DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the specification and drawings have been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objections.
Applicant’s amendments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments (note: reference is made to the interview summary filed 16 December 2025 indicating that only some of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are withdrawn; Applicant’s remarks/arguments have not addressed the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 14).
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 22 December 2025 stating “In particular, Applicant's Figure 14 depicts Large Eddy Simulation for three different two-stage rotary apparatuses: (a) one with an interstage space of 4Cx,DIF, (b) one with an interstage space of 2Cₓ,DIF, and (c) one with an interstage space of 1Cₓ,DIF. (Specification at ¶ [0216]). These simulations illustrate the unexpected technical benefit of varying the size of the "space 5" on the turbulence intensity of the fluid flow passing through the space between an upstream stator-rotor-diffuser and a downstream stator-rotor-diffuser” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the stated benefit of reducing turbulence intensity is presented without any reference to a flow condition corresponding with a spacing that is outside the claimed range, thereby failing to demonstrate a benefit for the claimed range - i.e., “reducing turbulence intensity” is broad/non-specific (“reducing” in comparison to what?). Furthermore, the alleged disclosed benefit is attributed only to specific values within the claimed range “0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF”, not the entire range.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 22 December 2025 stating “Here, Applicant has unexpectedly discovered that adjusting the size of the space "based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium" (as described in claim 1) "enables forming repeating stages while achieving the desired temperature rise in the fluid with zero static pressure increase." (Specification at ¶ [0161])” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that par. [0161] indicates that both zero and non-zero static pressure, which covers all possible values of static pressure, are achievable by the invention, and there is no disclosed benefit/advantage of achieving zero static pressure - accordingly, zero static pressure is not a critical feature/outcome achieved by the claimed range “0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF”. Furthermore, it is noted one having ordinary skill in the art would select/determine sizes, spacings, and/or dimensions of airfoil elements in a fluid flow machine based on the flow condition of the fluid flow - i.e., it is inherent to design the structure of a fluid flow machine based on the flow conditions of the fluid flow.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 22 December 2025 stating “Furthermore, as provided in paragraph [0162] of the Specification, "increasing fluid viscosity results in swifter dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy; it would therefore be advantageous to select an apparatus with increasingly smaller space 5 as the viscosity of the fluid increases" have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that there is no claim limitation directed towards “increasingly smaller space” alone or in combination with “as the viscosity of the fluid increases” - i.e., the claimed range “0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF” does not require or imply any trend described by “increasingly smaller space”.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 22 December 2025 stating “In contrast, Seppälä fails to teach or suggest any variance in the size of the "vaneless space" and further fails to teach or suggest modifying the size or shape of this vaneless space "based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium"” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the limitation at issue concerns a structural dimension (i.e., “0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF”), which is not further limited by the mathematical methodology described by “based on the flow condition of the fluid medium”.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 22 December 2025 stating “Applicant proposed modifying the size of this space so as to control the pressure level through the apparatus… Thus, a person having ordinary skill would have had no motivation to modify the size of the space between stages to control the pressure when Seppala (1) provides for no such variance itself, and (2) provides for its own control of the pressure via rotation speed of the rotor and control over the pressure of the inlet stream” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the limitation at issue concerns a dimension (i.e., “0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF”) of an apparatus, not active control/variance of pressure. There is no structural limitation resulting from identifying the intended result of selecting a value for a dimension. It is within the level of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges (MPEP 2144.05 II A), and, as indicated above, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed range “0CxDIF to 4CxDIF”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement (i.e., new matter situation).
In claim 8, the limitation recited as "the steam of fluid medium entering from… diagonal", in combination with the antecedent limitation(s) “a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades, and a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades” (claim 1), was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The instant limitation refers to the toroidal embodiment of Figures 5A-5D, and whereas the antecedent limitation(s) is/are exclusive of this toroidal embodiment - i.e., in the toroidal embodiment, there is only a single row of rotor blades, a single row of stationary nozzle guide vanes, and a single row of stationary diffuser vanes.
In claim 11, the limitation recited as "at least two of the energy transfer stages arranged in parallel", in combination with the antecedent limitation(s) “a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades, and a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades” (claim 1), was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The instant limitation refers to the toroidal embodiment of Figures 5A-5D, and whereas the antecedent limitation(s) is/are exclusive of this toroidal embodiment - i.e., in the toroidal embodiment, there is only a single row of rotor blades, a single row of stationary nozzle guide vanes, and a single row of stationary diffuser vanes.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 14, the limitation recited as "the stationary vanes and/or the rotor blades are individually adjustable in terms of at least dimensions, alignment and spatial disposition thereof, during the operation of the apparatus" was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing - the originally filed disclosure omits definitions and/or descriptions of "dimensions", "alignment", and "spatial disposition". Furthermore, according to MPEP 2163.03 (V), an original claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved - the originally filed disclosure omits any indication as to how the instant function(s), alone or in combination, is/are achieved.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “the least one pressure adjusting stage is established… independently from the other energy transfer stages and the at least one pressure adjusting stage” renders the claim indefinite. Initially, it is unclear if “other” is intended to be applied to “at least one pressure adjusting stage”: (1) if so, then for the case in which there is “one” pressure adjusting stage, there is no “other”; (2) if not, then it is unclear how “at least one pressure adjusting stage” can be independent from itself.
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)(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 28-30, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seppala et al. (WO 2016/001476 - hereafter referred to as Seppala; previously cited).
In reference to claim 28
Seppala discloses:
A method for inputting thermal energy into a fluidic medium, comprising:
(a) providing a fluidic medium (see e.g. Abstract) having flow conditions, the flow conditions comprising a speed, a pressure, and/or a level of mixing within the fluidic medium (note: a fluidic medium inherently has speed, pressure, and/or a level of mixing);
(b) selecting a rotary apparatus (see Figures 4A and 4B) comprising:
a casing (4) with at least one inlet (6) for accepting a fluidic medium and at least one outlet (7) for discharging the fluidic medium, the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet defining a flow path inside the casing,
a rotor (1 & 2) comprising a plurality of rows of rotor blades (2) configured as impulse impeller blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft,
a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes (8), each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the rows of rotor blades, and
a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes (9), each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the rows of rotor blades and having an axial width of Cx,DIF (definitional),
(c) adjusting (via Seppala drive engine 101) a rotation speed of the rotor to a predetermined speed or to a predetermined range of speeds so that the fluidic medium reaches a flow rate that satisfies predetermined process requirements;
(d) adjusting (see Seppala e.g. pg.18:ll.30-end) a preheating level of the fluidic medium; and
(e) directing (see Seppala e.g. pg.13:ll.15-19) a stream of fluidic medium along the flow path such that an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of the fluidic medium by virtue of series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through blade/vane rows formed by the stationary nozzle guide vanes, the rotor blades, and the stationary diffuser vanes, respectively,
wherein, in said method, the amount of thermal energy imparted to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the rotary apparatus is regulated by selecting a distance (see e.g. Figure 4A) between an exit from a first row of stationary diffuser vanes of the stationary diffuser vanes and an entrance to an adjacent row of the nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path, and
wherein selecting the rotary apparatus is based at least in part on the distance, and at least in part on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium (note: the clause is based at least in part on the distance, and at least in part on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium does not further modify the claimed method since it merely specifies a step of a design process that precedes the claimed method of use characterized by A method for inputting thermal energy into a fluidic medium; specifying a mathematical step of a design process does not further limit an apparatus or a method of use).
In reference to claim 29
Seppala discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein the distance is greater than 0Cx,DIF so that a space (see Figures 4A and 4B) is formed between the exit from the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and the entrance to the adjacent row of the nozzle guide vanes.
In reference to claim 30
Seppala discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein the fluidic medium comprises any one of a feed gas (see pg.4:ll.1-2), a recycle gas, a make-up gas, and a process fluid.
In reference to claim 32
Seppala discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein, in said method, the amount of thermal energy imparted to the stream of fluidic medium is effective to heat the fluidic medium to a temperature equal to or exceeding 500 degrees Celsius (°C)(see Figure 3A).
In reference to claim 33
Seppala discloses:
The method of claim 28, wherein one of the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades adjacent to the one of the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, and one of the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes adjacent to the one of the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes establish an energy transfer stage (note: the preceding limitations are merely definitional), a temperature rise achievable per energy transfer stage is within a range of 10-1000 °C (see Figure 3A).
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-11, 13, 15-19, and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala in view of an engineering expedient rationale (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In reference to claim 1
Seppala discloses:
A system (see Figures 4A and 4B) for inputting thermal energy into fluidic medium, comprising:
a fluidic medium (see e.g. Abstract) having flow conditions, the flow conditions comprising a speed, a pressure, and/or a level of mixing within the fluidic medium (note: a fluidic medium inherently has speed, pressure, and/or a level of mixing); and
a rotary apparatus, the rotary apparatus comprising:
a casing (4) with at least one inlet for accepting the fluidic medium and at least one outlet for discharging the fluidic medium, the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet defining a flow path inside the casing,
a rotor (1 & 2) comprising at least one row of rotor blades (2) configured as impulse impeller blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft,
at least one row of stationary nozzle guide vanes (8), each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the rows of rotor blades, and
at least one row of stationary diffuser vanes (9), each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the rows of rotor blades and having an axial width of Cx,DIF,
wherein the apparatus is configured (see e.g. pg.13:ll.15-19) to impart an amount of thermal energy to a stream of fluidic medium directed along a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the outlet by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through the blade/vane rows formed by the nozzle guide vanes, the rotor blades and the diffuser vanes, respectively.
Seppala does not disclose:
wherein an exit from a first row of stationary diffuser vanes is spaced from an entrance to an adjacent row of nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path by a distance of from 0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF, the distance configured based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium.
According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimal or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II A), and it is noted that Seppala discloses the general conditions of an axial spacing of stationary diffuser vanes relative to nozzle guide vanes.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed range of values.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seppala to include the claimed spacing range (i.e., non-zero values) for the purpose of limiting overall size (i.e., axial length) of the system and/or to achieve desired performance characteristics.
Seppala, as modified, therefore addresses:
wherein an exit from a first row of stationary diffuser vanes is spaced (due to the aforementioned modification) from an entrance to an adjacent row of nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path by a distance of from 0Cx,DIF to 4Cx,DIF, the distance configured based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium ((note: the clause based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium does not further modify the claimed apparatus since it is a mathematical step of a design process, not a structural limitation).
In reference to claim 2
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the distance is greater than 0Cx,DIF so that a space is formed (see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B) between the exit from the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and the entrance to the adjacent row of the stationary nozzle guide vanes.
In reference to claim 3
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 2, wherein the space comprises (i.e., catalytic elements 12 - see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B)(note: any element is capable of shaping flow) flow shaping device(s) and/or flow guide appliance(s).
In reference to claim 5
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, the plurality of rows of rotor blades and the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes are configured (see e.g. Seppala Abstract) to add an amount of kinetic energy to the stream of fluidic medium by rotating blades of the rotor, wherein the amount of kinetic energy is sufficient to raise the temperature of the fluidic medium to a predetermined value by converting it into thermal energy when the stream of fluidic medium exits one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades at a supersonic speed and passes through an adjacent row of the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, decelerating and dissipating kinetic energy into an internal energy of the fluidic medium.
In reference to claim 6
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein each row of the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes is configured (see Seppala pg.6:ll.20-22 and Figure 3B)(note: the embodiments of Figures 4A and 4B employ the same vanes 8, vanes 9, and blades 2 as in the embodiment of Figures 2C,3B) as a flow conditioner device that directs the stream of fluidic medium towards the row(s) of rotor blades in a circumferential direction opposite to rotor blade rotation such as to control the level of energy input from the rotor and the speed of the fluidic medium.
In reference to claim 7
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the stationary nozzle guide vanes are configured to direct the stream of fluidic medium to enter the row of rotor blades with a relative blade angle (see Seppala Figures 3A and 3B)(note: the embodiments of Figures 4A and 4B employ the same vanes 8, vanes 9, and blades 2 as in the embodiment of Figures 2C,3B) within a range of between 45 degrees to 75 degrees as viewed from the axial direction.
In reference to claim 8
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein each row of the plurality of rows of rotor blades is configured to receive the stream of fluidic medium entering (see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B) from any one of axial-, diagonal-, or radial directions and to cause changes in flow velocity such that the stream of fluidic medium is accelerated at least two-fold.
In reference to claim 9
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of rows of rotor blades comprises at least two rows of rotor blades (see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B) successively arranged on the rotor shaft.
In reference to claim 10
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein one of the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades adjacent to the one of plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, and one of the plurality of rows of rows of stationary diffuser vanes adjacent to the one of the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes establish an energy transfer stage (note: the previous recitations are merely definitional), configured to mediate a complete energy conversion cycle (note: configured to mediate a complete energy conversion cycle is a statement of intended use/result that does not imbue structure; the term mediate is broad and/or non-specific).
In reference to claim 11
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the rotary apparatus comprises at least two of the energy transfer stages (see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B) arranged in parallel and/or in series.
In reference to claim 13 (as best understood)
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the system comprises a plurality of energy transfer stages and at least one pressure adjusting stage arranged at the at least one inlet of the casing, in which each energy transfer stage and the at least one pressure adjusting stage is established, in terms of its structure and/or controllability over the operation thereof, independently from the other energy transfer stages and the at least on pressure adjusting stage (note: each energy transfer stage is separate/distinct form the others and, thus, it structurally independent of the others; there is no structure resulting from naming stages as energy transfer stages and/or pressure adjusting stages, and it is noted that each stage of Seppala is capable of performing both energy transfer and pressure adjusting).
In reference to claim 15
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one inlet or a stage comprising the at least one inlet is configured to receive the stream of fluidic medium through a radial-to-axial transition duct (6 - Seppala Figures 4A and 4B) or a number of circumferential sectors or pipes with different axial, radial or circumferential inlet velocity components.
In reference to claim 16
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one outlet (Seppala - 7) or a stage comprising the at least one outlet is configured as a circumferential volute with at least one pipe and/or with an axial, radial or circumferential duct.
In reference to claim 17
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a turboexpander device (i.e., drive engine 101 embodied as a gas turbine or a steam turbine - see Seppala pg.15:ll.3-4) arranged downstream (see Seppala Figure 4A) of the rotary apparatus.
In reference to claim 18
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1,wherein the rotary apparatus is configured to be electrically operated by virtue of being driven by at least one electric drive engine (101 - see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B).
In reference to claim 19
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising a cooling arrangement (13 - see Seppala Figures 4A and 4B) optionally together with temperature resistant coatings and/or components made of temperature resistant materials.
In reference to claim 22
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the rotary apparatus is a first rotary apparatus, and wherein the system further comprises a second rotary apparatus (see Seppala Figure 4B) functionally connected in parallel or in series to the first rotary apparatus.
In reference to claim 23
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 22, wherein the second rotary apparatus comprises a second rotor shaft (see Seppala Figure 4B), and the first rotary apparatus and the second rotary apparatus are connected such as to mirror each other (see Seppala Figure 4B), whereby the rotor shaft of the first rotary apparatus is at least functionally connected (via element 101 - Seppala Figure 4B) to the second rotor shaft of the second rotary apparatus
In reference to claim 24
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising at least one heat-consuming unit (i.e., boiler 103 - see Seppala Figure 5) connected to the rotary apparatus (element 102 in Seppala Figure 5).
In reference to claim 25
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 24, wherein the heat-consuming unit is any one of: a furnace, an oven, a kiln, a heater, a burner, an incinerator, a boiler (Seppala - 103), a dryer, a conveyor device, a reactor device, or a combination thereof.
In reference to claim 26
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
A heat-consuming system (see Seppala Figure 5) configured to implement an industrial heat-consuming process (see Seppala Figure 5) and comprising a system according to claim 1.
In reference to claim 27
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The heat-consuming system of claim 26, wherein the industrial heat-consuming process is selected from the group consisting of (see page 1 of Seppala): steel manufacturing; cement manufacturing; production of hydrogen and/or synthetic gas; conversion of methane to hydrogen, fuels and/or chemicals; thermal energy storage; processes related to oil- and/or petrochemical industries; catalytic processes for endothermic reactions; processes for disposal of harmful and/or toxic substances by incineration, and processes for manufacturing high temperature materials.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala, as modified, and wherein Decker et al. (US 7,819,641 - hereafter referred to as Decker; previously cited) is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claims 4 and 12
Seppala, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1. (claim 4)
The system of claim 10. (claim 12)
Seppala, as modified, does not address:
the distance is 0Cx,DIF, and wherein the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and the adjacent row of the stationary nozzle guide vanes are integrated. (claim 4)
the row of stationary diffuser vanes of a first energy transfer stage and the row of stationary nozzle guide vanes of a second energy transfer stage successive to the first energy transfer stage are joined to form a combined blade row, whereby the distance between the first energy transfer stage and the successive second energy transfer energy transfer stage is set to zero. (claim 12)
As discussed in MPEP 2144.04, the court has held that various common practices, one being the act of making integral, normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients, if the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation.
Furthermore, Decker teaches (see col.3:ll.56-69) that it is known to combine a guiding function and a diffusing function into a single row of vanes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Seppala, as modified, to make the stationary diffuser vanes and stationary nozzle guide vanes as unitary/integral with each other for the purpose of limiting overall size (i.e., axial length) of the system and/or to simplify installation (due to a reduction in the number of parts to be installed).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppala in view of Xu ‘480 et al. (US 10,744,480 - hereafter referred to as Xu; previously cited).
In reference to claim 31
Seppala discloses:
The method of claim 28.
Seppala does not disclose:
the fluidic medium flow rate is adjustable during operation of the rotary apparatus.
Xu ‘480 discloses:
a rotary apparatus comprising means (see col.17:ll.41-45) for adjusting the fluid flow rate therethrough during operation; such controllability is particularly important for controlling the processes in ethylene plants (see col.17:ll.41-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Seppala to include adjusting the fluid flow rate during operation, as disclosed by Xu ‘480, for the purpose of adapting the method for use with/in ethylene plants.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-27 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 1, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36, respectively, of Xu et al. (US 12,258,977 - hereafter referred to as Xu; previously cited) in view of an engineering expedient rationale (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
In reference to claim 1
Although claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to Xu claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 1 is broader in at least one aspect and recites additional features not claimed in Xu claim 1.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 1, the following comparison between Xu claim 1 and the application claim 1 underlines (see underlined features in Xu claim 1) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 1.
Application claim 1
Xu claim 1
A system for inputting thermal energy into fluidic medium, comprising: a fluidic medium having flow conditions, the flow conditions comprising a speed, a pressure, and/or a level of mixing within the fluidic medium; and
a rotary apparatus, the rotary apparatus comprising:
a casing with at least one inlet for accepting the fluidic medium and at least one outlet for discharging the fluidic medium, the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet defining a flow path inside the casing,
a rotor comprising a plurality of rows of rotor blades configured as impulse impeller blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft,
a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades, and
a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades and having an axial width of CxDIF,
wherein the apparatus is configured to impart an amount of thermal energy to a stream of fluidic medium directed along the flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the outlet by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through the blade/vane rows formed by the nozzle guide vanes, the rotor blades and the diffuser vanes, respectively, and
wherein an exit from a first row of stationary diffuser vanes of the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes is spaced from an entrance to an adjacent row of nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path by a distance of from OCxDIF to 4CxDIF, the distance configured based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium (note: based on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium does not imbue structure)
A rotary apparatus for inputting thermal energy into fluidic medium, comprising:
(note: system does not impart further structure; a “fluidic medium” (recited above/below) inherently has speed, pressure, and/or a level of mixing)
a casing with at least one inlet and at least one outlet, (note: a flow path inside the casing is addressed by “a fluidic medium” (recited below))
a rotor comprising a plurality of rows of rotor blades configured as impulse impeller blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft,
a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the rows of rotor blades, wherein the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes comprises at least a first row, a second row, and a third row of stationary nozzle guide vanes, respectively, and
a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the rows of rotor blades, wherein the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes comprises at least a first row, a second row, and a third row of diffuser vanes, respectively, (note: an axial width of CxDIF is inherent to spaced rows)
wherein the apparatus is configured to impart an amount of thermal energy to a stream of fluidic medium directed along a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the outlet by virtue of a series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through the blade/vane rows formed by the nozzle guide vanes, the rotor blades and the diffuser vanes, respectively, and
wherein, in said apparatus, a first space formed between an exit from the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and an entrance to the second row of nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the outlet has a length, size, and/or shape that is varied from a length, size, and/or shape of a second space formed between an exit from the second row of diffuser vanes and an entrance to the third row of nozzle guide vanes to regulate the amount of thermal energy input to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the apparatus.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Xu claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by Xu claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over Xu claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
With respect to the additional features recited (see the highlighted features above) in application claim 1, Xu claim 1 fails to recite:
the distance is from OCxDIF to 4CxDIF.
According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimal or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II A), and it is noted that Xu claim 1 discloses the general conditions of an axial spacing of “stationary diffuser vanes” relative to “nozzle guide vanes”.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed range of values.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Xu claim 1 to include the claimed spacing range (i.e., non-zero values) for the purpose of limiting overall size (i.e., axial length) of the system and/or to achieve desired performance characteristics.
