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 .
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 signs mentioned in the description: “P1” and “P2”. 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.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract: “and displacers.” should read “and displacers).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: “said three cylinders” should read “said at least three cylinders”
Claim 1, line 9: “at least one heat exchanger module” should read “at least one heat exchanger module of the at least two heat exchanger modules”
Claim 2, line 1: “A stirling machine” should read “the stirling machine”
Claim 2, line 3: “at least one manifold” should read “the at least one manifold”
Claim 2, line 4: “at least one heat exchanger module” should read “at least one heat exchanger module of the at least two heat exchanger modules”
Claim 2, line 5: “at least one manifold” should read “the at least one manifold”
Claim 3, line 1: “A stirling machine” should read “the stirling machine”
Claim 3, line 3: “a first process circuit)” should read “a first process circuit of the at least two process circuits”
Claim 3, line 3: “two heat exchanger modules” should read “two heat exchanger modules of the at least two heat exchanger modules”
Claim 3, line 5: “two heat exchanger modules” should read “two heat exchanger modules of the at least two heat exchanger modules”
Claim 3, line 5: “a second process circuit” should read “a first second circuit of the at least two process circuits”
Claim 4, line 1: “A stirling machine” should read “the stirling machine”
Claim 4, line 2: “where conduits or” should read “where the conduits”
Claim 5, line 1: “A stirling machine” should read “the stirling machine”
Claim 5, line 2: “wherein two pairs of process circuits” should read “wherein two pairs of process circuits of the at least two process circuits”
Claim 6, line 1: “A stirling machine” should read “the stirling machine”
Claim 2 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 5 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
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:
Claim 1, line 6: “heat exchanger modules” draws corresponding structure to the following recitation of the specification, “the heat exchanger module (1H) which consists of the heat exchangers (Pg. 4, line 22-23)”, or equivalents thereof.
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.
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 2-6 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.
Claim 2, lines 3-4 recite, “at least one manifold is connected to two expansion volumes and said manifold is connected to at least one heat exchanger module” which is unclear to the Examiner as to which manifold of the “at least one manifold” is being referred to by “said manifold” is more than one manifold is present. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “said manifold” to refer to any of the manifolds. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify which of the at least one manifold is being referred to by “said manifold”.
Claim 2, lines 5-7 recite, “at least one manifold is connected through conduits to two compression volumes and said manifold is connected to at least one heat exchanger module” which is unclear to the Examiner if the at least one manifold of line 5 is the same manifold as the at least one manifold of line 3. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the at least one manifold of lines 3 and 5 to be different manifolds. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify that the two manifolds are different manifolds as suggested by the figures and specification.
Claim 2, lines 5-7 recite, “at least one manifold is connected to two compression volumes and said manifold is connected to at least one heat exchanger module” which is unclear to the Examiner as to which manifold of the “at least one manifold” is being referred to by “said manifold” is more than one manifold is present. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “said manifold” to refer to any of the manifolds. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify which of the at least one manifold is being referred to by “said manifold”.
Claim 3, line 5 recite, “a second process circuit comprises two heat exchanger modules” which is unclear to the Examiner if the two heat exchanger modules of the second process circuit are the same two heat exchanger modules of the first process circuit. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the two heat exchanger modules of the first process circuit and the two heat exchanger modules of the second process circuit to be different sets of exchanger modules. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to clarify that the two heat exchanger modules are different sets of exchanger modules as suggested by the figures and specification.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the components" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the components” in line 4 of claim 4 to “components”.
Claim 3 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 5 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoeg (NO 345179), hereinafter Hoeg.
Regarding claim 1, Hoeg discloses a stirling machine (Fig. 2; Pg. 4, Figure 2 shows a schematic construction of two circuits in a Stirling machine according to the invention) configuration comprising:
at least two process circuits (See annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg below, process circuit 1P, 2P, cylinders D1, W12, D2, cylinder volumes 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, heat exchanger module 1H, 2H, heat exchangers 1he, 1hr, 1hc, 2he, 2hr, 2hc; Pg. 5, Process circuit (1P) consists of the cylinder volumes (1a, 1b, 1e), as well as the heat exchanger module (1H), consisting of the heat exchangers (1he, 1hr, 1hc). The cylinder volumes and the heat exchangers are connected and connected by three flow channels (1d, 1e, 1f). Process circuit (2P) correspondingly consists of the cylinder volumes (2a, 2b, 2c), as well as the heat exchanger module (2H), consisting of the heat exchangers (2he, 2hr, 2hc). The cylinder volumes and heat exchangers are connected together and connected by three flow channels (2d, 2e and 2f)),
at least three cylinders (Fig. 2, cylinders D1, W12, D2),
at least three pistons concentrically arranged in said three cylinders (Fig. 2, pistons 5, 6, 7; Pg. 5, three cylinders (D1, W12, D2), three pistons (5, 6, 7), arranged coaxially in each cylinder (D1, W12, D2)),
at least two heat exchanger modules (Fig. 2, heat exchanger module 1H, 2H),
wherein at least one manifold is connected through conduits to at least two cylinder volumes and at least one heat exchanger module (See annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg below, manifolds 1me and 1mc are connected through conduits 1e, 1f, 1d, to cylinder volumes 1a, 1b, and 1c and heat exchanger module 1H and manifolds 2me and 2mce are connected through conduits 2d, 2f, and 2e and to cylinder volumes 2a, 2b, and 2c and heat exchanger module 2H).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg
Regarding claim 2, Hoeg discloses a stirling machine configuration of claim 1 (see the rejection
of claim 1 above), wherein:
at least one manifold is connected to two expansion volumes and said manifold is connected to at least one heat exchanger module (See annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg below depicts manifolds 2me of process circuit 2P and manifold 1me of process circuit 1P to be connected to expansion volumes 2a and 1a, respectively and manifolds 2me of process circuit 2P and manifold 1me of process circuit 1P to be connected to heat exchanger modules 2H and 1H, respectively; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above), and
at least one manifold is connected through conduits to two compression volumes and said manifold is connected to at least one heat exchanger module (See annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg below depicts manifold 1mc to be connected to compression volume 1b and compression volume 1c and heat exchanger module 1H; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeg (NO 345179), hereinafter Hoeg in view of Johnson (US Patent No. 3,812,682), hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding claim 3, Hoeg discloses a stirling machine configuration of claim 2 (see the rejection
of claim 2 above).
However, Hoeg does not explicitly disclose wherein:
a first process circuit comprises two heat exchanger modules, and
a second process circuit compresses two heat exchanger modules.
Johnson teaches a process circuit that includes two heat exchanger modules (Fig. 13, cylinders
142, 143, heat exchanger assembly 162, heater H, regenerator R, cooler C, refrigerator heat exchanger Rf, regenerator R, cooler C, first flow passage means 161, second flow passage means 163, additional flow passage means 164).
Hoeg fails to teach a first process circuit comprises two heat exchanger modules, and a second process circuit compresses two heat exchanger modules feature, however Johnson teaches that it is a known method in the art of Stirling machines to include a process circuit that includes two heat exchanger modules. This is strong evidence that modifying Hoeg as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing desired heat exchanger characteristics to the process circuit to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hoeg by Johnson and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing desired heat exchanger characteristics to the process circuit to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 4, Hoeg discloses a stirling machine configuration of claim 3 (see the
combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), wherein:
where conduits or are split between said at least one manifold and sealed, to allow relative movement between the components (See annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg below, conduits 1e, 1f, 1d, 2d, 2f, and 2e are depicted to be split between manifolds 1me, 1mc, 2me, and 2mec; Hoeg, Piston (6) is the only piston that separates the two gas circuits, and therefore the total pressurized stroke volume of a pair of gas circuits is approximately equal to the circuit stroke volume of each circuit. Thus, the total stroke volume with sealing requirement is approximately 0.5 x total circuit stroke volume. This is the smallest achievable stroke volume with sealing requirements in relation to circuit stroke volume for Stirling machines. According to the prior art in Stirling applications, the total stroke volume with sealing needs will be larger in relation to the total circuit stroke volume than the invention; Further, the teachings of Hoeg at least imply the use of seals to allow for relative movement between the components since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
PNG
media_image1.png
679
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Hoeg
Regarding claim 5, Hoeg discloses a stirling machine configuration of claim 4 (see the
combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above).
However, the embodiment of Fig. 2 of Hoeg does not disclose wherein two pairs of process circuits are arranged in a V-configuration.
The embodiment of Fig. 5 of Hoeg teaches wherein two pairs of process circuits are arranged in a V-configuration (Fig. 5; Pg. 9, A Stirling machine according to the invention, which is designed as shown in Figure 5, will have the same advantages as the embodiment in Figure 2, with respect to pressurized stroke volume. In addition, it will be possible to distribute the four process circuits evenly over one revolution, so that the torque has little variation. A Stirling machine according to the invention, which is shown in Figure 5, can also be designed with a relatively short crankshaft to be a 6-cylinder machine, and thus achieve a moderate total length. Another advantage of the Stirling machine according to the invention, which is shown in Figure 5, and mounted with the cylinder banks (8, 8 ') 45 degrees from the vertical, will not have first-order or second-order mass forces or mass moments in the vertical direction. This is a great advantage during installation, as it is easier to insulate horizontal vibrations that will affect the foundation, support and possibly the associated floor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stirling machine of Hoeg as modified wherein two pairs of process circuits are arranged in a V-configuration as taught by the embodiment of Fig. 5 of Hoeg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide insulation from vibrations (Hoeg, Pg. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Hoeg discloses a stirling machine configuration of claim 5 (see the
combination of references used in the rejection of claim 5 above), where said stirling machine can be used as a heat engine, a heat pump, a cooling machine or a cryogenic machine (Hoeg, Pg. 9, In an embodiment of the invention, the Stirling machine can be used as a thermal power motor,
cryomotor, cooling machine or heat pump).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ziph et al. (US Patent No. 7,194,858) discloses a similar Stirling machine.
Gothberg (US Patent No. 4,616,479) discloses a similar Stirling machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 July 10th, 2026
Prosecution Insights