Ex Parte Sami et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2017

12973583 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/973,583 12/20/2010 Samuel M. Sami 2633004US2AP 2116 27542 7590 11/02/2017 SAND ^ NFROT T EXAMINER AEGIS TOWER, SUITE 1100 KEBEA, JESSICA L 4940 MUNSON STREET, NW CANTON, OH 44718-3615 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3748 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@ sandandsebolt.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMUEL M. SAMI, EDWIN E. WILSON, DEAN J. BRATEL, and JOHN H. BATTEN Appeal 2016-006747 Application 12/973,583 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-006747 Application 12/973,583 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants Samuel M. Sami et al.1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision, as set forth in the Final Office Action dated November 7, 2013 (“Final Act.”), rejecting claims 1, 3—14, and 16—24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a power generator using a wind turbine, a hydrodynamic retarder, and an organic Rankine cycle drive. Claims 1,9, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized for emphasis, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An electric power generating system, comprising: a wind turbine having blades that are rotated by a volume of moving air thereby producing kinetic energy associated with the rotating blades; a hydrodynamic retarder accepting the kinetic energy from the rotating blades and converting at least some of the kinetic energy from the rotating blades into waste-heat that is dissipated from the hydrodynamic retarder; an organic Rankine cycle drive operably coupled to the hydrodynamic retarder and including: an organic heat exchange fluid that absorbs and is vaporized by the waste-heat dissipated from the hydrodynamic retarder; a turbine that includes a rotatable turbine component, the turbine directing flow of the vaporized organic heat exchange fluid therethrough such that an expansion of organic heat 1 Appellants identify Dr. Samuel Sami as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, dated March 21, 2014 (“Appeal Br.”), at 4. 2 Claims 2 and 15 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 6. 2 Appeal 2016-006747 Application 12/973,583 exchange fluid during vaporization of the organic heat exchange fluid rotates the turbine wheel; and further comprising: a generator operatively coupled to the Rankine cycle drive and converting kinetic energy from the rotating turbine wheel into electricity; and wherein the organic heat exchange fluid includes quaternary refrigerant organic mixtures operative at temperatures between about 23°C to about 160°C within the Rankine cycle drive. REFERENCES In rejecting the claims on appeal, the Examiner relied upon the following prior art: Sami US 6,101,813 Aug. 15,2000 McMaster US 7,615,884 B2 Nov. 10, 2009 McAlister US 2011/0061383 A1 Mar. 17,2011 Kaneko JP 2011-089492 May 6, 2011 Hoffeld DE 10 2007 060 477 A1 Dec. 14, 2007 Bissell WO 2009/138771 A Nov. 19, 2009 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3—9, 13, 14, and 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko and Sami.3 2. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Sami, and Hoffeld. 3. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Sami, McMaster, and Bissell. 4. Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Sami, and Bissell. 3 Because claim 15 is cancelled, we understand that the rejection’s reference to claim 15 is a typographical error. Final Act. 9. 3 Appeal 2016-006747 Application 12/973,583 5. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Sami, and McMaster. 6. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko, Sami, and McAlister. Appellants seek our review of these rejections. DISCUSSION In response to Rejection 1, Appellants argue claims 1, 3—9, 13, 14, and 16—19 as a group. Appeal Br. 13—15. We select claim 1 as the representative claim, and claims 3—9, 13, 14, and 16—19 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In response to Rejections 2—6, Appellants do not present any arguments directed to the patentability of dependent claims 10-12 and 20-24 over the various combinations of Kaneko, Sami, Hoffeld, McMaster, Bissell, and/or McAlister. Appeal Br. 13—15. We understand that with respect to these rejections, Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for independent claim 1. The Examiner finds that Kaneko discloses “a wind turbine (2) having blades (2A) that are rotated by a volume of moving air thereby producing kinetic energy associated with the rotating blades; [and] a hydrodynamic retarder (30) accepting the kinetic energy from the rotating blades and converting at least some of the kinetic energy from the rotating blades into waste-heat that is dissipated from the hydrodynamic retarder (30).” Final Act. 2—3 (citing Kaneko 140). The Examiner further finds that Sami discloses a Rankine cycle drive as recited in claim 1, which includes “an organic heat exchange fluid that absorbs and is vaporized by the waste- heat 4 Appeal 2016-006747 Application 12/973,583 dissipated from the hydrodynamic retarder.” Final Act. 3 (citing Sami 2:8— 17). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “to utilize the thermal energy produced from the hydrodynamic retarder as taught by Kaneko to provide the thermal heat source required to vaporize the organic heat exchange fluid mixture to drive a turbine generator as taught by Sami.” Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is erroneous because “it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) drive in place of a Sterling [sic] engine.” Br. 13. Relying on the affidavit of Dr. Samuel Sami, Appellants argue that, due to technical differences between Stirling engines and organic Rankine cycle drives, “one of ordinary skill in the art simply would not replace a Stirling engine with an ORC drive.” Br. 13. According to Appellants, a Stirling engine operates at high pressures (e.g., 200 bars) and high temperatures (e.g., typically over 1,000°C) whereas the organic Rankine cycle operates at low temperatures (e.g., about 23°C to about 160°C). Br. 14. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts that Appellants are mischaracterizing the rejection. We agree. The Examiner’s proposed rejection “is not replacing a Stirling Engine with an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC).” Ans. 2. As the Examiner explains, the rejection “is applying the teaching of utilizing the waste heat from a hydrodynamic brake to supply thermal energy to another working system,” and “[t]his transfer of energy to the corresponding system can be regulated in a number of ways that are known in the art, i.e. control valves, flow rate, size of heat exchangers, materials, etc.” Id. As the Examiner further explains, “excess thermal energy can be regulated to provide the adequate amount of heat 5 Appeal 2016-006747 Application 12/973,583 required by the corresponding consumer device, and the components of the corresponding system can be sized accordingly” so that “[w]hen the energy input of the (Hydrodynamic Retarder) exceeds the amount needed by any consumer, e.g. a Stirling Engine or a Rankine Cycle, one having ordinary skill in the art would vent excess energy such that no damage would be done to the power consumer [e.g., Rankine Cycle].” Id. at 4. Appellants do not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, and, thus, do not identify error. For the reasons above, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Claims 3— 14 and 16—24 fall with claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—14, and 16—24 are AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6