In reference to claim 2
Xu claim 1, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the distance is greater than 0Cx,DIF so that a space is formed (see above rejection of claim 1) between the exit from the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and the entrance to the adjacent row of the stationary nozzle guide vanes.
In reference to claims 3, 5-10, and 15-27
A comparison of application claims 3, 5-10, and 15-27 to Xu claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 1, 13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36, respectively, shows clear correspondence. Accordingly, these application claims are addressed by the Xu claims, as modified.
In reference to claim 11
Xu claim 15 (via at least Xu claim 1), as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 10 (note: the limitations of claim 10 are merely definitional - i.e., there is no structure imbued by merely naming a grouping of elements as an energy transfer stage and/or assigning the intended result configured to mediate a complete energy conversion cycle), wherein the rotary apparatus comprises at least two of the energy transfer stages arranged in parallel and/or in series.
In reference to claim 13 (as best understood)
Xu claim 20 (via at least Xu claim 1), as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 10 (note: the limitations of claim 10 are merely definitional - i.e., there is no structure imbued by merely naming a grouping of elements as an energy transfer stage and/or assigning the intended result configured to mediate a complete energy conversion cycle) wherein the system comprises a plurality of energy transfer stages and at least one pressure adjusting stage arranged at the at least one inlet of the casing, in which each energy transfer stage and the at least one pressure adjusting stage is established, in terms of its structure and/or controllability over the operation thereof, independently from the other energy transfer stages and the at least one pressure adjusting stage.
In reference to claim 14
Xu claim 21 (via at least Xu claim 1), as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 10 (note: the limitations of claim 10 are merely definitional - i.e., there is no structure imbued by merely naming a grouping of elements as an energy transfer stage and/or assigning the intended result configured to mediate a complete energy conversion cycle), wherein the stationary diffuser vanes and the stationary nozzle guide vanes and/or the rotor blades are individually adjustable within each energy transfer stage, in terms of at least dimensions, alignment and spatial disposition thereof, during the operation of the apparatus.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Xu claims 1 and 13, respectively, as modified, and wherein Decker is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claims 4 and 12
Xu claim 1 / Xu claim 13, as modified, addresses:
The system of claim 1. (claim 4)
The system of claim 10. (claim 12)
Xu claim 1 / Xu claim 13, as modified, does not address:
the distance is 0Cx,DIF, and wherein the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and the adjacent row of nozzle guide vanes are integrated. (claim 4)
the row of stationary diffuser vanes of a first energy transfer stage and the row of stationary nozzle guide vanes of a second energy transfer stage successive to the first energy transfer stage are joined to form a combined blade row, whereby the distance between the first energy transfer stage and the successive second energy transfer energy transfer stage is set to zero. (claim 12)
As discussed in MPEP 2144.04, the court has held that various common practices, one being the act of making integral, normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients, if the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation.
Furthermore, Decker teaches (see col.3:ll.56-69) that it is known to combine a guiding function and a diffusing function into a single row of vanes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Xu claim 1 / Xu claim 13 to make the stationary diffuser vanes and nozzle guide vanes as unitary/integral with each other for the purpose of limiting overall size (i.e., axial length) of the system and/or to simplify installation (due to a reduction in the number of parts to be installed).
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant is advised that a terminal disclaimer may not be used to overcome a "same invention" type double patenting rejection. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 804.02.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double patenting as being directed to the same invention as that set forth in claims 38, 38, 39, and 41, respectively, of Xu. See In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528,163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
In reference to claim 28
Although claim 28 of the instant application is not identical to Xu claim 38, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 28 is broader in at least one aspect.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 28, the following comparison between Xu claim 38 and the application claim 28 underlines (see underlined features in Xu claim 1) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 28.
