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 statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2024 was filed on the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 was filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “a heat pump” (claim 11, line 3) is believed to be --the heat pump--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
pumping members → pumps are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Applicant’s par. 155) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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
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 1-12 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.
The recitation of “can be” (claim 1, line 12) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; the phrase “can be” indicates that something is possible or has the potential to occur. For examination purposes, the recitation has been considered as --is--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outlet pressure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an outlet pressure--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the compressor section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a compressor section--.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the inlet pressure" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an inlet pressure--.
The recitation of “preferably” (claim 3, line 5) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; the phrase “preferably” is considered as “if possible”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the various operating members" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --various operating members--.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "for example" 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).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The recitation of “…in that it is configured to be coupled…” (claim 6, line 2) is unclear. The term “it” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “it” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention; it is unclear as to what the recitation “it” is referring to. For examination purposes, the recitation has been examined as --…in that the heat pump is configured to be coupled…--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the corresponding channel" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a corresponding channel--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the corresponding channel" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a corresponding channel--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an inlet--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the compressor part" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a compressor part--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an outlet--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the inlet" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an inlet--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the turbine part" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a turbine part--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the output" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an output--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first gas flow branch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a first gas flow branch--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first connection point" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a first connection point--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second connection point" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a second connection point--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an outlet--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the compressor part" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a compressor part--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --an outlet--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the turbine part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a turbine part--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second connection point" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a second connection point--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second gas flow branch" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a second gas flow branch--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first connection point" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a first connection point--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second connection point" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a second connection point--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the channels" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation of “…to one of the channels” has been considered as --…to one of a plurality of channels…--.
The recitation of “The method for supplying thermal energy…” (claim 11) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because a method for supplying thermal energy has not been previously claimed. For examination purposes, the recitation has been examined as --A method for supplying thermal energy…--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the form" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been considered as --a form--.
The recitation of “preferably” (claim 11, line 5) is unclear. The recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; the phrase “preferably” is considered as “if possible”. For examination purposes, the limitation following the phrase “preferably” is not being considered.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "for example" 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).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ruer (US 2010/0301614).
Regarding claim 1, Ruer discloses an electric heat pump, comprising:
at least two thermal-energy storage systems (1, 2), and
at least one thermal-energy release system (5a, 5b, and 6), wherein:
at least one of the thermal-energy storage systems (1) is configured to store thermal-energy in the form of heat at a temperature between +100°C and +800°C (refer to par. 42, wherein thermal-energy storage system 1 is capable of withstanding a temperature T1 of at least 750°C, preferably lying in the range 750°C to 2000°C, more preferably 1000°C to 1500°C),
at least one of the thermal-energy storage systems (2) is configured to store thermal-energy in the form of cold at a temperature between -100°C and +150°C (refer to T2 and T3 as can be seen from fig.1); and
said at least one thermal-energy release system (6) is configured to release heat and/or cold separately or in parallel over time;
the heat pump being configured to comprise a reversed Brayton cycle operating with a gas (refer to par. 16, wherein the system stores electrical energy in the form of heat within masses of refractory materials, the fluid that enables energy to be transferred being a gas, preferably an inert gas such as argon, and then to return said stored thermal potential energy in the form of electrical energy);
characterized in that the heat pump comprises a single-stage centrifugal electric turbocharger (3).
Regarding claim 3, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Ruer discloses at least one of the thermal-energy storage systems (2) is configured to store thermal-energy at temperatures between -50°C and +100°C (refer to temperatures T2 and T3 as in fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Ruer discloses wherein in that said at least two thermal-energy storage systems (1, 2) are configured to store thermal-energy in the form of heat and in the form of cold (refer to fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Ruer discloses wherein various operating members of said heat pump are isolated in modules, said modules being configured to be connected to one another by physical connections comprising valves, connecting pipes and/or hoses (refer to fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Ruer discloses in that the heat pump is configured to be coupled to at least one natural heat source and/or at least one artificial heat source comprising a gas boiler, a gas furnace, heat from solar origin or waste heat, a dryer and/or heat loss of artificial origin (refer to heater 5b).
Regarding claim 7, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Ruer discloses wherein the gas used in the reversed Brayton cycle of the heat pump is air, or a noble gas such as helium or argon, or a mixture of these gases (refer to par. 39, wherein the gas is argon).
Regarding claim 11, Ruer discloses a method for supplying thermal energy in the form of heat at a temperature between +100°C and +800°C and/or cold at a temperature between -100°C and +150°C, using the heat pump according to claim 1, comprising the following steps:
(a) a charge cycle step by mechanical compression of at least one gas (refer to compressor 3b); and
(b) a discharge cycle step without compression and/or expansion in which the thermal energy is discharged via at least one thermal-energy release system, via at least one valve, at least one circulator and/or at least one heat exchanger (refer to heat exchanger 6).
Regarding claim 12, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 11. Further, Ruer discloses wherein the discharge cycle step (b) is performed in parallel with charge cycle step (a) (refer to fig. 1, and steps 1-5 as in paras.60-61).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruer (US 2010/0301614) in view of Apte (US 2018/0187572).
Regarding claim 2, Ruer meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Ruer discloses the single-stage centrifugal electric turbocharger, but fails to explicitly disclose a compression ratio of between 1 and 5, the compression ratio being defined as the ratio between an outlet pressure of a compressor section of the turbocharger and an inlet pressure of said compressor section.
However, Apte teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide a compression ratio of between 1 and 5 (refer to par. 51, wherein the compression ratio may be at least about 1.2, at least about 1.5, at least about 2, at least about 2.5, at least about 3, at least about 3.5, at least about 4, at least about 4.5, at least about 5).
One having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration would recognize that by providing a compression ratio of between 1 and 5 provides knock resistance, component longevity, and simplicity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ruer by having a compression ratio of between 1 and 5, in order to provide knock resistance, component longevity, and simplicity in view of the teachings by Ruer along with the knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights