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 .
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: “control device” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feher et al – hereafter Feher – (US 20100101209 A1; also US 8,266,910 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Feher teaches an intake air heating system (Fig.1) configured to heat external air (arrow pointing right) flowing through an intake flow path that communicates with a compressor (155) of a gas turbine (150), the intake air heating system comprising:
a first heating unit (125) including a return flow path (see flow path of 125 connecting 155 to 120) for returning some of compressed air discharged from the compressor to the intake flow path (¶17, note “the IBH system 125 increases the temperature of the airstream by recirculating a portion of the compressor discharge air”);
a second heating unit (115/140) including a heater (140) configured to heat the external air by using a heat source different from the compressed air (¶26, note “external heat source 140 may have the form of at least one of: a heat recovery steam generator; a boiler; an engine, a condenser; a power plant component, a solar energy source, geothermal energy source, a fuel cell/chemical reaction, and combinations thereof”); and
a control device (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a computer, processor, memory, user interface, etc. as disclosed in ¶34 to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Feher teaches a turbine control system 190) configured to control the second heating unit such that the external air is heated by the heater in a load section where a gas turbine load is higher than a first specified load (¶25, note the disclosed operating load section where icing might occur is a load higher that a first specified load of 0).
However, Feher does not explicitly disclose the load section being a high-load section as claimed.
Feher’s disclosure further recognizes that heating the external air by heater (140) may reduce the need to operate the first heating unit (125) would increase the efficiency and output of the gas turbine (150) (¶25).
Therefore, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intake air heating system of Feher by controlling the second heating unit such that the external air is heated by the heater in a high-load section where a gas turbine load is higher than a first specified load based on the further teachings of Feher because this would allow increasing the efficiency and output of the gas turbine.
Regarding claim 6, Feher teaches an operation method for an intake air heating system (Fig.1) configured to heat external air (arrow pointing right) flowing through an intake flow path that communicates with a compressor (155) of a gas turbine (150),
the intake air heating system including a first heating unit (125) including a return flow path (see flow path of 125 connecting 155 to 120) for returning some of compressed air discharged from the compressor to the intake flow path (¶17, note “the IBH system 125 increases the temperature of the airstream by recirculating a portion of the compressor discharge air”), and
a second heating unit (115/140) including a heater (140) configured to heat the external air by using a heat source different from the compressed air (¶26, note “external heat source 140 may have the form of at least one of: a heat recovery steam generator; a boiler; an engine, a condenser; a power plant component, a solar energy source, geothermal energy source, a fuel cell/chemical reaction, and combinations thereof”), and
the operation method comprising: a second heating unit control step of controlling the second heating unit such that the external air is heated by the heater in a load section where a gas turbine load is higher than a first specified load (¶25, note the disclosed operating load section where icing might occur is a load higher that a first specified load of 0).
However, Feher does not explicitly disclose the load section being a high-load section as claimed.
Feher’s disclosure further recognizes that heating the external air by heater (140) may reduce the need to operate the first heating unit (125) would increase the efficiency and output of the gas turbine (150) (¶25).
Therefore, It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intake air heating system operation method of Feher by controlling the second heating unit such that the external air is heated by the heater in a high-load section where a gas turbine load is higher than a first specified load based on the further teachings of Feher because this would allow increasing the efficiency and output of the gas turbine.
Regarding claim 7, Feher further teaches a gas turbine system (Fig.1) comprising: the intake air heating system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above); and the gas turbine (150).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brighenti et al – hereafter Brighenti – (US 20130239573 A1; also US 9,394,808 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Feher teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, and further teaches the first heating unit re-circulates hot compressor discharge air (¶5) and the control device controls operation of the first heating unit (¶19-20), however does not explicitly teach the first heating unit further includes a first flow rate adjusting valve that is disposed in the return flow path, and the control device is configured to control the first heating unit such that the first flow rate adjusting valve opens the return flow path in a low-load section where the gas turbine load is lower than a second specified load that is lower than the first specified load.
