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 . Claims 1-19 of the amended claim set received 8/05/2025 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
A “decoupling vessel” as found in claim 1 does not have an ordinary or customary meaning in the art. A review of the specification shows that this claim element corresponds to a vessel or tank having one or more chambers.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising least one gas turbine (2) comprising the at least one combustion unit (20, “ should be written, “comprising at least one gas turbine (2) comprising the at least one combustion unit (20), “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the fuel distribution line is disposed downstream of the decoupling vessel and is fluidically connected to the latter” should be written “wherein the fuel distribution line is disposed downstream of the decoupling vessel and is fluidically connected to the decoupling vessel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites only limitations found in the base claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
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 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, 3-5, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiegelman (US 2023/0407470) in view of Minas (US 2023/0122350).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, a fuel supply system (the fuel system modified as discussed at paras. 0010, 0011, and 0014, such that there is only one process tool 1010 providing output gas; with this modification elements 1010b, 1012b, 1015b, 1022b, 1030b and the associated fuel lines are removed from the apparatus shown in Fig. 1) for a power generation system (power generated by turbines 1070), comprising:
a fuel supply line (the line that gas source 1010a and 1015a feeds into), a fuel main line (line between compressor 1030a and decoupling vessel 1050), and a fuel distribution line (line(s) between decoupling vessel 1050 and valves 1060);
exactly one fuel compressor 1030a; and
a decoupling vessel 1050;
wherein the fuel supply line is fluidically connected to the fuel compressor 1030a and configured to be fluidically connected to a fuel source (1010a or 1015a) in order to supply fuel from the fuel source to the fuel compressor 1030a;
wherein the decoupling vessel 1050 is disposed downstream of the fuel compressor 1030a and is fluidically connected to the fuel compressor by way of the fuel main line;
wherein the fuel distribution line (line between decoupling vessel 1050 and turbines 1070) is disposed downstream of the decoupling vessel and is fluidically connected to the latter; and
wherein the fuel distribution line is configured to be fluidically connected to at least one combustion unit 1070 of the power generation system (see figure, read para. 0048), and is adapted to supply the at least one combustion unit with fuel from the decoupling vessel (see figure, read para. 0048);
wherein the fuel compressor is adapted to provide fuel with a fuel pressure target value in the decoupling vessel (the fuel compressor 1030a is capable of proving fuel with a fuel pressure target value in the decoupling vessel; read e.g. paras. 0031 and 0037).
Spiegelman does not disclose at least one check valve is disposed in the fuel main line upstream of the decoupling vessel. Spiegelman further discloses the fuel main line (line between compressor 1030a and decoupling vessel 1050) directly connected to and feeding into the decoupling vessel 1050 (see Fig. 1).
Minas teaches in Fig. 5, a decoupling vessel 284 with at least one check valve 278 disposed in the main line directly connected to and feeding into the decoupling vessel (read para. 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Spiegelman to include the check valve disposed in the fuel main line upstream of the decoupling vessel as taught by Minas in order to ensure fuel may only flow into the internal cavity of the buffer tank (Minas para. 0083).
Regarding Claim 3, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the fuel distribution line (line between decoupling vessel 105 and turbines 1070) is configured to be fluidically connected to at least two combustion units 1070a and 1070b of the power generation system, and is adapted to supply the at least two combustion units with fuel from the decoupling vessel 1050.
Regarding Claim 4, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the fuel distribution line comprises at least two sub-lines (the line leading to 1070a and the line leading to 1070b) which are in each case connected to the at least two combustion units, and wherein one distribution valve element (1062a, 1062b) is provided in at least one or each of the sub-lines.
Regarding Claim 8, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the fuel source is a supply network (comprising elements 1010a and 1015a and the fluid lines therebetween). It is noted that the fuel source is not a component of the fuel supply system, the fuel supply line merely needs to be configured to connect to the fuel source and the fuel supply line of Spiegelman is configured to be fluidly connected to any fuel source.
Regarding Claim 9, Spiegelman discloses the fuel is propane, natural gas, hydrogen or biogas (read para. 0023, hydrogen). It is noted that the fuel is not defined as a portion of the apparatus and the fuel supply system of Spiegelman is capable of supplying any type of fuel.
Regarding Claim 10, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, a power generation system, comprising: the fuel supply system as claimed in claim 1 (see above); and at least one combustion unit 1070a or 1070b, wherein the at least one combustion unit 1070a or 1070b is disposed downstream of the fuel supply system, and is fluidically connected to the decoupling vessel 1050 by way of the fuel distribution line (line(s) between decoupling vessel 1050 and turbines 1070a and 1070b), wherein the at least one combustion unit is supplied with fuel from the decoupling vessel (see figure).
Regarding Claim 11, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the power generation system comprises at least two gas turbines 1070a+1070b which have in each case one combustion unit (gas turbine engines such as 1070a and 1070b have an associated combustor or combustors), and wherein the fuel distribution line (line(s) between decoupling vessel 1050 and turbines 1070a and 1070b) is fluidically connected to the respective combustion unit of the at least two gas turbines 1070a and 1070b of the power generation system, and supplies the respective combustion units of the at least two gas turbines with fuel from the decoupling vessel 1050.
Regarding Claim 12, Spiegelman discloses wherein the at least two gas turbines 1070a and 1070b provide the same outputs or provide different outputs (this is necessarily true of any two gas turbines).
Regarding Claim 13, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the combustion unit 1070a or 1070b has at least one pressure adjustment element 1060 which is disposed in a combustion unit supply line (line(s) between valves 1060 and turbines 1070a and 1070b) and is (all valves provide this function on the fluid flowing therethrough) adapted to maintain the fuel pressure value in the combustion unit supply line between a lower and an upper pressure threshold value (the valve(s) 1060 can be opened and closed to maintain a desired fuel pressure value; read para. 0041).
Regarding Claim 14, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein at least one gas turbine 1070a or 1070b comprising the at least one combustion unit (the combustion unit herein defined as the combustor(s) of 1070a or 1070b, read para. 0003) comprises a turbine unit which is disposed downstream of the combustion unit and is fluidically connected to the latter (all gas turbine engines such as 1070a and 1070b have turbines/turbine unit downstream of combustors; also read para. 0003), and wherein the at least one gas turbine 1070a or 1070b comprises a generator unit which is operatively coupled to the turbine unit (read e.g. para. 0023).
Regarding Claim 15, Spiegelman discloses in Fig. 1, wherein the power generation system is a micro gas turbine system (with micro-turbines 1070a and 1070b, read para. 0003).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but not all are persuasive.
The Applicant argues the §112(b) rejection of claim 13 recitation of ‘at least one pressure adjustment element’ by reciting the specification recitations that mention the pressure adjustment element and provide the function. However, no corresponding structure is brought to light by the argument and the rejection is maintained.
The Applicant then argues a potential rejection of claim 1 over Spiegelman, on the basis that Spiegelman does not disclose exactly one compressor or the check valve found in the amended claim. As discussed in the rejection of the claim above, Spiegelman discloses that his power generation system received gas from one or more tool/gas source and therefore discloses the case where only one gas source is present. When only one gas source is present there would not be a second compressor because there is not a second source of gas for the second compressor to compress. The check valve is taught by a secondary reference as found in the rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 20 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose or form a reasonable combination teaching the following in combination with the independent claim limitations –
Regarding Claim 6, “wherein the decoupling vessel (300) comprises at least two vessel chambers (310a, 310b, 310c), and wherein the fuel distribution line (130) comprises at least two separate sub-lines (130a, 130b, 130c), wherein each vessel chamber (310a, 310b, 310c) is configured to be fluidically connected separately to a respective combustion unit (20, 20a, 20b) by way of a corresponding sub-line (130a, 130b, 130c), and wherein the fuel main line (120) comprises at least two sub-lines (120a, 120b, 120c) which connect in each case the fuel main line (120) to a respective vessel chamber (310a, 310b, 310c).”
Regarding Claim 20, “a heat exchanger (400) disposed in the fuel main line (120) downstream of the fuel compressor (200), wherein the heat exchanger (400) is configured to discharge heat from the fuel main line (120).”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)272-8140. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/R.D.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/PHUTTHIWAT WONGWIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741