DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group I (claims 8-14 and claims 1-7) with traverse is acknowledged and Applicant’s election of Species 300 - Fig. 11a-13 as shown and subspecies B (para. 63, storage media is condensed) without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/2026.
The traversal is on the grounds that the claims have been amended so that the groups are no longer patently distinct. In response, the group restriction is withdrawn, however, claims 3-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. It is noted that claim 3 does not read on the elected species, because the elected species does not have a discharge subsystem having a dryer regeneration subsystem nor having a dryer regeneration gas blower as claimed, rather in the elected species these are part of a separate dryer regeneration subsystem (as shown see Fig. 11B). Claim 4 is withdrawn at least for its dependency. Claim 5 does not read on the elected species, because the elected species does not have a discharge subsystem that includes a thermal store and a low pressure CO2 storage media, as claimed. Rather in the elected species the thermal store and CO2 storage media is part of the charge subsystem (see pg. pub. para. 81, Fig. 12). Claim 6 is withdrawn at least for its dependency. Claim 7 does not read on the elected species, because the elected species does not have a thermal integration subsystem, as claimed. Rather in the elected species has a thermal management subsystem (see Fig. 13). Claim 8 does not read on the elected species, because the elected species does not have a discharge subsystem that includes a thermal store and a low pressure CO2 storage media, as claimed. Rather in the elected species the thermal store and CO2 storage media is part of the charge subsystem (see pg. pub. para. 81, Fig. 12). Claims 9-14 are withdrawn at least for their dependency, however, many of the claims are additionally only drawn to non-elected species. It is noted that claim 15 does not read on the elected species, because the elected species does not have a discharge subsystem that includes a thermal store and a low-pressure CO2 storage media, as claimed. Rather in the elected species the thermal store and CO2 storage media is part of the charge subsystem (see pg. pub. para. 81, Fig. 12). Claims 16-20 are withdrawn at least for their dependency, however, many of the claims are additionally only drawn to non-elected species.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Fig. 12 fails to have reference number 302B. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show correct arrows consistent with the flow direction of the cold and hot fluid as described in the specification. This is a serious error in the presentation of the invention and the arrow directions should all be confirmed to be consistent with the disclosed invention in the specification. Specifically review the arrows for the flow from the cold pump to 320B and from 322B to the line of the warm pump 314C; as well as the arrows for flow from the warm pump to 306A and from 304A to the line with the cold pump 310C. Compare with Fig. 11A and 12. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitations, “low-pressure” and “high-pressure” are indefinite for being relative and patently indiscernible as there is no way to discern what pressure is sufficiently low or sufficiently high to be considered such. Further, the specification fails to adequately define what qualifies and what does not.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “to generate power” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing power that was already previously introduced in claim 1.
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.
Claim limitation “expander stage” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The application merely uses the term but never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to provide for the term. 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 present examination, the recitation is interpreted as merely an expander.
Claim limitation “compressor stage” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The application merely uses the term but never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to provide for the term. 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 present examination, the recitation is interpreted as merely a compressor.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 114673571). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Zhang teaches a system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a discharge subsystem (at least E1, page 3) in fluid communication with a CO2 pipeline (page 6 “pipeline”),
the discharge subsystem (at least E1) including at least one expander stage (at least E1);
a low-pressure CO2 storage media (liquid CO2 tank 4, page 6) in fluid communication with the discharge subsystem (at least E1);
a charge subsystem (at least C1) in fluid communication with the low-pressure CO2 storage media (4) and the CO2 pipeline (“pipeline”, page 6; see outflow from compressors), the charge subsystem (at least C1) including at least one compressor stage (compressor C1), wherein the discharge subsystem (at least E1) is configured to receive a high-pressure CO2 stream (page 4 “high pressure supercritical carbon dioxide”) from the CO2 pipeline (“pipeline”) and the at least one expander stage (at least E1) is configured to expand the high-pressure CO2 stream (“high pressure supercritical carbon dioxide”) to generate power (“power” page 2, 5) and produce a low-pressure CO2 stream (page 5 “low compression carbon dioxide”) for storage in the low-pressure CO2 storage media (4), and
wherein the charge subsystem (at least C1) is configured to receive the low-pressure CO2 stream (low compression carbon dioxide) from the low-pressure CO2 storage media (4) and the at least one compressor stage (compressor C1) is configured to compress the low-pressure CO2 stream (low compression carbon dioxide) to generate a recycle high-pressure CO2 stream (“recycled” page 3) that is returned to the CO2 pipeline (“pipeline”).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 114673571) in view of Allam (KR 10-2013-0036180). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Zhang teaches most of the claim limitations including that the at least one expander stage (at least E1) includes a turbo-expander (E1) configured to generate power based on a pressure differential between the high-pressure CO2 stream and the low-pressure CO2 stream (page 5 “output power” from “expansion work”; page 6 “driving electric generator”) and the discharge subsystem (at least E1) further includes least one heater (T1). Zhang does not explicitly teach that the discharge subsystem comprises a dryer. However, it is routine and ordinary to remove water from a carbon dioxide stream as taught by Allam. Allam teaches expanding a carbon dioxide stream (40; page 19) via turbine (320) and then removing water from the expanded gas (page 4, “the expanded gas stream may be cooled to remove various components such as water from the stream”). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Zhang with a dryer for the purpose of removing water from the carbon dioxide in situations where the source of the carbon dioxide contains water for the purpose of preventing corrosion (page 21) and preventing contamination of the carbon dioxide storage fluid (page 22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights