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 .
Application Status
This office action is in response to amendments/arguments filed on September 9, 2026. Applicant has amended Claim 1. Claims 1 – 7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous title objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous 102 rejections stand. Applicant’s arguments center around the fact that their disclosure requires the plant pneumatic apparatus to be external to the compressed air energy storage device, while the pneumatic apparatus in the prior art is an internal component. While examiner agrees that the specification discloses this, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s conclusion that this feature is adequately recited in the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the pneumatic equipment is external. Examiner reminds applicant that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A turbine expander qualifies as industrial pneumatic equipment and the supply line to said expander qualifies as a plant air supply line.
Examiner suggests applicant amend Claim 1, Lines 8 – 9 as follows in order to overcome the prior art: …configured to supply the compressed air to industrial pneumatic equipment used in a plant external to the compressed air energy storage device and including a pneumatic apparatus driven by a pneumatic source, wherein…
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamichi et al. (hereafter “Nakamichi” – WO 2022/004237).
With regards to Claim 1:
Nakamichi discloses a compressed air energy storage device (Figures 1- 8) comprising:
a compressor (see Figure 2, charging section 100 including compressors 11, 12, 13, and 14) that is driven by an electric motor (compressors individually driven by respective motors 15);
a pressure accumulation tank (storage tank 30) that stores compressed air compressed by the compressor;
an expander (see Figure 3, expanders 23, 24) that is driven by the compressed air stored in the pressure accumulation tank;
a generator (see Figure 3, each expander individually drives respective generators 25) that is driven by the expander; and
a pneumatic pressure supply pipe (see Figure 3, pipes 60, 61) connected to a plant air supply line (lines 65, 66) and configured to supply the compressed air to industrial pneumatic equipment used in a plant including a pneumatic apparatus (see Figure 3, expanders 21, 22) driven by a pneumatic pressure, wherein
the compressor compresses air to a pressure exceeding a predetermined pressure set higher than a pneumatic usage pressure for driving the pneumatic apparatus, compressed air whose pressure exceeds the predetermined pressure is supplied to the expander to generate electric power, and compressed air whose pressure is equal to or lower than the predetermined pressure is supplied to the pneumatic apparatus via the pneumatic pressure supply pipe (see Figures 4 – 8 and Paragraphs 52, 62, 72 – 81, a pressure sensor 31 determines pressure at the tank – depending on the pressure, a usage stage calculation unit 42 determines in how many stages the compressed air from the tank can be expanded – an example pressure P2 is shown in Figure 8, leading to determination that the number of stages is 3, with the pressure being higher than a “usage pressure” for expansion in only two stages, see Paragraph 75 – as such, valves 64a, 62a open to allow expanders 23, i.e. the “expander” to receive compressed air for power generation via their respective generators 25, see Paragraph 62 – if the measured pressure at the tank is lower, then the valves 62a, 64a close and valves 61a and 65a open such that compressed air from tank 30 bypasses expanders 23 and directs compressed air only to the recited “pneumatic apparatuses” above, i.e. expander stages 22 and 21, via pipe 61 for power generation).
With regards to Claim 3:
Nakamichi discloses the pneumatic pressure supply pipe includes a pipe (see Figure 3, pipes 61, 65, 60, 66) for connecting the pressure accumulation tank and the pneumatic apparatus to each other.
With regards to Claim 4:
Nakamichi discloses the expander includes a high pressure expander (see Figure 3, expander 24) driven by compressed air from the pressure accumulation tank and a low pressure expander (see Figure 3, expander 23) driven by compressed air discharged from the high pressure expander, and the pneumatic pressure supply pipe includes a pipe (pipes 62, 61) for connecting a pipe (pipe 64) connecting the high pressure expander to the low pressure expander to the pneumatic apparatus (see Figure 3, pipe 64 connects high pressure expander 24 to low pressure expander 23, pipes 62, 61 connect pipe 64 to “pneumatic apparatus” expander 22).
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 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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamichi et al. (hereafter “Nakamichi” – WO 2022/004237) in view of Kim et al. (hereafter “Kim” – US 2009/0200805).
With regards to Claim 7:
Nakamichi does not explicitly disclose a water supply pump that is connected to the pressure accumulation tank and raises a tank pressure of the pressure accumulation tank is provided. Kim (Figure 1) teaches a compressed air energy storage system including a pressure accumulation tank (31), wherein a water supply pump (pump 331) that is connected to the pressure accumulation tank and raises a tank pressure of the pressure accumulation tank is provided (Paragraph 31: “when the compressed air 36 in the first storage tank 31 is supplied to the turbine 40 by day, the pressure sensor 313 senses the decrease of the pressure in the first storage tank 31 and opens the hydraulic pump/motor unit 331 such that the storage water 34 in the second storage tank 32 is transferred to the first storage tank 31, thus uniformly maintaining the pressure in the first storage tank 31”). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, the addition of a water pump to maintain a pressure in the tank during discharge that would have otherwise fallen is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakamichi to add a water supply pump and associated ancillary components as shown in Kim to the tank of Nakamichi in order to better maintain tank pressure during discharge.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, 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 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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
