquid compressor inlet through an intervening supply valve [supply valve 9, Figure 1];
d) a vapor return [regeneration circuit 7 and bypass pipe 12, Figure 1] providing a fluidic communication between the vapor compressor outlet [a withdrawal point of bypass pipe 12, Figure 1] and the vapor return inlet [annotated Figure 1] controllable by an intervening regulating valve [regulation valve 14, Figure 1; 0057]; and
e) a liquid return [regeneration circuit 7 and bypass pipe 12, Figure 1] providing fluidic communication between the compressor-expander [withdrawal point of bypass pipe 12; where bypass 12 can withdraw the fluid at any point of the return, Figure 1; 0053] and the reservoir [tank 13, Figure 1; 0055].
Try does not explicitly teach the bore is cylindrical.
However, Joffroy teaches a regenerative compressor [0001] including a cylindrical bore [where main enclosure 2 is generally cylindrical in shape with an axis Z, Figure 1;0044] where a change in shape alone, without demonstration of criticality, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Try to have a cylindrical bore in view of the teachings of Joffroy where a shape of the bore is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant.
Try does not teach the first and second volume portions are fluidically connected through an intervening check valve that is configured to permit transfer of a working fluid from the first volume portion to the second volume portion
However, Joffroy teaches a regenerative compressor [0001] where the first [chamber E11, Figure 1] and second volume portions [chamber E21, Figure 1] are fluidically connected through an intervening check valve [check valve 3a on first piston 71, Figure 1] that is configured to permit transfer of a working fluid from the first volume portion to the second volume portion [0053] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., equalizing pressure [Joffroy, 0088].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Try to have the first and second volume portions fluidically connected through an intervening check valve that is configured to permit transfer of a working fluid from the first volume portion to the second volume portion in view of the teachings of Joffroy where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., equalizing pressure [Joffroy, 0088].
Try does not teach a prime mover capable of being connected to an external power source and configured to drive the piston in reciprocating motion along the central axis.
However, Joffroy teaches a regenerative compressor [0001] a prime mover [drive device 4 including electric motor 95, Figure 5; 0106;111] capable of being connected to an external power source [where mechanical power is delivered to drive device 4; 0115] and configured to drive the piston in reciprocating motion [where rod 8 is driven back and forth by a drive device, Figure 5; 0045; 0106] along the central axis [axis Z, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Try to have a prime mover capable of being connected to an external power source and configured to drive the piston in reciprocating motion along the central axis in view of the teachings of Joffroy where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Try does not teach the liquid return is controllable by an intervening return valve
However, Fischer teaches a hydraulic reciprocating external heat source engine [col. 1, lines 33-38] where the liquid return [conduit 33 through conduit 36, Figure 1] is controllable by an intervening return valve [check valve 34 and check valve 30, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing backflow of fluid by regulating fluid flow with a check valve
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings the liquid return is controllable by an intervening return valve in view of the teachings of Fischer where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing backflow of fluid by regulating fluid flow with a check valve.
Regarding Claim 2, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the liquid return [via bypass pipe 12 and regeneration pipe 7, Figure 1] comprises a liquid heat exchanger [regenerator 17, Figure 1; 0043;0044] having a liquid heat exchanger inlet [where fluid from first end 3 passes through regenerator 17 to the second end 6, annotated Figure 1;0044], and a liquid heat exchanger outlet [where fluid from first end 3 passes through regenerator 17 toward the second end 6, annotated Figure 1;0044], wherein the liquid heat exchanger inlet is in fluidic communication with the liquid compressor outlet [via regeneration pipe 7 at first end 3, Figure 1] and the liquid heat exchanger outlet is in fluidic communication with the liquid return inlet [where bypass 12 includes a withdrawal point at the second end 6, Figure 1].
Regarding Claim 3 Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2 and does not teach wherein the return valve is interposed between the liquid compressor outlet and the liquid heat exchanger inlet.
However, Fischer teaches a hydraulic reciprocating external heat source engine [col. 1, lines 33-38] where the return valve [check valve 34, Figure 1] is interposed between the liquid compressor outlet [exhuast port 35 of engine 10, Figure 1] and the liquid heat exchanger inlet [via conduit 36 to preheat exchanger 27, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing backflow of fluid by regulating fluid flow with a check valve
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings wherein the return valve is interposed between the liquid compressor outlet and the liquid heat exchanger inlet in view of the teachings of Fischer where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing backflow of fluid by regulating fluid flow with a check valve.
Regarding Claim 4, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 2, and does not teach where the return valve is interposed between the liquid heat exchanger outlet and the liquid return inlet.
However, Fischer teaches a hydraulic reciprocating external heat source engine [col. 1, lines 33-38] where the return valve [check valve 30, Figure 1] is interposed between the liquid heat exchanger outlet [at conduit 40 of heat exchanger 27, Figure 1] and the liquid return inlet [at conduit 40 of cold reservoir 32, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., preventing backflow of fluid by regulating fluid flow with a check valve
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings wherein the return valve is interposed between the liquid compressor outlet and the liquid heat exchanger inlet in view of the teachings of Fischer where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., preventing backflow of fluid by regulating fluid flow with a check valve.
Regarding Claim 5, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the vapor return [via regeneration circuit 7 and bypass pipe 12, Figure 1] comprises a vapor heat exchanger [15, Figure 1; where optionally an additional heat exchanger is along the regeneration circuit; 0044] having a vapor heat exchanger inlet in fluidic communication with a vapor heat exchanger outlet [where fluid passes through 15 along the regeneration pipe 7, Figure 1], and wherein the vapor heat exchanger inlet is in fluidic communication with the vapor compressor outlet [at second end 6 via regeneration pipe 7, Figure 1] and the vapor heat exchanger outlet is in fluidic communication with the vapor return inlet [return inlet, annotated Figure 1; where bypass 12 includes a withdrawal point at the second end 6 from regeneration pipe 7, Figure 1; 0053].
Regarding Claim 6, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and further teaches where the regulating valve [valve 14, Figure 1] is interposed between the vapor heat exchanger outlet [annotated Figure 1] and the vapor return inlet [annotated Figure 1].
Regarding Claim 7, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach the prime mover actuates the piston through a rotating crank and connecting rod.
However, Joffroy teaches a regenerative compressor [0001] a prime mover [rod 8 connected to drive device 4, Figure 5; 0106] actuates the piston through a rotating crank [flywheel 42, Figure 5] and connecting rod [rod 41, Figure 5] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have the prime mover actuates the piston through a rotating crank and connecting rod in view of the teachings of Joffroy where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Regarding Claim 8, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7 and does not teach where a flywheel is associated with the rotating crank.
However, Joffroy teaches a regenerative compressor [0001] where a flywheel [flywheel 42, Figure 1] is associated with the rotating crank [where the drive device 4 comprises a flywheel 42, with a connecting rod 41 connected to said flywheel by a pivoting connection; 0106] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where a flywheel is associated with the rotating crank view of the teachings of Joffroy where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Regarding Claim 9, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the vapor return inlet [a return inlet, annotated Figure 1; where the reinjection point in the tank 13 may be at any height of the tank;0055] and the liquid return inlet [return inlet, annotated Figure 1; where the reinjection point in the tank 13 may be at any height of the tank; 0055] are fluidically connected external to the reservoir [tank 13, Figure 1] to form a single reservoir inlet thereto [upstream of valve 14 of bypass pipe 12, Figure 1; where the upstream end of the bypass pipe is connected to the regeneration circuit at the second end of the compression chamber and/or at the first end of the compression chamber and/or at the regenerator; 0014]
Regarding Claim 10, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the check valve is integral with the piston [where check valve 3a is on first piston 71, Figure 1 of Joffroy; Refer to Try in view of Joffroy as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above].
Regarding Claim 11, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the compressor-expander further comprises a bypass tube [at check valve 3a of Joffroy Figure 1] that fluidically connects the first and second volume portions and the check valve is situated in the bypass tube to control fluid flow therethrough [where chamber E11 and E21 are connected via check valve 3a on piston 71;Refer to Try in view of Joffroy as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above].
Regarding Claim 14, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the reservoir [tank 13, Figure 1] is configured to permit working fluid therein to be subjected to a preselected overpressure [where pressure control members for tank 13 (pressurization and/or depressurization system) may be provided in a conventional manner; 0036].
Regarding Claim 15, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where an electrical power source comprises an electrical storage device adapted to store energy returned by the prime mover during a portion of the reciprocating motion of the piston.
However, Joffroy teaches a regenerative compressor [0001] where the electrical power source [where electric motor 95 couples to the flywheel to impart initial rotational movement; 0114] comprises an electrical storage device adapted to store energy returned by the prime mover during a portion of the reciprocating motion of the piston [where residual electric power will be available usable for electrically powered elements outside the compressor, such as recharging a starter battery; 0115] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have wherein an electrical power source comprises an electrical storage device adapted to store energy returned by the prime mover during a portion of the reciprocating motion of the piston in view of the teachings of Joffroy where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., driving the translation of the piston via a suitable drive system [Try; 0033][Joffroy;0022]
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Try (US20240318645A1) in view of Joffroy (US20150211440A1) and Fischer (US4747271A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fong et al. (US20100329903A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach an electronic control means and wherein at least one of the check valve, the supply valve, the regulating valve, and the return valve is electrically actuatable by the electronic control means.
