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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “coupling capacitor” (see claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“each extending” in line 4 should be --each of the plurality of pistons extending--;
“each configured” in line 7 should be --each of the plurality of regenerators configured--;
“two adjacent pistons” in lines 7-8 should be --two adjacent pistons of the plurality of pistons--;
“across the pistons” in lines 8-9 should be --across the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 5 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 2 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 6 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 2 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 9 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 1 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 11 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 1 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 12 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 2 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 14 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 1 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 16 is objected to because “the pistons” in line 1 should be --the plurality of pistons--.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“each extending” in line 4 should be --each of the plurality of pistons extending--;
“two adjacent pistons” in line 7 should be --two adjacent pistons of the plurality of pistons--;
“across the pistons” in line 8 should be --across the plurality of pistons--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881).
PNG
media_image1.png
755
832
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 1:
Fraser discloses a heat engine (Figs. 1-3) for utilizing temperature differential for high efficiency heat conversion (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 5, Lines 1-36), comprising:
a housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of housing)) having a hot side (Modified Fig. 2 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of hot side of element A)) and a cold side (Modified Fig. 2 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of cold side of element A));
a plurality of pistons (74, piston - Col. 5, Lines 25-26 (see Figs. 2-3 )) arranged within the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 2 above and Figs. 2-3 and Col. 5, Lines 23-30), each extending from the hot side (Modified Fig. 2 above - B) to the cold side (Modified Fig. 2 above - C) and configured to actuate according to working gases heated therewithin by the hot side of the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 2 above and Col. 5, Lines 1-36); and
a plurality of regenerators (54, regenerator - Col. 5, Line 5 (see Figs. 2-3)), each configured to be arranged between two adjacent pistons (74)(see Figs. 2-3) and configured to store heat generated as the working gas moves across the pistons (74)(see Figs. 2-3, Col. 5, Lines 1-36 (standard function of a regenerator in a Stirling heat engine)).
Re claim 2:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein at least one material of the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) is selected based on thermal conductivity and a size of the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 4, Lines 44-68).
Re claim 4:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the plurality of pistons (74) includes an even number of pistons (see Figs. 2-3).
Re claim 5:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 4 (as described above), wherein the pistons (74) are arranged in a two by two arrangement within the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 2 above and Figs. 2-3).
Re claim 7:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the regenerators (54) are arranged within cavities created between the adjacent pistons (74)(see Figs. 2-3).
Re claim 8:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the pistons (74) are at least one of double acting free pistons (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 2, Lines 30-32 and Lines 39-49), physical hard-stop pistons and spring pistons.
Re claim 14:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the pistons (74) have properties effecting an efficiency of the heat engine, the properties including at least a spring constant and damping (see Figs. 1-3 (elements 74 necessarily include properties, including a spring constant and damping, effecting an efficiency of the depicted heat engine)).
Re claim 17:
Fraser discloses a heat engine (Figs. 1-3) for utilizing temperature differential for high efficiency heat conversion (see Figs. 1-3 and Col. 5, Lines 1-36), comprising:
a housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element A as a type of housing)) having a hot side (Modified Fig. 2 above - B (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element B as a type of hot side of element A)) and a cold side (Modified Fig. 2 above - C (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element C as a type of cold side of element A));
a plurality of pistons (74, piston - Col. 5, Lines 25-26 (see Figs. 2-3 )) arranged within the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 2 above and Figs. 2-3 and Col. 5, Lines 23-30), each extending from the hot side (Modified Fig. 2 above - B) to the cold side (Modified Fig. 2 above - C) and configured to actuate according to working gases heated therewithin by the hot side of the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A)(see Modified Fig. 2 above and Col. 5, Lines 1-36); and
at least one regenerator (54, regenerator - Col. 5, Line 5 (see Figs. 2-3)) arranged between two adjacent pistons (74)(see Figs. 2-3) and configured to store heat generated as the working gas moves across the pistons (74)(see Figs. 2-3, Col. 5, Lines 1-36 (standard function of a regenerator in a Stirling heat engine)).
Re claim 18:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 17 (as described above), wherein the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) is hermetically sealed (see Figs. 1-3 and Claim 14 - “…a closed gas flow path…”) to maintain a gas (Col. 2, Lines 50-51 - “…an engine working gas such as hydrogen…”) therein, the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) formed of a material to maintain stable operating temperatures (Col. 4, Lines 44-68).
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.
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Papadopoulos (DE-4123665-A1).
Re claim 3:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 2 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of the housing is formed of glass.
Papadopoulos teaches a heat engine (Fig. 2) wherein at least a portion of a housing (8, working cylinder - Para 34) is formed of glass (Para 34).
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 housing of Fraser after that of Papadopoulos, thereby making at least a portion of the housing of Fraser be formed of glass, as taught by Papadopoulos, for the advantage of making thermal and mechanical stress low (Papadopoulos; Para 34).
Re claim 19:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 17 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the housing is formed at least in part of at least one of glass and silicon.
Papadopoulos teaches a heat engine (Fig. 2) wherein a housing (8, working cylinder - Para 34) is formed at least in part of at least one of glass (Para 34) and silicon.
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 housing of Fraser after that of Papadopoulos, thereby making the housing of Fraser be formed at least in part of glass, as taught by Papadopoulos, for the advantage of making thermal and mechanical stress low (Papadopoulos; Para 34).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Martini et al. (U.S. 3,822,388).
Re claim 6:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 4 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose the heat engine further comprising a piezo generator for recovering power from the actuation of the pistons.
Martini teaches a heat engine (22, Stirling engine - Col. 2, Line 63) comprising a piezo generator (28, piezoelectric generator - Col. 2, Line 65) for recovering power from actuation of pistons (50, displacer - Col. 4, Line 2)(see Figs. 1, and 4-5, Col. 2, Line 62 - Col. 3, Line 11 and Col. 4, Lines 36-51).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Martini, thereby including, in the heat engine of Fraser, a piezo generator for recovering power from the actuation of the pistons of Fraser, in the way taught by Martini, for the advantage of being able to produce electricity (Fraser; Col. 2, Line 62 - Col. 3, Line 11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wuan et al. (U.S. 10,770,996).
Re claim 9:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the pistons actuate in a specific phase enforced by electronic force feedback.
Wuan teaches a heat engine (b1110, closed cycle engine - Col. 29, Line 44) wherein pistons (see Fig. 13 at b1110 where pistons are shown and Col. 29, Lines 51-53 - “…piston movement characteristics…”) actuate in a specific phase enforced by electronic force feedback (see Figs. 13-14, Col. 29, Line 41 - Col. 30, Line 37).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Wuan, thereby actuating the pistons of Fraser in a specific phase enforced by electronic force feedback, as taught by Wuan, for the advantage of being able to prevent failure modes (Wuan; Col. 30, Lines 24-37).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murozono (JPS5970862A).
Re claim 10:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the pistons are hollow pistons having an internal vacuum.
Murozono teaches a heat engine (Figs. 1-2) wherein the pistons (Page 4 - “…the working space is continuously changed by at least two piston-like parts…”) are hollow pistons having an internal vacuum (Page 4 - “…at least two piston-like parts that reciprocate with a phase difference between them, and the piston-like members are connected to a drive mechanism via screws/rods, connecting rods, etc., and at least one of the piston-like members is configured to have a hollow vacuum space inside…”).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Murozono, thereby making the pistons of Fraser be hollow pistons having an internal vacuum, as taught by Murozono, for the advantage of achieving a better coefficient of performance (Murozono - Page 4).
Claims 11 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Landis (U.S. 6,978,611).
Re claim 11:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose the heat engine further comprising a coupling capacitor for recovering power from the actuation of the pistons.
Landis teaches a heat engine (10, heat engine - Col. 9, Line 35 (see Figs. 2A-2D)) comprising a coupling capacitor (24a, 24b, capacitor plates - Col. 10, Lines 4-5) for recovering power from the actuation of a pistons (32, flexing diagram - Col. 9, Line 25)(see Figs. 2A-2D and Col. 10, Line 1-17).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Landis, thereby including a coupling capacitor for recovering power from the actuation of the pistons of Fraser, as taught by Landis, for the advantage of being able to generate electrical energy (Fraser; Col. 10, Line 1-17).
Re claim 13:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above) wherein the housing (Modified Fig. 2 above - A) is hermetically sealed (see Figs. 1-3 and Claim 14 - “…a closed gas flow path…”).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the housing includes at least one end cap formed of silicon.
Landis teaches a heat engine (10, heat engine - Col. 9, Line 35 (see Figs. 2A-2D)) wherein a housing (18, chamber - Col. 9, Line 14) includes at least one end cap (24b, capacitor plate - Col. 9, Lines 6-7) formed of silicon (Col. 9, Lines 5-12).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Landis, thereby including at least one end cap formed of silicon in the housing of Fraser, as taught by Landis, for the advantage of being able to generate electrical energy (Fraser; Col. 10, Line 1-17).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berchowitz et al. (U.S. 4,649,283).
Re claim 12:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose the heat engine further comprising at least one magnet and coil pairing for recovering power from the actuation of the pistons.
Berchowitz teaches a heat engine (Fig. 1) comprising at least one magnet and coil pairing (24, 28 and 32, 34) for recovering power from actuation of pistons (14, 30)(see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 3-36).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Berchowitz, thereby including at least one magnet and coil paring for recovering power from the actuation of the pistons of Fraser, in the way taught by Berchowitz, for the advantage of being able to generate electrical energy (Berchowitz; see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 3-36).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Beale (U.S. 5,502,968).
Re claim 15:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 15 (as described above).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the efficiency of the heat engine is increased as the damping increases and the spring constant decreases.
Beale teaches that spring constant and damping constant are results effective variables effecting ratio of piston amplitude to displacer amplitude and relative phase of their displacement (Col. 2, Lines 22-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the pistons of Fraser to the efficiency of the heat engine increase as the damping increases and the spring constant decreases, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Benson (U.S. 3,928,974).
Re claim 16:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the pistons (74) have a piston mass (see Fig. 2).
Fraser fails to disclose a piston mass between 2-4kg.
Benson teaches piston mass is a results effective variable that determines inertia piston force (Col. 12, Lines 31-34) as well as the damped resonant frequency of the piston (Col. 13, Lines 25-31 and Col. 16, Lines 57-61). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the pistons of Fraser to have a piston mass between 2-4ks as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser (U.S. 4,395,881), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Papadopoulos (DE-4123665-A1) and Landis (U.S. 6,978,611).
Re claim 20:
Fraser discloses the heat engine (Figs. 1-3) of claim 17 (as described above), wherein the housing (Modified Fig. 1 above - A) is sealed (see Figs. 1-3 and Claim 14 - “…a closed gas flow path…”).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the housing is formed of glass.
Papadopoulos teaches a heat engine (Fig. 2) wherein a housing (8, working cylinder - Para 34) is formed of glass (Para 34).
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 housing of Fraser after that of Papadopoulos, thereby making the housing of Fraser be formed of glass, as taught by Papadopoulos, for the advantage of making thermal and mechanical stress low (Papadopoulos; Para 34).
Fraser fails to disclose wherein the housing is with a silicon cap.
Landis teaches a heat engine (10, heat engine - Col. 9, Line 35 (see Figs. 2A-2D)) wherein a housing (18, chamber - Col. 9, Line 14) is with a silicon cap (24b, capacitor plate - Col. 9, Lines 6-7 (see Col. 9, Lines 5-12)).
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 engine of Fraser after that of Landis, thereby making the housing of Fraser be with a silicon cap, as taught by Landis, for the advantage of being able to generate electrical energy (Fraser; Col. 10, Line 1-17).
Conclusion
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 8/28/26
