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 .
This is in response to the above application filed on 05 November 2024. Claims 1-12 are examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
P. 14, l. 21, “a regenerator/heat-water recovery unit” is believed to be in error for – a regenerator/heat or water recovery unit –.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1, 7 & 13 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “66” has been used to designate both water and collected water.
Figures 1, 7 & 13 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "56" and "66" have both been used to designate water going through the generator 50 instead of 56 going through packing bed 34 and water 66 going through generator 50.
Figures 1-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the energy-supply fluid is a liquid and some of the liquid is flashed into vapor before being admitted into a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger, and … flashed vapor bypasses said exchanger and enters said expander” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim 10. No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 4-12:
The recitation “The power plant according to claim” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for – The power and thermal energy system according to claim –.
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “said direct-contact heat and mass exchanger” (l. 7) is believed to be in error for – said at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger –.
The recitation “said expander” (l. 9) is believed to be in error for – said at least one expander –.
Regarding Claim 3:
The recitation “heat and water” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for – the heat and the hot water –.
The recitation “said expander” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for – said at least one expander –.
Regarding Claim 4:
The recitation “before a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger to increase the expansion ratio between the inlet and outlet of an expander, and between the exit of an expander” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for – before the at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger to increase an expansion ratio between an inlet and an outlet of the at least one expander, and between an exit of the at least one expander –.
The recitation “the expander” (ll. 4-5) is believed to be in error for – the at least one expander –.
Regarding Claim 6:
The recitation “the temperature of the power plant intake heat-receiving fluid, to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at the inlet of a compression system” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for – a temperature of a power plant intake heat-receiving fluid, to reduce a temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at an inlet of the compression system –.
The recitation “and outlet of an installed compression system” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for – and an outlet of the installed compression system –.
Regarding Claim 7:
The recitation “an expander with air, and wherein the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger” (l. x) is believed to be in error for – the at least one expander with air, and wherein the at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger –.
Regarding Claim 8:
The recitation “the temperature of the intake energy-receiving fluid, to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at the inlet of an installed compression system” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for – a temperature of an intake energy-receiving fluid, to reduce a temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at an inlet of the installed compression system –.
The recitation “and outlet of an installed compression system” (l. 4) is believed to be in error for – and an outlet of the installed compression system –.
Regarding Claim 9:
The recitation “the expander system includes” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for – the at least one expander includes –.
The recitation “the outlet of the first expander and the inlet of the second expander” (ll. 2-3) is believed to be in error for – an outlet of a first expander and an inlet of a second expander –.
Regarding Claim 10:
The recitation “a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for – said at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger –.
The recitation “flashed vapor bypasses said exchanger and enters said expander” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for – the flashed vapor bypasses said at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger and enters said at least one expander –.
Regarding Claim 11:
The recitation “a regenerator” (l. 2) is believed to be in error for – the regenerator –.
Regarding Claim 12:
The recitation “to reduce the moisture of power-plant intake air, to reduce the moisture of the air-vapor mixture at the inlet of a compression system, and to recover water from an exhaust stream before being discharged into the ambient” (ll. 2-4) is believed to be in error for – to reduce a moisture of power plant intake air, to reduce a moisture of an air-vapor mixture at an inlet of a compression system, and to recover water from an exhaust stream before being discharged into an ambient –.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation “wherein said thermal energy system undertakes at least one of the following two processes: delivering hot water to said power plant as a heat-supplying fluid from an energy storage system and delivering hot water as a heat-supplying fluid from a heat source” (ll. 5-7) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the thermal energy system has to be only capable of performing one of the two processes or if the thermal energy system (apparatus) has to perform one of the processes listed. Therefore, there is confusion as to when infringement would occur on the claims, because it is unclear if the limitation is directed to the apparatus or the actions of the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05 (p) (II). Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation “the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger is removed” (l. 2) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which “the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger” being removed, since claim 1 recites “at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger” in the system. Furthermore, it is unclear if the at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger in claim 1 is included first then removed of if it is supposed to be removed from the beginning. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Regarding Claim 10, the recitation “the energy-supply fluid is a liquid and some of the liquid is flashed into vapor before being admitted into a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger, and wherein flashed vapor bypasses said exchanger and enters said expander.” (ll. 1-3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how much of the liquid is flashed into vapor before being admitted into a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger, and how much of the flashed vapor bypasses the exchanger. It is unclear what percentage of the flashed vapor enters the exchanger and how much of it bypasses the exchanger. Furthermore, it is unclear where the portion of the liquid that is not flashed into vapor goes – does it also go into the exchanger or if the liquid that is not flashed goes someplace else. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable. Additionally, it is unclear if the liquid has to be flashed to read on the claim or if the apparatus has to be capable of flashing the liquid into the vapor before being admitted into the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger. See MPEP 2173.05 (p) (II). Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Regarding Claim 11, the recitation “water is delivered to users” (l. 1) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “water” is referring to “water” that is associated with the energy-receiving fluid as recited in claim 3, or to “hot water” that is delivered to said power plant recited in claim 1. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable.
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation “to recover water” (l. 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “water” is the same as “hot water” that is delivered to said power plant recited in claim 1, or if it is different water. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unascertainable. The foregoing is interpreted in accordance with the claim rejections below.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov 2019/0277164 in view of Sasaki 2007/0017205.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Kozlov teaches a power and thermal energy system (Combined Cooling, Heating, and Power (CCHP) system) comprising ([0005]; Fig. 2):
a thermal power plant 26, 38 and a thermal energy system 28, 30, 48, 47, said power plant including (Fig. 2):
at least one expander 38,
an energy-supplying fluid [a] ([a] is the water 43 flowing through loop with pump 44, heat exchanger 47. Heat exchanger 47 heats up the water into hot steam and is sprayed into humidifying regenerator 28; see annotated Fig. 2, below), and
an energy-receiving fluid 27, 29 ([0018; 0029]; Fig. 2),
said thermal energy system 28, 30, 48, 47 undertakes at least one of the following two processes:
delivering hot water to said power plant as a heat-supplying fluid from an energy storage system and delivering hot water [b] (inherently water 43 heated via heat exchanger 47 becomes hot water) as a heat-supplying fluid from a heat source 47 (water is heated by the heat exchanger 47 and delivered to regenerator 28 to humidify compressed air fluid 27) ([0030, Annotated Fig. 2, below),
and said energy-receiving 27, 29 (27 becomes 29 after going through regenerator 28) fluid expands (fluid 29 becomes 37 as it enters expander 38) in said expander 38 to generate power (via power generator 39) ([0018; 0029-30]).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 2 of Kozlov (U.S. 2019/0277164)
Kozlov does not teach at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger,
Sakai teaches a similar system and a humidifying tower 6 comprising sprayer 28 and at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 used to evaporate the heated water to humidify the compressed air ([0019]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the humidifying regenerator 28 of Kozlov with Sakai’s humidifying tower 6 comprising sprayer 28 and at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, in this case, humidifying regenerator 28 of Kozlov, for another, in this case, humidifying tower 6 comprising sprayer 28 and at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 of Sakai, to obtain predictable results, in this case, to evaporate the heated water to humidify the compressed air, is an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR INT’L CO. V. TELEFLEX INC., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2D 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See MPEP § 2141 III B.
Note, Sakai’s humidifying tower 6 comprising sprayer 28 and at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 is applied for its stated and intended use of humidifying compressed air, and not for its location in the prior art.
Kozlov in view Sasaki, as discussed so far, does not teach said direct-contact heat and mass exchanger facilitates heat and mass transfer from said energy-supplying fluid to said energy-receiving fluid.
However, Kozlov in view of Sasaki teaches humidifying tower 6 comprising sprayer 28 and at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13. Kozlov in view of Sasaki’s humidifying tower 6 has energy-receiving fluid 27, 29 flowing through it, and also receives an energy-supplying fluid [a] which includes hot water [b] as a heat-supplying fluid from a heat source 47. Therefore, Kozlov in view Sasaki’s direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 facilitates heat and mass transfer from said energy-supplying fluid [a] to said energy-receiving fluid 27, 29 as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kozlov further teaches
said hot water [b] is in at least one of the following states:
liquid (inherently water 43 that is heated via heat exchanger becomes hot water which is a liquid), liquid-vapor two-phase mixture, and superheated vapor ([0030]; Fig. 2),
and said energy-receiving fluid 27, 29 is at least one of the following:
air 27 (27 can be air, [0018]), vapor, air-vapor mixture 29 (29 is humidified compressed gas, [0029]), and air-vapor-liquid mixture.
Regarding Claim 3, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kozlov further teaches
said power plant further includes at least a regenerator 28, and heat and water associated with the energy-receiving fluid 41 exiting said expander 38 are recovered ([0030-31]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Kozlov in view Sasaki, as discussed so far, does not teach at least a compression system is installed at one of the following two positions: before a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger to increase the expansion ratio between the inlet and outlet of an expander, and between the exit of an expander and an exhaust port of the power plant to achieve at least one of the following two objectives: increasing the expansion ratio of the expander and discharging exhaust out of the power plant.
However, Kozlov in view of Sasaki teaches Kozlov’s compression system 26 installed before Kozlov in view of Sasaki’s humidifying tower 6 comprising sprayer 28 and at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13, and the expander 38 installed after the at least one direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13. The humidifying tower 6 with the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13, has energy-receiving fluid 27, 29 flowing through it, and also receives an energy-supplying fluid [a] which includes hot water [b] as a heat-supplying fluid from a heat source 47. Therefore, Therefore, Kozlov in view Sasaki’s compression system 26 that is installed before direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 is capable of increasing the expansion ratio between the inlet and outlet of Kozlov’s expander 38, because it has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114 II, and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114 II. In this case, the applied prior art is identical to the claimed structure and is capable of operating as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kozlov further teaches
said energy-supply fluid [a] is a vapor (water 43 as the energy-supply fluid [a] when heated by the heat exchanger 36 becomes a vapor 37 (heated humidified compressed gas 37, the gas can be air) and said vapor 37 enters an expander 38 with air (gas leaving compressor 26 can be air) ([0018; 0029-30]; Annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 2 of Kozlov (U.S. 2019/0277164)
Kozlov in view Sasaki, as discussed so far, does not teach the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger is removed.
However, it has been held that it would have been obvious to omit, in this instant case, removal of Sasaki’s the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 from the humidifying tower 6, where the function attributed to the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13 is not desired or required. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP § 2144.04 (II)(A). Therefore, the foregoing recitation of the claimed apparatus, wherein the direct-contact heat and mass exchanger is removed, does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, and Kozlov further teaches
water [a] is delivered to users 47 (heat exchanger) from at least one of the following systems: a regenerator 28 and a heat or water recovery unit (Annotated Fig. 2, below)
PNG
media_image1.png
572
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Fig. 2 of Kozlov (U.S. 2019/0277164)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view Sasaki and further in view of Reale 2005/0160736.
Regarding Claim 5, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kozlov further teaches
a compression system 26 is installed (Fig. 2).
Kozlov in view Sasaki does not teach compression system is cooled through an internal cooling mechanism using water as a coolant.
Reale teaches
a compression system 14, 16 is installed and the compression system 14, 16 is cooled through an internal cooling mechanism 50 using water 70 (70 is water) as a coolant ([0016-18]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compression system 26 of Kozlov in view Sasaki with Reale’s compression system 14, 16 that is cooled through an internal cooling mechanism 50 using water 70 (70 is water) as a coolant, in order to provide cooling and remove the water from the hot compressed air (Reale [0018]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view Sasaki and further in view of Graeber 11492963.
Regarding Claim 6, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Kozlov further teaches
an installed compression system 26 (Fig. 2).
Kozlov in view Sasaki does not teach a chiller is employed to achieve at least one of the following: to reduce the temperature of the power plant intake heat-receiving fluid, to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at the inlet of a compression system, and to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at a position between the inlet and outlet of an installed compression system.
Graeber teaches a compression system 2 comprising plurality of compressor stages 9 and
a chiller 21 is employed to achieve at least one of the following: to reduce the temperature of the power plant intake heat-receiving fluid, to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at the inlet of a compression system, and to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid (fluid in line 19, seen in Fig. 2) at a position between the inlet and outlet (between compressors 9 via intercooling lines 11, seen in Fig. 2) of an installed compression system 9 (Col. 3, ll. 32-40; Col. 5, ll. 39-42; Col. 6, ll. 12-15; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compression system 26 of Kozlov in view Sasaki with Graeber’s compression system 2 comprising plurality of compressor stages 9 and a chiller 21 that is employed to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid (fluid in line 19, seen in Fig. 2) at a position between the inlet and outlet (between compressors 9 via intercooling lines 11, seen in Fig. 2) of an installed compression system 9, in order to reduce the amount of work expended for compression (Graeber, Col. 2, ll. 59-60).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view Sasaki and further in view of Reale and Hotta 2019/0331005.
Regarding Claim 8, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4. However, Kozlov in view Sasaki does not teach at least one of the following water resources: underground water, river water, seawater, lake water, and well water, is employed to achieve at least one of the following: to reduce the temperature of the intake energy-receiving fluid, to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at the inlet of an installed compression system, and to reduce the temperature of the energy-receiving fluid at a position between the inlet and outlet of an installed compression system.
Reale teaches
installed compression system 14, 16 that is cooled through an internal cooling mechanism 50 using water 70 (70 is water) to reduce the temperature (provide cooling) of the energy-receiving fluid 53, 55 at a position between the inlet and outlet (between the low pressure compressor 14 and high pressure compressor 16) of an installed compression system 14, 16 ([0016-18]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the compression system 26 of Kozlov in view Sasaki with Reale’s compression system 14, 16 that is cooled through an internal cooling mechanism 50 using water 70 (70 is water) to reduce the temperature (provide cooling) of the energy-receiving fluid 53, 55 at a position between the inlet and outlet (between the low pressure compressor 14 and high pressure compressor 16) of an installed compression system 14, 16, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 5 above.
Kozlov in view Sasaki and Reale does not teach at least one of the following water resources: underground water, river water, seawater, lake water, and well water, is employed.
Hotta teaches water resource for cooling can be sea [seawater] or river ([0057]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the water 70 of Kozlov in view Sasaki and Reale to be from the sea or river, as taught by Hotta, in order to provide cooling of the steam in the heat exchanger (Hotta, [0060]).
Note, Hotta’s water resource for cooling being sea [seawater] or river water is applied for its stated and intended use of providing cooling, and not for its location in the prior art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view Sasaki and further in view of Kubo 2020/0088095.
Regarding Claim 9, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Kozlov in view Sasaki does not teach the expander system includes at least two expanders and a reheat heat and mass exchanger is added between the outlet of the first expander and the inlet of the second expander.
Kubo teaches an expander system used to drive a generator (not shown) and
the expander system 12, 13 (seen in Fig. 1) includes at least two expanders 12, 13 and a reheat heat and mass exchanger 15 is added between the outlet of the first expander 12 and the inlet of the second expander 14 (seen in Fig. 1) (([0059; 0061;0065-66; 0070]; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one expander 38 of Kozlov in view Sasaki with Kubo’s at least two expanders 12, 13 and a reheat heat and mass exchanger 15 that is added between the outlet of the first expander 12 and the inlet of the second expander 14, in order to allow the expansion of the heated compressed air to be smoothly performed and appropriately perform power generation by the generator (Kubo, [0065], ll. 14-17). Note, Kubo’s at least two expanders 12, 13 and a reheat heat and mass exchanger 15 arranged in between the expanders is applied for its stated and intended use of expanding the heated air smoothly and allow power generation by the generator to be appropriately performed, and not for its location in the prior art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view Sasaki and further in view of Elsharqawy 8292272 and Fucke 7380749.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Kozlov further teaches
the energy-supplying fluid [a] ([a] is the water 43 flowing through loop with pump 44, heat exchanger 47) ([0030, Annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
872
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 2 of Kozlov (U.S. 2019/0277164)
Kozlov in view Sasaki does not teach some of the liquid is flashed into vapor before being admitted into a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger.
Elsharqawy teaches
the energy-supply fluid (liquid mixture in conduit 34, seen in Fig. 2) is a liquid (liquid mixture) and some of the liquid is flashed (via heater 36) into vapor (further heated liquid mixture reads as vapor, because it is later collected as water 46 in humidifier tank 12) before being admitted (via 22) into a direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 56 (Col. 5, ll. 45-55, Col. 6, ll. 9-17, Col. 7, ll. 5-14; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Kozlov in view Sasaki to include a heater 36 to flash some of Kozlov’s energy-supplying fluid [a] ([a] is the water 43) before being admitted into Sasaki’s direct-contact heat and mass exchanger 13, as taught by Elsharqawy, in order to “further heat the liquid mixture before entering the humidifier” (Elsharqawy, Col. 11, ll. 12-13). Note, Elsharqawy’s heater 36 is applied for its stated and intended use of further heating liquid before entering the humidifier, and not for its location in the prior art.
Kozlov in view Sasaki and Elsharqawy does not teach flashed vapor bypasses said exchanger and enters said expander.
Fucke teaches
flashed vapor (fluid in line [n] after passing heat exchanger 152, seen in Fig. 1 below) bypasses (via line [m], seen in annotated Fig. 1, below) said exchanger [p] and enters said expander 170 (Col. 3, ll. 34-40, and Col. 4, ll. 1-7; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Fig. 1 of Fucke (U.S. 7380749)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Kozlov in view Sasaki and Elsharqawy to include Fucke’s heat exchanger bypass path [n], because it was known in the art to have a fluid bypass a heat exchanger in order to prevent some of the heated fluid from being heated again and have the fluid flow straight into an expander. Note, Fucke’s heat exchanger bypass path [n] is applied for its stated and intended use of avoiding the heated fluid from being heated again before entering a turbine to run a generator, and not for its location in the prior art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlov in view Sasaki and further in view of Almatrafi 11311818.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood, Kozlov in view Sasaki teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Kozlov in view Sasaki does not teach a desiccant system is employed to achieve at least one of the following: to reduce the moisture of power-plant intake air, to reduce the moisture of the air-vapor mixture at the inlet of a compression system, and to recover water from an exhaust stream before being discharged into the ambient.
Almatrafi teaches a desiccant system 104 comprising absorbent bed 136 used for absorbing water vapor in order to reduce the moisture (Col. 11, ll. 20-45, Col. 12, l. 66-Col. 13, l. 13)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Kozlov in view Sasaki to include Almatrafi’s desiccant system 104 comprising absorbent bed 136 at the inlet of Kozlov’s compressor 26, in order to absorb water vapor when cooled (Almatrafi Col. 11, ll. 20-45). Note, Almatrafi’s a desiccant system 104 comprising absorbent bed 136 used for absorbing water vapor (via absorbent bed 136) is applied for its stated and intended use of absorb water vapor when cooled, and not for its location in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACEK LISOWSKI whose telephone number is (408) 918-7635. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JACEK LISOWSKI/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741