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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US 11,629,571) in view of Miyake et al. (US 5,917,144) and further in view of Bharath et al. (“Peltier Thermo-Electric Generator based Standalone Micro-Power Supply System”).
Regarding claim 1, Lane discloses a thermoelectric heat recovery system (180 in Fig. 1; C7/L41) comprising: a thermoelectric generator (C7/L41).
Lane does not explicitly disclose the thermoelectric generator having a hot side and a cold side; and a heat sink coupled to the cold side of the thermoelectric generator.
Miyake discloses a thermoelectric heat recovery system (abstract) and further discloses the thermoelectric generator having a hot side and a cold side (C13/L21-23); and a heat sink coupled to the cold side of the thermoelectric generator (C13/L24 – 52 in Fig. 15A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a hot side, a cold side, and a heat sink coupled to the cold side of the thermoelectric generator, as disclosed by Miyake, in the thermoelectric generator of Lane because as evidenced by Miyake, the use of a thermoelectric generator with a hot side, a cold side, and a heat sink coupled to the cold side of the thermoelectric generator amounts to the use of a known component(s) in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a hot side, a cold side, and a heat sink coupled to the cold side of the thermoelectric generator of Lane based on the teaching of Miyake.
Modified Lane does not explicitly disclose a power inverter that captures the electricity generated by the temperature gradient across the thermoelectric generator.
Bharath discloses a thermoelectric heat recovery system (abstract) and further discloses a power inverter that captures the electricity generated by a temperature gradient across a thermoelectric generator (abstract L10-13; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a power inverter, as disclosed by Bharath, in the thermoelectric heat recovery system of modified Lane, because as evidenced by Bharath, including a power inverter in a thermoelectric heat recovery system amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a power inverter in the thermoelectric heat recovery system of modified Lane based on the teaching of Bharath.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a power inverter, as disclosed by Bharath, in the thermoelectric heat recovery system of modified Lane, because a power inverter converts DC voltage to AC which could provide power to lighting and/or devices which require AC power.
With regard to the limitations “wherein the hot side of the thermoelectric generator is exposed to waste heat emitted by a flare from a well head,” “wherein electricity is generated by a temperature gradient across the thermoelectric generator,” and “wherein the power inverter uses electronic circuits (Bharath – Fig. 7) to produce alternating current power that powers local security lighting at a well site including the well head,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lane discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lane further discloses a ventilation system (Miyake – fan 54 in Fig. 15A) powered by the thermoelectric generator (Miyake – C11/L9-12 suggest the fan disclosed in the reference is powered by the thermoelectric generator).
With regard to the limitation “cools the heat sink,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lane discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lane further discloses sensors (Lane - C8/L1) and monitoring equipment (Lane – C8/L2-5).
With regard to the limitation “that capture data associated with a performance of the thermoelectric heat recovery system,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lane discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lane further discloses the thermoelectric generator is positioned at the well head (Lane – 180 in Fig. 1; it is noted that the phrase “positioned at” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
With regard to the limitation “wherein the thermoelectric generator is positioned at the well head according to prevailing winds associated with a location of the well head,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, the limitation “wherein the thermoelectric generator is positioned at the well head according to prevailing winds associated with a location of the well head” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lane discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the thermoelectric generator is located with respect to the heat sink to minimize a length of a transmission line from the thermoelectric generator to the heat sink,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US 11,629,571) in view of Miyake et al. (US 5,917,144) further in view of Bharath et al. (“Peltier Thermo-Electric Generator based Standalone Micro-Power Supply System”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horvath (US 2016/0298859).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lane discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Lane does disclose a bank of batteries (Lane – C7/L42), modified Lane does not explicitly disclose at least one battery in conjunction with the power inverter.
Horvath discloses a thermoelectric heat recovery system ([0017]) and further discloses the electricity is produced at one or more TEGS. Electrical energy produced at the TEGs is then passed through a regulator, to a battery to an inverter and then to lights or the electrical grid. In still another embodiment, electrical energy produced by the TEGs could be input to a smart inverter and then to either a battery or the electrical grid ([0045] L5-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed include a battery, as disclosed by Horvath, with the power inverter disclosed in modified Lane, because as evidenced by Horvath, configurations in which electrical energy passes from a thermoelectric generator to a battery to an inverter, or from a thermoelectric generator to an inverter and then to either a battery of an electrical grid, amounts to the use of known configurations in the art for the routing of electrical energy from a thermoelectric generator, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a battery with a power inverter in the thermoelectric heat recovery system of modified Lane based on the teaching of Horvath.
With regard to the limitation “that stores electricity generated by the temperature gradient across the thermoelectric generator,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (US 11,629,571) in view of Miyake et al. (US 5,917,144) further in view of Bharath et al. (“Peltier Thermo-Electric Generator based Standalone Micro-Power Supply System”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2016/0181500).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lane discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Lane does not explicitly disclose the heat sink is constructed from concrete or ceramic, and can withstand temperatures in a range of 1000 to 1600 °F.
Lin discloses a thermoelectric heat recovery system (abstract) and further discloses a heat sink constructed from ceramic ([0037] – [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the heat sink of modified Lane from ceramic, as disclosed by Lin, because as evidenced by Lin, the use of ceramic to construct a heat sink of a thermoelectric device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using ceramic to construct the heat sink of modified Lane based on the teaching of Lin.
With regard to the limitation “can withstand temperatures in a range of 1000 to
1600 °F,” it is noted that materials disclosed in paragraph [0038] of Lin satisfy the limitation. Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights