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 .
Applicants’ request for continued examination (RCE) has been fully considered.
Previous rejections have been withdrawn; new rejections have been made
After further searching and examining the amendment, the previous 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejections has been made based on 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 102(a1)/103.
35 USC 112(b) rejections
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained because of the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites “a refrigerant evaporator coupled to an upper portion of the first cooling refrigerant loop and configured to extract heat from [[a]] the power cogeneration loop” and “a refrigerant condenser coupled to an upper portion of the second cooling refrigerant loop”. These limitations are vague, indefinite, and different from the disclosure. The only embodiment that shows both evaporator and condenser connected to the upper portion is figure 7A below.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, in this embodiment, the evaporator 774 is connected with the power generation loop, and the condenser 772 is connected with the cooling refrigerant loop. Both evaporator and condenser are not connected with the same refrigerant loop as claimed.
Claim 1 further recites “the power cogeneration loop system using a Rankine cycle to pump working fluid;”. Figure 7A above does not show a Rankine cycle because there is no closed loop with the connecting passage from the motor 764 back to the condenser 772. The specification discloses that figure 7 can be used with a Rankine cycle but does not show the evaporator/condenser in the upper portion. Thus, it is unclear where the Rankine cycle is in in figure 7A.
None of the embodiments in this application discloses the limitation of claims 4-5 that require a motor and a pump inside subchambers of a refrigerant evaporator.
For examination purposes, the offending limitations above will be interpreted to be as follows.
Both the evaporator and condenser are connected with the refrigerant loop.
The Rankine cycle is used to pump the fluid as claimed.
The motor and pump are assumed to be in the same housing as disclosed in figure 7.
Note: if Applicant intended to claim a different embodiment, please point out exactly which figures and parts of the specification that disclose the claimed invention. Claim language should be consistent with the specification.
35 USC 102(a1) rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0102996 (Freund).
Regarding independent claim 1, Freund discloses a refrigeration system (power generation system 100; Abstract; Figure 1) comprising: a first cooling refrigerant loop 104; a second cooling power cogeneration loop 102; a refrigerant evaporator 136 coupled to an upper portion of the first cooling refrigerant loop 104 and configured to extract heat from [[a]] the power cogeneration loop system using a Rankine cycle to pump working fluid (note the Rankine cycle with pump 110; paragraph 20); and a refrigerant condenser 150 coupled to an upper portion of the second cooling refrigerant loop 104 and operatively coupled to the power cogeneration loop system. Note: figure 1 of Freund below clearly shows both condenser 150 and evaporator 136 connected with the upper portion (upper fluid line) of the refrigeration loop 104.
PNG
media_image2.png
808
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Freund wherein the working fluid is carbon dioxide (C02) (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 9, Freund discloses a system comprising a pump 110 and a motor 122.
Regarding claim 12, Freund discloses wherein the first cooling refrigerant loop 104 and the second cooling power cogeneration loop 102 are coupled together to permit working fluid to pass between the first cooling refrigerant loop and the second cooling power cogeneration loop.
35 USC 103 rejections
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.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0102996 (Freund) in view of US 4558228 (Larjola). Freund teaches all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 but still does not teach that the motor and the pump being connected with a common shaft and located inside subchambers of a housing. Larjola teaches a Rankine cycle having a pump 15 being connected with a turbine 11 with a common shaft 36; all elements are located inside subchambers of a housing (note figure 2). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide a system with a pump and a turbine connected with a common shaft and located in subchambers of the same housing in Freund as taught by Larjola for the purpose of having a compact structure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0102996 (Freund) in view of US 2017/0051981 (Singh). Freund teaches all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 but still does not teach that the subchambers being connected with a cooling tube assembly. Singh teaches a Rankine cycle having a chamber with subchambers being connected with a cooling tube assembly 24, 26 (note figure 1; paragraphs 23, 48). It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide a cooling tube bundle in the housing in Freund as taught by Singh for the purpose of cooling the system.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0102996 (Freund) in view of US 2008/0289335 (Drysdale).
Regarding claim 10, Freund teaches all the claimed subject matter as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 but still does not teach that the two reservoirs have lubricant tubes with smaller diameter than the loop conduit. Drysdale teaches a Rankine cycle having a chamber with subchambers (can be considered as reservoirs) having capillary lubricant tubes 1120 for lubricating the Rankine cycle (figure 11, paragraph 130); capillary tube is well known to be smaller than normal working fluid conduit. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide reservoirs with capillary lubricant tubes in the housing in Freund as taught by Drysdale for the purpose of lubricating the system.
Regarding claim 11, Freund does not disclose the specific refrigerant. However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). The concept of changing the refrigerant in these claims involves only change of proportions of the materials, or the result of “routine optimization”. It would have been a “routine optimization” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to elect the specific refrigerant as claimed in Freund for the purpose of achieving equivalent power output based on the specifically selected refrigerant.
Suggestions:
Please consider incorporate claims 10-11 into independent claim 1 and correct all 112(b) errors to possibly overcome the pending rejections. Please consider using consistent claimed terms with the specification to avoid confusion; and please point out which embodiments including figures, parts of the specification are being claimed.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Examiner Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4861. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi, can be reached on (571) 270-7878.
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).
/HOANG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
HOANG NGUYEN
PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 3746
Hoang Minh Nguyen
8/27/2026
Prosecution Insights