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 .
Responsive to correspondence
The notice of allowance is in response to correspondence filed on 04/22/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/22/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, the IDS has been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 04/22/2025 appears to be acceptable.
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent number 3047479 to GALE YOUNG (GALE) in view of Non-Patent Literature “Fired Heaters in the Process Industries” to YOKOGAWA.
Re: Claim 1:
GALE discloses:
An integrated system comprising:
a nuclear power module (See Fig. 1: nuclear power module 10 ) to output initial steam (See Fig.1: initial steam via conduit 12);
a turbine generator (See Fig.1: turbine generator 15) to receive the initial steam and output first steam (See Fig.1: exits steam via 20);
a first heat exchanger (See Fig.1: first heat exchanger 30) to:
receive water (See Fig.1: water via pump 36),
receive the first steam (See Fig.1: receives the first steam via 28), and
transfer heat from the first steam (See Fig.1: transfer heat from the first steam via 28 into water received via conduit 40 in first heat exchanger 30) into the water to create second steam (See Fig.1: the heated water is then used to create second steam in boiler 16); and
an oil-fired boiler (See Fig.1: an oil-fired boiler 50 which receive second the steam from boiler 16) to receive the second steam (See Fig.1: receive second steam from boiler 16), and
convert the second steam to a third steam (See Fig.1: the second steam from boiler 16 is converted to a third steam using boiler 50).
GALE discloses an oil-fired boiler which is typically a second heat exchanger 50, since thermal energy transfer takes place from combustion gases via steel tubes of a heat exchanger to generate steam using feedwater in these tubes, furthermore it is well known in the art that oil fired boilers are heat exchangers, the cited non-literature patent to YOKOGAWA teaches that fuel fired heaters often referred to as boilers are heat exchangers that transfers heat from fuel combustion to process fluids that flow through tubular coils. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construe oil-fired boiler 50 of GALE as a second heat exchanger which would have yielded predictable results, since using such a heat exchanger resolves the claimed subject matter of generating steam which would a yielded predicable results.
Regarding method claim 16, GALE in view of YOKOGAWA discloses all the limitations of method claim 16.
Re: Claim 8:
GALE discloses:
A system comprising:
a turbine generator (See Fig.1: turbogenerator 15) to:
receive initial steam (See Fig.1: initial steam via conduit 12) from a nuclear power module (See Fig. 1: nuclear power module 10) , and
output first steam at a first temperature (See Fig.1: output steam via 20 exiting turbine generator 15 at a first temperature);
a first heat exchanger (See Fig.1: first heat exchanger 30) to:
receive (See Fig.1: receiving a fluid via 42 at a second temperature which is at 125 degrees F as described in col. 4 lines 61-69) a fluid at a second temperature,
receive the first steam at the first temperature (See Fig.1: heat exchanger 30 receives the first steam at the first temperature which is 720 degrees F as explained in col. 4 lines 45-47) , and
output the fluid (See Fig.1: heat exchanger 30 outputs a fluid after heat is extracted by feed water in heat exchanger 30 at a third temperature which is about 470 degrees F as explained in col. 4 lines 62-69) at a third temperature that is greater than the second temperature (the limitation as recited is fully discloses that the fluid is gradually heated up and at maximum temperature at stage of heat exchanger 30 where steam is at it highest temperature to transfer heat to the fluid); and
a boiler (See Fig.1: an oil-fired boiler 50 which receive second the steam from boiler 16) to heat the fluid to a fourth temperature that is greater than the third temperature (See Fig.1: the fluid in boiler 50 is heated to vaporous temperature which is a fourth temperature which is typically greater than the liquid state temperature as explained in col. 5 lines 3-10) .
GALE discloses an oil-fired boiler which is typically a second heat exchanger 50, since thermal energy transfer takes place from combustion gases via steel tubes of a heat exchanger to generate steam using feedwater in these tubes, furthermore it is well known in the art that oil fired boilers are heat exchangers, the cited non-literature patent to YOKOGAWA teaches that fuel fired heaters often referred to as boilers are heat exchangers that transfers heat from fuel combustion to process fluids that flow through tubular coils. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construe oil-fired boiler 50 of GALE as a second heat exchanger which would have yielded predictable results, since using such a heat exchanger resolves the claimed subject matter of generating steam which would a yielded predicable results.
Allowable Subject Matter and Prior Art
Claims 2-7 , 9-14 and 17-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1, 8 and 16 respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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 at (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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
March 12, 2026