Yuanjun GUO

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 2020

2020002915 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2020)

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. 15/323,958 02/16/2017 Yuanjun GUO GBGYJ006-PKG-CTG 6157 98346 7590 08/03/2020 Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC 1540 W. Warm Springs Road Suite 100 Henderson, NV 89014 EXAMINER WERNER, ROBERT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3747 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2020 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): in@bayramoglu-legal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUANJUN GUO Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER BAHR, WILLIAM J. CAPP, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Yuanjun Guo. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a thermal energy power device including gasifying plates located at the top dead center of a cylinder of an internal combustion engine and heat absorbing plates located in an exhaust passage of the internal combustion engine, wherein the heat absorbing plates transfer heat to the gasifying plates. Spec. ¶ 25. The disclosure is also directed to a method of using such an apparatus to operate an internal combustion engine as a six-stroke engine (having two working strokes) rather than as a four-stroke engine (having only one working stroke). Id. ¶¶ 39–41. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A thermal energy power device, comprising one or more gasifying plates provided on a Top Dead Center (TDC) of a cylinder bulk of an internal combustion engine; the one or more gasifying plates being positioned on the TDC of the cylinder bulk with one or more gaps; a plurality of gas holes provided on the one or more gasifying plates; the plurality of gas holes being distributed evenly, in an array, or in a staggered manner on each gasifying plate; wherein an atomizer is provided on a cylinder head above the one or more gasifying plates; a plurality of heat absorbing plates being provided in parallel in a direction of a gas flow of an exhaust passage; the heat absorbing plates absorbing thermal energy from exhaust gas and passing the thermal energy to the one or more gasifying plates. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 3 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1 and 3–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. II. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. OPINION Rejection I–Written Description Claims 1 and 3–8, 10–13 The Examiner finds that independent claims 1 and 6 fail to comply with the written description requirement because they recite “the heat absorbing plates absorbing thermal energy from exhaust gas and passing the thermal energy to the one or more gasifying plates,” and “[t]he original disclosure does not provide any structural means for how thermal energy is passed between the heat absorbing plates and the gasifying plates.” Final Act. 3. Appellant argues that Figure 1 and paragraphs 8, 24, 25, 39, 43, and 47 of the Specification provide support for the requirement in claim 1 that the heat absorbing plates absorb thermal energy from the exhaust gas. Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant argues that Figure 1 and paragraphs 25, 38, 42–44, 47, and 48 of the Specification support the requirement that the heat absorbing plates pass thermal energy to the one or more gasifying plates. Id. at 15. Appellant argues that heat absorbing plates 26 are disclosed as within the exhaust passage 7 (which, Appellant states, is located within cylinder block 1), and, as they are disclosed as absorbing heat, are inherently thermally conductive. Id. at 14 (citing Fig. 1, Spec. ¶¶ 8, 25, 43, 47). Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 4 Appellant further argues that gasifying plates 19 and cylinder block 12 are thermally conductive and are physically coupled to each other. Id. at 15 (citing Fig. 1, Spec. ¶¶ 38, 47, 48). Thus, according to Appellant, gasifying plates 19 and heat absorbing plates 26 are thermally coupled to each other via cylinder block 1. Appellant asserts that the working stroke made possible by the claimed invention reduces the temperature of the cylinder block. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 44 (43)3). Appellant asserts that the Specification discloses that the temperature difference resulting from this reduction in temperature of cylinder block 1 allows heat transfer from heat absorbing plates 26 to gasification plates 19 via cylinder block 1. Id. (citing Specification ¶ 42 (¶ 41)). 2 Paragraph 47 states, “An upper portion of cylinder [block] 1 is provided with cylinder head 24.” Paragraph 48 states, “[t]he internal combustion engine cylinder and the gasifying plates are made of thermally conductive metal material, which has a thermal[] conductivity coefficient more than 300W/m∙K[.] Alloys of gold, silver, and copper are preferred.” 3 Appellant cites paragraph 44 of the Specification, but it appears that, at least in this instance, Appellant’s citation is not based on the paragraph numbering in the Specification and instead is based on the actual number of paragraphs present. In particular, two versions of the Specification were filed with the Application on February 2, 2016, and one of them begins with an added paragraph listing a priority claim to a Chinese application CN2014103140526. The paragraph numbering in this version of the Specification does not account for the addition of this paragraph, and, instead, matches the paragraph numbering in the version of the Specification filed on the same day without the paragraph listing the claim to priority. In instances where it is clear that Appellant’s citation to the Specification is offset by one paragraph, we list the numbered paragraph from the Specification in parenthesis. Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 5 In response, the Examiner notes that Rejection I is not based upon an assertion that the claims recite new matter,4 but instead is based upon the finding that the Application as filed fails to disclose sufficient structure or provide an explanation for how thermal energy is passed from the heat absorbing plates in the exhaust to the gasifying plates. Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, in the disclosed internal combustion engine, “[t]he exhaust gas carries with it some of the waste heat. However, waste heat is also absorbed by the combustion chamber itself, and in the case of Appellant’s claimed invention, waste heat would be absorbed by the gasifying plates themselves.” Id. at 6. Based on this finding, the Examiner concludes, “[i]t would appear to contradict the common understanding of thermodynamics that heat would be conducted from the source of the heat - the combustion chamber, downstream to the exhaust, and then somehow upstream back to the source.” Id. The Examiner addresses Appellant’s contention that the temperature of the cylinder block drops during the added working stroke, stating, “[t]his statement does not provide evidence that somehow the gasifying plates in the combustion chamber are being cooled such that thermal energy from the exhaust can be transferred back upstream.” Id. The Examiner also finds the Specification inadequately discloses that there is thermal conductivity between the heat absorbing plates and the gasifying plates. Id. at 6–8. In reply, Appellant contends that the Specification discloses that the exhaust gases reach a temperature of 900K–1100K and that the temperature 4 The Examiner states, “[w]hile the claim limitation contains amended language, the limitation was essentially present in original claim 1. Therefore this is not a new matter situation.” Ans. 5. Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 6 inside the cylinder during an intake stroke is 340–400K, i.e., cooler than the temperature that was present in the exhaust gases. See Reply Br. 6–7. According to Appellant, this temperature difference allows for heat transfer from heat absorbing plates 26, which are located in the exhaust passage, to gasifying plates 19, which are located in the cylinder. See id. Appellant has the better position. The Background section of the Specification discloses that the temperature of the exhaust stream of a typical combustion engine is in the range of 900–1100K, and the intake stroke temperature is 340K–400K. See Spec. ¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 13. Thus, the Specification discloses that, at certain times during the combustion cycle, the temperature in the cylinder falls below the temperature of the exhaust. The Specification also explains that [in an existing internal combustion engine, a] large amount of thermal energy generated by burning is discharged with the exhaust. The present invention absorbs 45-95% of the high- temperature thermal energy of the exhaust gas by providing the heat absorbing plate in the exhaust passage, so as to provide thermal energy for the gasification of the atomized working medium in the gasification reactor.[5] The thermal energy is utilized effectively. Under the condition that the working of the internal combustion engine is not affected, a working stroke is added. Advantages of the present invention are as below. The added working stroke reduces the temperature of the cylinder bulk. From the disclosure noted above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that thermal energy passes from heat absorbing plates 26 to gasifying plates 19 at a time when the temperature of gasifying plates 19 5 The gasification reactor includes gasification plates 19. See Spec. ¶ 25. Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 7 (which are located inside the cylinder) is below the temperature of heat absorbing plates 26 (which are located inside exhaust passage 7). Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s statement on page 6 of the Answer, Appellant’s claimed invention does not “contradict the common understanding of thermodynamics.” As for whether the Specification adequately discloses how thermal energy may pass from heat absorbing plates 26 to gasifying plates 19, Figure 1 depicts a continuous physical structure connecting these components. Further, the Specification discloses that the cylinder6 and gasifying plates are made of material having a specified thermal conductivity and that alloys of gold, silver, and copper are preferred. See Spec. ¶ 48. From this, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that gasifying plates 19 and heat absorbing plates 26 are thermally coupled. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the original disclosure fails to teach sufficient structure or provide an explanation for how thermal energy is passed from the heat absorbing plates in the exhaust to the gasifying plates. See Ans. 5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, and claims 3–5, 7, 8, and 10–13 depending therefrom, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 6 The Specification uses the word “cylinder” here rather than “cylinder bulk,” “cylinder block,” or “cylinder head.” Thus, it appears that the entire cylinder (not just the cylinder head or cylinder block) comprises such material. Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 8 Claim 9 In addition to rejecting claim 9 on the basis of its dependency from claim 6, the Examiner rejected claim 9 as failing to comply with the written description requirement because “[t]he original disclosure does not provide a definition or examples of what substances are included in the invention’s scope of ‘an organic working medium.’” Final Act. 4. For the reasons discussed below, we do not reach this independent basis for rejecting claim 9 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Rejection II–Indefiniteness Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and recites, in part, “atomizing working medium through the atomizer on the cylinder head, and entering the working medium into a first layer of gasifying plate.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The Examiner determines “[t]he original disclosure does not provide a definition or examples of what substances are included in the scope of ‘a working medium’ such that invention could be performed. Therefore the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined and the claim is indefinite.” Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 9 should be reversed because “the Examiner has erred in stating ‘Claim 9 recites ‘a working medium’’. Nowhere within claim 9 is there a recitation of ‘a working medium.’” Appeal Br. 16. This argument is without merit because the Examiner provides adequate notice as to why claim 9 is rejected as indefinite. Specifically, the Examiner indicates the meaning of the term “working medium” is unclear. The inclusion of the article “a” in the statement of what the Examiner Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 9 determines is unclear, in the context of the rejection on page 4 of the Final Office Action, does not change the substance of the rejection.7 Next, Appellant argues “[r]egarding the phrase ‘working medium’ recited in claim 9, paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0018], [0024], [0042], [0043], [0045] and [0047] in Appellant’s originally filed specification clearly discloses working medium.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant also states that “working mediums are extremely well[-]known in the art,” and, therefore, need not be disclosed in the Specification. Id. In response, the Examiner determines that the term “working medium” is extremely broad, and “Appellant has failed to disclose or eve[n] suggest what working medium would be appropriate for the claimed invention to attain the desired result.” Ans. 9. Further, the Examiner concludes, “the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘working medium’ includes any substance.” Id. at 12. In reply, Appellant reiterates that the Specification discloses a working medium. Reply Br. 7–108 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 10, 18, 24, 42, 43, 45, 47). In this regard, Appellant states, “[s]upport for a working medium being well known is disclosed in paragraphs [0009] and [0010] in Appellant’s originally filed specification. For example, paragraph [0009] states ‘the working medium which enters the cylinder is pure air’. Also, paragraph [0010] states ‘working medium is pure air.’” Id. at 8–9. 7 The rejection is based on the meaning of the words “working medium,” not whether claim 9 should recite any particular article (such as “a” or “the”) before these words. 8 Appellant’s discussion of Rejection II begins on page 9 of the Reply Brief, but Appellant’s statements regarding Rejection I and claim 9 are pertinent to the discussion of the meaning of the term “working medium.” Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 10 Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of Examiner error. To the extent Appellant provides a specific example of the recited working medium, it is set forth as “pure air.” See Reply Br. 8–9. However, claim 9 requires atomizing the working medium through an atomizer. See Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Further, claim 9 requires passing thermal energy through a cylinder and a gasifying plate “such that the atomized working medium is gasified quickly.” Id. It is unclear how these steps may be performed on a gas such as air. Appellant’s citations to various portions of the Specification that use the words “working medium,” coupled with an example of the working medium (pure air) that appears to be incompatible with the processes explicitly recited in claim 1, do not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as indefinite, and, therefore, we sustain this rejection. As the meaning of the recited working medium in dependent claim 9 is unclear, any determination as to whether this element is disclosed in the original Application would be based on speculation, and we do not reach the independent basis for rejecting claim 9 as failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in Rejection I. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed-in-part. DECISION SUMMARY Appeal 2020-002915 Application 15/323,958 11 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–13 112(a) Written Description 1, 3–8, 10– 13 9 112(b) Indefiniteness 9 Overall Outcome 9 1, 3–8, 10– 13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART