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 Objections
Claims 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 6
Line 2 recites the language “the reheater dampers”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the reheater damper—
Regarding Claim 20
Line 1 recites the language “the reheater”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the first reheater—
Line 3 recites the language “the reheater”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the first reheater—
Lines 3-4 recite the language “a first one of the two superheaters”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –a first one of the two high-pressure superheaters—
Line 4 recites the language “the second wall”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the second barrier wall—
Line 4 recites the language “the reheater”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the first reheater—
Lines 4-5 recite the language “a second one of the two superheaters”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claims, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –a second one of the two high-pressure superheaters—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 and 17-19 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.
Regarding Claim 3
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the superheater dampers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 4
Line 2 recites the limitation “the superheater dampers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 7
Line 2 recites the limitation “the superheater dampers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 17
Line 15 recites the limitation “the outlet”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously discloses “a first high-pressure superheater” and “a second high-pressure superheater”.
Lines 15-16 recite the limitation “the at least one high-pressure superheater”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Lines 7-8 recite the limitations “a first high-pressure superheater and a second high-pressure superheater”.
Regarding Claims 5-6 and 18-19
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon rejected base claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, US 9,429,044, in view of Kim, KR 101803248 B1.
Regarding Claim 1
Zhang discloses a heat recovery steam generator (300) (Zhang, Column 3, Lines 35-40, Figure 1) comprising:
a high-temperature section including a first reheater (8, first stage reheater) (Zhang, Column 3, Lines 40-51, Figure 1) coupled in a parallel orientation with at least one high-pressure heat exchanger (7, supercritical evaporator) (Zhang, Column 3, Lines 40-51 and Column 5, Lines 20-32, Figures 1 and 4B), the first reheater (7) separated from the at least one high-pressure heat exchanger by at first barrier wall (PP) (Zhang, Column 7, Lines 3-9, Figure 4B);
an evaporator (13) coupled downstream from the high-temperature section, the evaporator (13) configured to extract heat from gases exiting the high-temperature section (Zhang, Column 4, Lines 12-14, 26-29, and 33-46, Figure 1); and,
a damper system (P1) upstream from the evaporator (13), the damper system (P1) configured to divert gas exiting from an outlet of the first reheater (7) and the outlet of the at least one high-pressure heat exchanger (8) (Zhang, Column 7, Lines 13-26, Figures 1 and 4B).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the at least one high-pressure heat exchanger (8) is at least two high-pressure superheaters. Kim teaches a first reheater (506) (Kim, Figure 12) in parallel orientation with at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) (Kim, Figure 12). The first reheater (506) is separated from the at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) by a first barrier wall (510) and a second barrier wall (511) (Kim, Figure 12). Kim further teaches a damper system (507, 508) including a superheater damper (507) and a reheater damper (508) at the superheater and reheater outlets, respectively (Kim, Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat recovery steam generator of Zhang such that the high-pressure heat exchanger is at least two high-pressure superheaters with first and second barrier walls provided to separate the first reheater from the at least two high-pressure superheaters to produce the desired superheated steam. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the damper system of Zhang for the damper system/barrier wall of Kim to selectively control a flow through each of the parallel flow paths independently of each other.
Regarding Claim 2
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 1. Kim further teaches that the damper system (507, 508) includes a superheater damper (507) coupled at the respective outlet of the at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) and a reheater damper (508) coupled the outlet of the first reheater (506) (Kim, Translation Page 2, Paragraphs 4 and 6, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 3
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 2. Kim further teaches that the superheater dampers (507) and the reheater damper (508) are each selectively movable from a fully opened position to a fully closed position, and to any intermediate position between the fully opened position and the fully closed position (Kim, Translation Page 2, Paragraphs 4 and 6 and Page 4, Paragraph 1, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 4
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 3. Kim further teaches that when the superheater dampers (507) and the reheater damper (508) are respectively moved to the fully opened position, gas flows uninterrupted through the at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) and the first reheater (506) [it is inherent that if the dampers are open the gas will flow through the superheaters and reheater] (Kim, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 5
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 3. Kim further teaches placing the reheater damper (508) in the fully closed position causes exhaust gases to be diverted toward the at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) [it is inherent that fully closing the reheater damper closes that path and therefore the exhaust gases would divert to the path with the superheaters] (Kim, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 6
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 3. Kim further teaches placing the reheater dampers (508) in a partially opened position creates a pressure differential between the first reheater and the at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) such that gas flow through the first reheater (506) is reduced [it is inherent that when the reheater dampers are partially opened, the exhaust gas flow through the first reheater would be reduced] (Kim, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 13
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 1. Zhang further teaches that the high-temperature section includes a second reheater (5) in series orientation with the first reheater (8) (Zhang, Column 4, Lines 33-46, Figure 1). Additionally, Kim further teaches that the high-temperature section includes a second reheater (506) in series orientation with the first reheater (506) (Kim, Figure 12).