Brighenti teaches an intake air heating system (Fig.1) including a first heating unit which re-circulates hot compressor discharge air (via 23/24/25/26/12a). The first heating unit further includes a first flow rate adjusting valve (24) that is disposed in the return flow path (Fig.1), and a control device (22) is configured to control the first heating unit such that the first flow rate adjusting valve opens the return flow path (¶54). This is a well-known configuration of how to control hot compressor discharge air in a heating unit re-circulation path.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the intake air heating system of Feher by having the first heating unit further includes a first flow rate adjusting valve that is disposed in the return flow path, and the control device is configured to control the first heating unit such that the first flow rate adjusting valve opens the return flow path based on the teachings of Brighenti because this would require combining prior art elements (flow rate adjusting valve of Brighenti and re-circulation path of Feher) according to known methods to yield predictable results (control of hot compressor discharge air in a heating unit re-circulation path).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the intake air heating system of Feher and Brighenti by controlling the first flow rate adjusting valve to open in a low-load section where the gas turbine load is lower than a second specified load that is lower than the first specified load based on the further teachings of Feher because this would allow using the first heating unit in a load condition where the efficiency and output of the gas turbine is not affected.
Regarding claim 3, Feher and Brighenti further teach the control device is configured to control the first heating unit such that the first flow rate adjusting valve closes the return flow path in the high-load section based on the further teachings of Feher because this would allow increasing the efficiency and output of the gas turbine.
Regarding claim 4, Feher and Brighenti further teach the second heating unit includes a heating medium flow path for guiding a heating medium (Feher Fig.4, flow path connecting 115 and 435), which is generated by heating steam generator feedwater with a heat recovery steam generator (Feher Fig.4, 420) to which exhaust gas from the gas turbine is supplied (Feher Fig.4, see exhaust gas from 175 passing through 420), to the intake flow path, a second flow rate adjusting valve (Feher Fig.4, 405) provided in the heating medium flow path, and a pipe portion (Feher Fig.4, part of 115) that is disposed in the intake flow path and that is the heater configured such that the heating medium is supplied from the heating medium flow path, and the control device is configured to control the second heating unit second flow rate adjusting valve (Feher ¶37, note “at least one valve 415 [typo should recite 405] may regulate the flow of the concentrate entering the air conditioning system 115”), however, fail to explicitly teach control the second heating unit second flow rate adjusting valve to close the heating medium flow path in the low-load section.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the intake air heating system of Feher and Brighenti by controlling the second heating unit second flow rate adjusting valve to close the heating medium flow path in the low-load section based on the further teachings of Feher because this would allow using the first heating unit in a load condition where the efficiency and output of the gas turbine is not affected.
Regarding claim 5, Feher and Brighenti do not explicitly teach the control device is configured to control the first heating unit and the second heating unit such that the first flow rate adjusting valve opens the return flow path and the second flow rate adjusting valve opens the heating medium flow path in an intermediate-load section where the gas turbine load is equal to or higher than the second specified load and equal to or lower than the first specified load.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the intake air heating system of Feher and Brighenti by having the control device is configured to control the first heating unit and the second heating unit such that the first flow rate adjusting valve opens the return flow path and the second flow rate adjusting valve opens the heating medium flow path in an intermediate-load section where the gas turbine load is equal to or higher than the second specified load and equal to or lower than the first specified load based on the further teachings of Feher because this would allow increasing the efficiency and output of the gas turbine and/or using the first heating unit in a load condition where the efficiency and output of the gas turbine is not affected.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feher as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Harada et al – hereafter Harada – (JP 2018127987 A).
Regarding claim 8, Feher teaches all the limitations of claim 7, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the gas turbine is a two-shaft gas turbine including the compressor, a high-pressure turbine having a first shaft connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor, and a low-pressure turbine having a second shaft different from the first shaft and configured such that exhaust gas is supplied from the high-pressure turbine.
Harada teaches a biaxial-type gas turbine (Fig.1). Harada further teaches the gas turbine is a two-shaft (10/11) gas turbine including a compressor (2), a high-pressure turbine (1) having a first shaft (10) connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor, and a low-pressure turbine (3) having a second shaft (11) different from the first shaft and configured such that exhaust gas (24) is supplied from the high-pressure turbine (Fig.1), said configuration could be used to prevent over-rotation of the low-pressure turbine at a time of load interruption (machine translation page 1, “Technical Field” section).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas turbine system of Feher by having the gas turbine is a two-shaft gas turbine including the compressor, a high-pressure turbine having a first shaft connected to a rotating shaft of the compressor, and a low-pressure turbine having a second shaft different from the first shaft and configured such that exhaust gas is supplied from the high-pressure turbine based on the teachings of Harada because this configuration could be used to prevent over-rotation of the low-pressure turbine at a time of load interruption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights