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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 5/22/26 has been entered. Claims 1-5, and 15-21 have been canceled. Claims 6, 22, and 29 have been amended. Claims 6-14, and 22-35 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated by Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), Applicant has argued Frazier fails to disclose “a force generating device comprising a piston assembly configured to mechanically pressurize the initial gas through a working fluid” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 6-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As detailed in the rejection below, Frazer discloses a force generating device (24) comprising a piston assembly (52, 64) configured to mechanically pressurize an initial gas (Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”) through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33). Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated by Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), Applicant has argued Frazier fails to disclose “a heat transfer device comprising a heat exchange assembly configured to receive externally supplied thermal energy and to thermally drive mechanical motion of the piston assembly so as to pressurize the initial gas” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 6-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As detailed in the rejection below, Frazier discloses a heat transfer device (A) comprising a heat exchange assembly (10, 16, 46) configured to receive externally supplied thermal energy (see Modified Fig. 1 below at element G and Col. 3, Lines 26-32) and to thermally drive mechanical motion of the piston assembly (52, 64) so as to pressurize the initial gas (Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33). Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 as being anticipated by Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), Applicant has argued Frazier fails to disclose that “the heat exchange assembly is thermally isolated from the energy storage container” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 6-7). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Frazier discloses a heat exchanger assembly (10, 14, and 46) which is described and shown both mechanically and fluidically isolated from the air of element 32 (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 53-57 where bladder is described isolating air in element 32) which is a type of thermal isolation consistent with that of the instant disclosure as shown in Fig. 1 and described in Paras 20-37 of the Specification. Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 6 is maintained.
Applicant has argued claims 7-14 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 6 (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 7-8). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 6.
Regarding the rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608), Applicant has argued neither Frazier nor Bell disclose “a force generating device comprising a piston assembly configured to provide a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized, through a working fluid” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 8-10). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As detailed in the rejection below, Frazer discloses a force generating device (24) comprising a piston assembly (52, 64) configured to provide a force to drive an initial gas (Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”) to be pressurized through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33). Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 22 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 22 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608), Applicant has argued neither Frazier nor Bell disclose “a heat transfer device comprising a heat exchange assembly configured to receive externally supplied thermal energy and to mechanically drive the piston assembly” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 8-10). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As detailed in the rejection below, Frazier discloses a heat transfer device (A) comprising a heat exchange assembly (10, 16, 46) configured to receive externally supplied thermal energy (see Modified Fig. 1 below at element G and Col. 3, Lines 26-32) and to drive the piston assembly (52, 64)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33). The driving of the piston assembly (52, 64) of Frazier (as shown in Figs 1-2 and described in Col. 3, Line 15- Col. 5, Line 33) is a type of mechanical driving consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the instant disclosure as shown in Fig 1 of the instant disclosure at elements 23, 22, 21, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 and as described in Paras 20-37 of the instant specification. Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 22 is maintained.
Applicant has argued claims 23-28 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 22 (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Page 10). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 22.
Regarding the rejection of claim 29 as being unpatentable over over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622), Applicant has argued neither Frazier nor Hecth disclose “a force generating device comprising a piston assembly configured to provide a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 10-11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As detailed in the rejection below, Frazer discloses a force generating device (24) comprising a piston assembly (52, 64) configured to provide a force to drive an initial gas (Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”) to be pressurized (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33). Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 29 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 29 as being unpatentable over over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622), Applicant has argued neither Frazier nor Hecth disclose “a heat transfer device comprising a heat exchange assembly thermally coupled to the piston assembly configured to gather thermal energy driving the force generating device to provide the force” (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 8-10) (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 10-11). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. As detailed in the rejection below, Frazier discloses a heat transfer device (A) comprising a heat exchange assembly (10, 16, 46) thermally coupled to the piston assembly (52, 64) see Figs. 1-2 (a type of thermal coupling is shown between elements 10/16/46 and 52/64 which is consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the instant disclosure as shown in Fig. 1 of the instant disclosure at elements 23, 22, 21, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 and as described in Paras 20-37 of the instant specification)) configured to gather thermal energy (see Fig. 1 at elements 10, 16, and 46 and Col. 3, Lines 26-36 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33) driving the force generating device (24) to provide the force (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33). Therefore, Frazier discloses the limitation in question and the rejection of claim 29 is maintained.
Applicant has argued claims 30-35 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 29 (see Remarks filed 5/22/26, Pages 11-12). The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive for the same reasons as indicated above regarding claim 29.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because “a working fluid” in line 2 should be --the working fluid--.
Claim 29 is objected to because “a piston assembly configured to a force” in lines 3-4 should be --a piston assembly configured to provide a force--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the initial gas is pressurized through a working fluid” which fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 6, from which claim 11 depends, because claim 6 recites the limitation “a force generating device comprising a piston assembly configured to mechanically pressurize the initial gas through a working fluid”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 6:
Frazier discloses energy storage system (Fig. 1 (see Abstract)) comprising:
an energy storage container (32, high pressure accumulator - Col. 3, Lines 51-5) storing an initial gas (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”);
a force generating device (24, power conversion piston unit - Col. 3, Lines 38-39) comprising a piston assembly (52, piston - Col. 4, Lines 53-55; 64, piston rings - Col. 5, Line 2) configured to mechanically pressurize the initial gas through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33); and
a heat transfer device ((A, energy input generating subsystem - Col. 3, Lines 19-21) comprising a heat exchange assembly (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27; 16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30; 46, condenser Col. 4, Line 8) configured to receive externally supplied thermal energy (see Modified Fig. 1 at element G (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of externally supplied thermal energy at element G as the burner of element 10 is clearly depicted receiving input from this element) and Col. 3, Lines 26-32) and to thermally drive mechanical motion of the piston assembly (52, 64)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 4, Line 51 - Col. 5, Line 33) so as to pressurize the initial gas (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (especially Col. 4, Lines 25-50)), wherein the heat exchange assembly (10, 16, 46) is thermally isolated from the energy storage container (32)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 53-57 (elements 10, 16, and 46 are shown/described mechanically and fluidically isolated from referenced air chamber of element 32 which is a type of thermal isolation consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the specification as this is the type of thermal isolation shown/described in Fig. 1 of the instant disclosure))
Re claim 7:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the force generating device (24) contains a piston (52, piston - Col. 4, Line 54 (see Figs. 1-2)).
Re claim 9:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the thermal energy comprises solar energy, geothermal energy, or waste heat (see Fig. 1 at 46 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33 - “…Some of the heat from the steam is reclaimed in this condensing process and also used to pre-heat the hydraulic fluid being fed to the boiler 10…” (also see Col. 15, Lines 29-43)).
Re claim 11:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the initial gas is pressurized through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33)).
Re claim 12:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 11 (as described above), wherein the working fluid comprises water (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”).
Re claim 13:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 11 (as described above), further comprising a heat provider (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27) connected to the heat transfer device (A)(see Fig. 1).
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, 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 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622).
Re claim 8:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the heat transfer device (A) contains a thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of thermal conductor)) connected to a receiver (16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30)(see Modified Fig. 1 above), and a water storage unit (14, steam accumulator - Col. 3, Line 28) connected to the thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Frazier fails to disclose wherein the heat transfer device contains a concave lens nor a receiver receiving sunlight from the concave lens.
Hecht teaches wherein a heat transfer device (Fig. 5) contains a concave lens (313, collimating lens - Para 27 (see Fig. 5 where element 313 is labelled “concave lens”)), and a receiver (302, slotted wavelength separator - Para 27) receiving sunlight from the concave lens (313)(see Fig. 5 and Paras 26-27), and a thermal conductor (303, heat pipe - Para 27) connected to the receiver (302)(see Fig. 5 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat transfer device of Frazier after that of Hecht, thereby including a receiver receiving sunlight from a concave lens in the heat transfer device of Frazier in the way taught by Hecht, for the advantage of being able to efficiently utilize a highly concentrated heat source for efficient operation (Hecht; Para 27).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608).
Re claim 10:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), further comprising a generator (37, hydraulic power output units - Col. 3, Line 68 - Col. 4, Line 3) generating
Frazier fails to disclose a generator generating electricity.
Bell teaches a generator (42, 44, hydraulic motor and AC generator - Col. 4, Line 52-55) generating electricity (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Line 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generator of Frazier after that of Bell, thereby generating electricity with the generator of Frazier in the way taught by Bell, for the advantage of being able to utilize pressurized hydraulic fluid for the generation of AC electricity (Bell; Col. 4, Lines 45-55).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Held (U.S. 2013/0113221).
Re claim 14:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 13 (as described above).
Frazier fails to disclose wherein the heat provider provides heat generated by geothermal heat.