Regarding Claim 17
Zhang discloses a power generation system (100) comprising:
a gas turbine (200) configured to generate power, and expel exhaust gases through an exhaust (Zhang, Column 3, Lines 35-40, Figure 1); and,
a heat recovery steam generator (300) having a gas inlet in communication with the exhaust of the gas turbine (200) (Zhang, Column 3, Lines 35-40 and 55-58, Figure 1), the heat recovery steam generator (300) comprising:
a high-temperature section including a first reheater (8) coupled in a parallel orientation with a first high-pressure heat exchanger (7), the first reheater (8) separated from the first high-pressure heat exchanger (7) by at first barrier wall (PP) (Zhang, Column 3, Lines 40-51 and Column 7, Lines 3-9, Figures 1 and 4B);
an evaporator (13) coupled downstream from the high-temperature section, the evaporator (13) configured to extract heat from gases exiting the high-temperature section (Zhang, Column 4, Lines 12-14, 26-29, and 33-46, Figures 1 and 4B); and,
a damper system (P1) upstream from the evaporator (13), the damper system (P1) configured to divert gas exiting from an outlet of the first reheater (8) and the outlet of the at least one high-pressure heat exchanger (7) (Zhang, Column 4, Lines 33-46 and Column 7, Lines 13-26, Figures 1 and 4B).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the first high-pressure heat exchanger is a first high-pressure superheater or that the high-temperature section includes a second high-pressure superheater, wherein a second barrier wall separates the first reheater from the second high-pressure superheater.
Kim teaches a first reheater (506) (Kim, Figure 12) in parallel orientation with a first high-pressure superheater (505) and a second high-pressure superheater (505) (Kim, Figure 12). The first reheater (506) is separated from the first high-pressure superheater (505) by a first barrier wall (510) and from the second high-pressure superheater (505) by a second barrier wall (511) (Kim, Figure 12). Kim further teaches a damper system (507, 508) including a superheater damper (507) and a reheater damper (508) at the superheater and reheater outlets, respectively (Kim, Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat recovery steam generator of Zhang such that the high-pressure heat exchanger comprises first and second high-pressure superheaters, wherein first and second barrier walls are provided to separate the first reheater from the first and second high-pressure superheaters to produce the desired superheated steam. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the damper system of Zhang for the damper system/barrier wall of Kim to selectively control a flow through each of the parallel flow paths independently of each other.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, US 9,429,044, in view of Kim, KR 101803248 B1, and further in view of Inoue, JP H08177411 A.
Regarding Claim 7
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 2. However, Zhang and Kim do not explicitly disclose that the reheater damper and the superheater dampers are each at least one of a louver, a flap diverter damper, a tandem damper, and a butterfly damper.
Inoue teaches a first reheater (16) (Inoue, [0008] and [0011], Figure 7) in parallel orientation with a superheater (17) (Inoue, [0009] and [0011], Figure 7). The first reheater (16) is separated from the superheater (17) by a barrier wall (Inoue, [0003] and [0008]-[0009], Figure 7). Inoue further teaches a damper system (18, 20) including a superheater damper (20) and a reheater damper (18) at the superheater and reheater outlets, respectively (Inoue, [0003] and [0008]-[0009], Figure 7), wherein the reheater damper (18) and the superheater damper (20) are each at least one of a louver, a flap diverter damper, a tandem damper, and a butterfly damper (Inoue, [0008]-[0009], Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heat recovery steam generator of Zhang/Kim such that the reheater damper and the superheater dampers are each at least one of a louver, a flap diverter damper, a tandem damper, and a butterfly damper as is taught by Inoue as it is well known in the art to substitute one known damper for another when they perform the same function.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, US 9,429,044, in view of Kim, KR 101803248 B1, and further in view of Vogler, US 2,966,896.
Regarding Claim 8
Zhang and Kim teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 1. However, Zhang and Kim do not disclose that the reheater damper is coupled at an inlet of the first reheater.
Vogler teaches a first reheater (111) in parallel orientation with a superheater (113), where the first reheater (111) is separated from the superheater (113) by a barrier wall (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 42-67, Figure 4). Vogler further teaches a damper system (121, 122) including a superheater damper (121) and a reheater damper (122) (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 58-67, Figure 4), wherein the reheater damper (122) is coupled at an inlet of the first reheater (111) and is selectively movable from a fully opened position to a fully closed position, and to any intermediate position between the fully opened and fully closed positions (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 58-67, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power generation system of Zhang/Kim to position the reheater damper at the inlet of the first reheater as is taught by Vogler, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 9
Zhang, Kim, and Vogler teach the heat recovery steam generator of claim 8. Vogler further teaches that the reheater damper (122) selectively reduces gas flow to the first reheater (111), and the reheater damper (122) selectively diverts exhaust gases toward at least one high-pressure superheater (113) [the combination of Zhang, Kim and Vogler teaches at least two high-pressure superheaters] by selectively moving the reheater damper (122) to any intermediate position from the fully opened position to the fully closed position (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 58-67, Figure 4).
Regarding Claim 18
Zhang and Kim teach the power generation system of claim 17. However, Zhang and Kim do not disclose that the reheater damper is coupled at an inlet of the first reheater.
Vogler teaches a first reheater (111) in parallel orientation with a superheater (113), where the first reheater (111) is separated from the superheater (113) by a barrier wall (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 42-67, Figure 4). Vogler further teaches a damper system (121, 122) including a superheater damper (121) and a reheater damper (122) (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 58-67, Figure 4), wherein the reheater damper (122) is coupled at an inlet of the first reheater (111) and is selectively movable from a fully opened position to a fully closed position, and to any intermediate position between the fully opened and fully closed positions (Vogler, Column 6, Lines 58-67, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power generation system of Zhang/Kim to position the reheater damper at the inlet of the first reheater as is taught by Vogler, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 14-16, and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the heat recovery steam generator of claim 10, the inclusion of:
“at least one of the first barrier wall or the second barrier wall is porous such that gases can partially enter the first reheater from a respective one of the at least two high-pressure superheaters” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed limitation is Vogler, US 2,966,896. Vogler teaches a barrier wall positioned between the first reheater (111) and the at least one superheater (113) (Vogler, Figure 4). However, Vogler does not teach that the barrier wall is porous such that gases can partially enter the first reheater from the at least one superheater.
In the heat recovery steam generator of claim 11, the inclusion of:
“at least one of the first barrier wall or the second barrier wall includes an opening such that gases can partially enter the first reheater from a respective one of the at least two high-pressure superheaters” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed limitation is Vogler, US 2,966,896. Vogler teaches a barrier wall positioned between the first reheater (111) and the at least one superheater (113) (Vogler, Figure 4). However, Vogler does not teach that the barrier wall includes an opening such that gases can partially enter the first reheater from the at least one superheater.
In the heat recovery steam generator of claim 12, the inclusion of:
“at least one of the first barrier wall or the second barrier wall extends to a distance from the outlet of the first reheater such that gases can partially enter the first reheater from a respective one of the at least two high-pressure superheaters” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed limitation is Vogler, US 2,966,896. Vogler teaches a barrier wall positioned between the first reheater (111) and the at least one superheater (113) (Vogler, Figure 4). However, Vogler does not teach that the barrier wall extends to a distance from the outlet of the first reheater such that gases can partially enter the first reheater from the at least one superheater.
In the heat recovery steam generator of claim 14, the inclusion of:
“the first reheater and the second reheater are separated by an in-line damper positioned to control gas flow between the first reheater and the second reheater” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed limitation is Zhang, US 9,429,044. Zhang discloses a second reheater (5) in series orientation with the first reheater (8) (Zhang, Column 4, Lines 33-46, Figure 1). However, Zhang does not disclose that the first reheater and second reheater are separated by an in-line damper positioned to control gas flow between the first reheater and the second reheater.
In the power generation system of claim 19, the inclusion of:
“the high-temperature section includes a second reheater in series orientation with the first reheater, wherein the first reheater and the second reheater are separated by an in-line damper positioned to control airflow between the first reheater and the second reheater” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed limitation is Zhang, US 9,429,044. Zhang discloses a second reheater (5) in series orientation with the first reheater (8) (Zhang, Column 4, Lines 33-46, Figure 1). However, Zhang does not disclose that the first reheater and second reheater are separated by an in-line damper positioned to control gas flow between the first reheater and the second reheater.
In the heat recovery steam generator of claim 20, the inclusion of:
“the reheater extends in between the at least two high-pressure superheaters and between the first barrier wall and the second barrier wall, the first barrier wall separating the reheater from a first one of the two superheaters on a first side, and the second wall separating the reheater from a second one of the two superheaters on a second side opposite the first side” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Kim, KR 101803248 B1. Kim discloses a reheater (506) and at least two high-pressure superheaters (505) with a first barrier wall (510) and a second barrier wall (511) (Kim, Figure 12). However, Kim does not disclose that the reheater is between the two high-pressure superheaters with the first barrier wall separating the reheater from a first one of the two superheaters on a first side and a second wall separating the reheater form a second one of the two superheaters on a second side opposite the first side.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claim objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been considered. New claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been made.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Zhang in view of Inoue) and claims 1, 8-9, 13, and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Zhang in view of Vogler) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to newly added claim 20 have been considered. Claim 20 is objected to and is rejected insofar as it is dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