However, Fong teaches a compression/expansion mechanism [0006] where an electronic control means [controller 1004, Figure 1 and 21] and wherein the supply valve [valve 39, Figure 1], the regulating valve [valve 37, Figure 1], and the return valve [valve 38, Figure 1] is electrically actuatable by the electronic control means [where the controller 1004 is in electronic communication with a universe of active elements in the system, including but not limited to valves; 0205; 0208] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving system control by precisely controlling valve timing [Fong, Figure 21]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an electronic control means and wherein at least one of the check valve, the supply valve, the regulating valve, and the return valve is electrically actuatable by the electronic control means in view of the teachings of Fong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving system control by precisely controlling valve timing [Fong, Figure 21]
Regarding Claim 13, Try, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 12 and does not teach a sensor configured to provide to the control means a signal indicative of the position of the piston within its reciprocal motion.
However, Fong teaches a compression/expansion mechanism [0006] where a sensor [a sensor configured to detect a property including a position of the piston; 0489] configured to provide to the control means a signal indicative of the position of the piston within its reciprocal motion [where an operational parameter comprises monitoring a position of a position of the piston; 0429] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving system control by precisely monitoring compressor operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have an electronic control means and wherein at least one of the check valve, the supply valve, the regulating valve, and the return valve is electrically actuatable by the electronic control means in view of the teachings of Fong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving system control by precisely monitoring compressor operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 16, the subject matter is considered to distinguish from the closest prior art of record, Carmein (US4945725) and Try (US20240318645A1), where Carmein teaches a method for transferring heat energy from a heat source to a heat sink [where evaporator 26 absorbs heat and provides vapor output, Figure 1; col. 4, lines 3-8], comprising: repetitively a cycle comprising the steps of: a) transferring a preselected amount of the subcooled working fluid to the first volume portion [where a discrete quantity of saturated liquid is metered into first portion 36; col. 4, lines 38-41]; b) expanding the first volume portion to reduce adiabatically the pressure therein [where expansion stroke of fluid is isentropic, S=constant from 3 to 4s, Figure 5; col. 7, line 65- col. 8 line 5], whereby the working fluid is cooled and at least a portion thereof is converted to vapor [Figure 5; col. 7, line 65- col. 8 line 5]; d) thereafter, expanding the second volume portion and contracting the first volume portion [where liquid in first portion 36 expands into second portion 38 and partially vaporizes; col. 4, lines 57-68]; e) equalizing the pressures of the working fluid between the first and second volume portions by fluidically connecting the first and second volume portions, so that the temperature of working fluid remaining in the second volume portion is increased [where first and second portions 36 and 38 are in fluid communication via valve 44; col. 4, lines 49-56]; and
Try further teaches a reservoir [tank 13, Figure 1] containing subcooled working fluid [where liquid is in a state close to saturation and potentially subcooled; 0036], a compressor-expander [fluid compression device 1, Figure 1] having a total volume variably apportioned between first [second end 6, Figure 1] and second volume portions [first end 3, Figure 1], a vapor return [via regeneration pipe 7 and bypass 12, Figure 1], and a liquid return [via regeneration pipe 7 and bypass 12, Figure 1], wherein the first volume portion is fluidically connected to the reservoir through the liquid return [where first end 6 meets bypass pipe 12, Figure 1] and the second volume portion is fluidically connected to the reservoir through the vapor return [where the second end 3 meets bypass pipe 12, Figure 1]; but
contrasting the claimed subject matter including c) contracting the second volume portion to increase adiabatically the pressure therein above a target pressure set point, whereby any working fluid therein is heated, and thereafter releasing the pressurized fluid to pass through the vapor return to the reservoir, whereby heat is rejected from the working fluid through the vapor return to the heat sink and pressure in the second volume portion is reduced below the target pressure set point; f) thereafter, emptying the first volume portion by isobarically transferring the working fluid remaining therein through the liquid return to the reservoir, while removing ambient heat into the working fluid in the liquid return.
Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify the technique of the prior art structures to have the apparatus as claimed without improper hindsight and independent claim 16 with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763