Held teaches wherein a heat provider (Qin, heat source - Para 22) provides heat generated by geothermal heat (Para 22 - “…the heat source Qin may derive thermal energy from renewable sources of thermal energy such as, but not limited to, Solar thermal and geothermal sources.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat provider of Frazier after that of Held, thereby providing heat generated by geothermal heat by the heat provider in Frazier in the way taught by Held, for the advantage of utilizing a renewable source to provide thermal energy (Held; Para 22).
Claims 22-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608)
Re claim 22:
Frazer discloses an energy storage system (Fig. 1 (see Abstract)) comprising:
an energy storage container (32, high pressure accumulator - Col. 3, Lines 51-57) storing an initial gas (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”);
a force generating device (24, power conversion piston unit - Col. 3, Lines 38-39) providing a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (especially Col. 4, Lines 24-29)) comprising a piston assembly (52, piston - Col. 4, Lines 53-55; 64, piston rings - Col. 5, Line 2) configured to provide a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized, through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33);
a heat transfer device (A, energy input generating subsystem - Col. 3, Lines 19-21) comprising a heat exchange assembly (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27; 16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30; 46, condenser Col. 4, Line 8) configured to receive externally supplied thermal energy (see Modified Fig. 1 at element G (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a type of externally supplied thermal energy at element G as the burner of element 10 is clearly depicted receiving input from this element) and Col. 3, Lines 26-32) and mechanically drive the piston assembly (52, 64)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (thermal energy at element G of Modified Fig. 1 above is shown/described provided to element 10/16/46 to mechanically drive element 52/64 in a way consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the specification as shown in Fig 1 of the instant disclosure at elements 23, 22, 21, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 and as described in Paras 20-37 of the instant specification)); and
a generator (37, hydraulic power output units - Col. 3, Line 68 - Col. 4, Line 3) generating
Frazier fails to disclose a generator generating electricity.
Bell teaches a generator (42, 44, hydraulic motor and AC generator - Col. 4, Line 52-55) generating electricity (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Line 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generator of Frazier after that of Bell, thereby generating electricity with the generator of Frazier in the way taught by Bell, for the advantage of being able to utilize pressurized hydraulic fluid for the generation of AC electricity (Bell; Col. 4, Lines 45-55).
Re claim 23:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the force generating device (24) contains a piston (52, piston - Col. 4, Line 54 (see Figs. 1-2)).
Re claim 25:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the thermal energy comprises solar energy, geothermal energy, or waste heat (see Fig. 1 at 46 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33 - “…Some of the heat from the steam is reclaimed in this condensing process and also used to pre-heat the hydraulic fluid being fed to the boiler 10…” (also see Col. 15, Lines 29-43)).
Re claim 26:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the working fluid comprises water (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”).
Re claim 27:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) comprising a heat provider (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27) connected to the heat transfer device (A)(see Fig. 1).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622).
Re claim 24:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the heat transfer device (A) contains a thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of thermal conductor)) connected to a receiver (16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30)(see Modified Fig. 1 above), and a water storage unit (14, steam accumulator - Col. 3, Line 28) connected to the thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Frazier/Bell fails to disclose/teach wherein the heat transfer device contains a concave lens nor a receiver receiving sunlight from the concave lens.
Hecht teaches wherein a heat transfer device (Fig. 5) contains a concave lens (313, collimating lens - Para 27 (see Fig. 5 where element 313 is labelled “concave lens”)), and a receiver (302, slotted wavelength separator - Para 27) receiving sunlight from the concave lens (313)(see Fig. 5 and Paras 26-27), and a thermal conductor (303, heat pipe - Para 27) connected to the receiver (302)(see Fig. 5 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat transfer device of Frazier/Bell after that of Hecht, thereby including a receiver receiving sunlight from a concave lens in the heat transfer device of Frazier in the way taught by Hecht, for the advantage of being able to efficiently utilize a highly concentrated heat source for efficient operation (Hecht; Para 27).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Held (U.S. 2013/0113221).
Re claim 28:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 27 (as described above).
Frazier/Bell fails to disclose/teach wherein the heat provider provides heat generated by geothermal heat.
Held teaches wherein a heat provider (Qin, heat source - Para 22) provides heat generated by geothermal heat (Para 22 - “…the heat source Qin may derive thermal energy from renewable sources of thermal energy such as, but not limited to, Solar thermal and geothermal sources.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat provider of Frazier/Bell after that of Held, thereby providing heat generated by geothermal heat by the heat provider in Frazier in the way taught by Held, for the advantage of utilizing a renewable source to provide thermal energy (Held; Para 22).
Claims 29-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622).
Re claim 29:
Frazier discloses an energy storage system (Fig. 1 (see Abstract)) comprising:
an energy storage container (32, high pressure accumulator - Col. 3, Lines 51-57) storing an initial gas (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”);
a force generating device (24, power conversion piston unit - Col. 3, Lines 38-39) comprising a piston assembly (52, piston - Col. 4, Lines 53-55; 64, piston rings - Col. 5, Line 2) configured to a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (especially Col. 4, Lines 24-29)); and
a heat transfer device (A, energy input generating subsystem - Col. 3, Lines 19-21) comprising a heat exchange assembly (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27; 16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30; 46, condenser Col. 4, Line 8) thermally coupled to the piston assembly (52, 64)(see Figs. 1-2 (a type of thermal coupling is shown between elements 10/16/46 and 52/64 which is consistent with the claimed invention when viewed in light of the instant disclosure as shown in Fig. 1 of the instant disclosure at elements 23, 22, 21, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 12 and as described in Paras 20-37 of the instant specification)) configured to gather thermal energy (see Fig. 1 at elements 10, 16, and 46 and Col. 3, Lines 26-36 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33) driving the force generating device (24) to provide the force (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33), the heat transfer device comprising a thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of thermal conductor)) connected to a receiver (16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30)(see Modified Fig. 1 above), and a water storage unit (14, steam accumulator - Col. 3, Line 28) connected to the thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Frazier fails to disclose wherein the heat transfer device contains a concave lens nor a receiver receiving sunlight from the concave lens.
Hecht teaches wherein a heat transfer device (Fig. 5) contains a concave lens (313, collimating lens - Para 27 (see Fig. 5 where element 313 is labelled “concave lens”)), and a receiver (302, slotted wavelength separator - Para 27) receiving sunlight from the concave lens (313)(see Fig. 5 and Paras 26-27), and a thermal conductor (303, heat pipe - Para 27) connected to the receiver (302)(see Fig. 5 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat transfer device of Frazier after that of Hecht, thereby including a receiver receiving sunlight from a concave lens in the heat transfer device of Frazier in the way taught by Hecht, for the advantage of being able to efficiently utilize a highly concentrated heat source for efficient operation (Hecht; Para 27).
Re claim 30:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 29 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the thermal energy comprises solar energy, geothermal energy, or waste heat (see Fig. 1 at 46 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33 - “…Some of the heat from the steam is reclaimed in this condensing process and also used to pre-heat the hydraulic fluid being fed to the boiler 10…” (also see Col. 15, Lines 29-43)).
Re claim 32:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 29 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the initial gas is pressurized through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33)).
Re claim 33:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 32 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the working fluid comprises water (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”).
Re claim 34:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 32 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses the energy storage system comprising a heat provider (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27) connected to the heat transfer device (A)(see Fig. 1).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608).
Re claim 31:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 29 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) comprising a generator (37, hydraulic power output units - Col. 3, Line 68 - Col. 4, Line 3) generating
Frazier/Hecht fails to disclose/teach a generator generating electricity.
Bell teaches a generator (42, 44, hydraulic motor and AC generator - Col. 4, Line 52-55) generating electricity (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Line 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generator of Frazier/Hecht after that of Bell, thereby generating electricity with the generator of Frazier in the way taught by Bell, for the advantage of being able to utilize pressurized hydraulic fluid for the generation of AC electricity (Bell; Col. 4, Lines 45-55).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622), as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Held (U.S. 2013/0113221).
Re claim 35:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 34 (as described above).
Frazier/Hecht fails to disclose/teach wherein the heat provider provides heat generated by geothermal heat.
Held teaches wherein a heat provider (Qin, heat source - Para 22) provides heat generated by geothermal heat (Para 22 - “…the heat source Qin may derive thermal energy from renewable sources of thermal energy such as, but not limited to, Solar thermal and geothermal sources.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat provider of Frazier/Hecht after that of Held, thereby providing heat generated by geothermal heat by the heat provider in Frazier in the way taught by Held, for the advantage of utilizing a renewable source to provide thermal energy (Held; Para 22).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 6/5/26
Prosecution Insights