Application claim 28
Xu claim 38 (via claim 1)
A method for inputting thermal energy into a fluidic medium, comprising:
(a) providing a fluidic medium having flow conditions, the flow conditions comprising a speed, a pressure, and/or a level of mixing within the fluidic medium;
(b) selecting a rotary apparatus comprising:
a casing with at least one inlet for accepting a fluidic medium and at least one outlet for discharging the fluidic medium, the at least one inlet and the at least one outlet defining a flow path inside the casing,
a rotor comprising a plurality of rows of rotor blades configured as impulse impeller blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft,
a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the plurality of rows of rotor blades, and
a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the rows of rotor blades and having an axial width of Cx,DIF,
(c) adjusting a rotation speed of the rotor to a predetermined speed or to a predetermined range of speeds so that the fluidic medium reaches a flow rate that satisfies predetermined process requirements;
(d) adjusting a preheating level of the fluidic medium;
(e) directing a stream of fluidic medium along the flow path such that an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of the fluidic medium by virtue of series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through blade/vane rows formed by the stationary nozzle guide vanes, the rotor blades, and the stationary diffuser vanes, respectively,
wherein, in said method, the amount of thermal energy imparted to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the rotary apparatus is regulated by selecting a distance between an exit from a first row of stationary diffuser vanes of the stationary diffuser vanes and an entrance to an adjacent row of the nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path, and wherein selecting the rotary apparatus is based at least in part on the distance, and at least in part on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium (note: the clause is based at least in part on the distance, and at least in part on the flow conditions of the fluidic medium does not further modify the claimed method since it merely specifies inputs of a design process that precedes the claimed method of use characterized by A method for inputting thermal energy into a fluidic medium; specifying design inputs does not further limit an apparatus or a method of use)
A method for inputting thermal energy into a fluidic medium, comprising:
(note: a “fluidic medium” (recited above and below) inherently has speed, pressure, and/or a level of mixing)
(a) providing a rotary apparatus according to claim 1,
a casing with at least one inlet and at least one outlet… a flow path formed inside the casing between the inlet and the outlet (Xu claim 1)
a rotor comprising a plurality of rows of rotor blade configured as impulse impeller blades arranged over a circumference of a rotor hub mounted onto a rotor shaft (Xu claim 1);
a plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes, each row of stationary nozzle guide vanes arranged upstream of one of the rows of rotor blades, wherein the plurality of rows of stationary nozzle guide vanes comprises at least a first row, a second row, and a third row of stationary nozzle guide vanes, respectively, and (Xu claim 1)
a plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes, each row of stationary diffuser vanes arranged downstream of one of the rows of rotor blades, wherein the plurality of rows of stationary diffuser vanes comprises at least a first row, a second row, and a third row of diffuser vanes, respectively, (Xu claim 1) (note: the clause having an axial width of Cx,DIF is merely definitional)
(b) adjusting a rotation speed of the rotor to a predetermined speed or to a predetermined range of speeds so that the fluidic medium reaches a flow rate that satisfies the predetermined process requirements;
(c) adjusting a preheating level of the fluidic medium; and
(d) directing a stream of the fluidic medium along the flow path such that an amount of thermal energy is imparted to a stream of fluidic medium by virtue of series of energy transformations occurring when said stream of fluidic medium successively passes through the blade/vane rows formed by the nozzle guide vanes, the rotor blades, and the diffuser vanes, respectively;
wherein, in said method, the amount of thermal energy imparted to the stream of fluidic medium propagating through the apparatus is regulated by varying the first space (note: see Xu claim 1 defining “a first space” as “formed between an exit from the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and an entrance to the second row of nozzle guide vanes in a direction of the flow path”).
In reference to claim 29
Xu claim 38 (via claim 1) addresses:
The method of claim 28, wherein the distance is greater than OCx,DIF so that a space (i.e., “a first space” - see Xu claim 1) is formed between the exit from the first row of stationary diffuser vanes and the entrance to the adjacent row of the nozzle guide vanes.
In reference to claims 30 and 31
A comparison of application claims 30 and 31 to Xu claims 39 and 41, respectively, shows clear correspondence. Accordingly, these application claims are addressed by the Xu claims.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over Xu claim 38 in view of Seppala.
In reference to claims 32 and 33
Xu claim 38 discloses:
The method of claim 28.
Xu claim 38 does not disclose:
in said method, the amount of thermal energy imparted to the stream of fluidic medium is effective to heat the fluidic medium to a temperature equal to or exceeding 500 degrees Celsius (°C). (claim 32)
a temperature rise achievable per energy transfer stage is within a range of 10-1000 °C. (claim 33)
Seppala discloses:
a system comprising energy transfer stages for heating a stream of fluid medium to least 500 degrees Celsius (see Figure 3A) and/or such that the temperature rise per stage is 10-1000 degrees Celsius (see Figure 3A)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Xu claim 38 to include the claimed values of temperature and/or temperature rise per stage in order to achieve a desired degree of pyrolysis.
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 extension fee 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711