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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a plug flow injection system for establishing plug flow within the tank” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 21-23, 26-28, 30, 31, 34, 35, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer (US 4380993 A), hereinafter Spitzer, in view of Schriefer (US 4073282 A), hereinafter Schriefer.
Regarding claim 21, Spitzer discloses a thermal energy receiving and storage system for concentrated solar power plants comprising:
a tank for receiving a heat transfer fluid, wherein the tank includes a bottom portion and a top portion and wherein the bottom portion includes a basis and wherein the top portion includes an opening (“The solar collector and storage pond shown therein is supported inside a containment structure which comprises sidewalls 5 and bottom 6” column 2, line 37);
an absorber mountable within the tank for establishing and maintaining thermal stratification resulting in a thermocline zone within the tank (“Mounted atop the storage bag 7 is absorber bag 11, which covers the horizontal dimensions of the containment structure and thus covers the entire storage bag. Approximately centrally located at the junction of the lower portion of the absorber bag and the upper portion of the storage bag, or at the center of the interface between the absorber and storage compartments, if this embodiment is chosen, is a combination pump/valve 17, which is adapted to pump solar heated fluid from the absorber bag to the upper level of the storage bag” column 2, line 62); and
a plug flow injection system for establishing plug flow within the tank (“The assembly includes external pump/valve 25 which has its inlet 27 located inside of storage bag 7 near the bottom thereof, and its outlet 29 communicating with the interior of the absorber bag 11” column 3, line 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
347
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Spitzer does not disclose wherein the absorber is an absorbing mesh, the absorbing mesh comprising multiple layers deployed along a vertical axis of the tank between the basis and the opening of the tank, wherein each of the multiple layers of the absorbing mesh has a cell size and cell shape generally equal to a cell size and cell shape of the other layers.
However, Schriefer teaches wherein the absorber is an absorbing mesh, the absorbing mesh comprising multiple layers deployed along a vertical axis of the tank between the basis and the opening of the tank, wherein each of the multiple layers of the absorbing mesh has a cell size and cell shape generally equal to a cell size and cell shape of the other layers (“The fluid then enters a fluid chamber 29 through fluid inlet ports 28. It is in the fluid chamber 29 where the heat transfer occurs. The forced fluid passes through a matrix of slit and expanded sheets 17 where the heat is transferred by convection to the fluid media” column 2, line 45 and “There is a top layer 18, a middle layer 19, and a bottom layer 20. Each layer of slit and expanded sheet 21 has black surfaces on opposite sides to absorb the radiant energy” column 2, line 59).
PNG
media_image3.png
542
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
451
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In view of Schriefer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the mesh as is taught in Schriefer, in the system disclosed by Spitzer because Schriefer states “An object of the invention is to provide an improved solar collector which is highly efficient in that the heat is collected in an improved manner” (column 1, line 48). Therefore, including the mesh of Schriefer will improve heat collection in Spitzer. Furthermore, the substitution of one known element (the absorber of Spitzer) for another (the absorber of Schriefer) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the absorber taught in Schriefer would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for absorbing solar radiation Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claim 22, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the absorbing mesh is located at the top portion of the tank in proximity of the opening (The absorber of Spitzer is located at the top portion of the tank in proximity of the opening and is modified by the teachings of Schriefer to comprise absorbing meshes).
Regarding claim 23, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 22, wherein the absorbing mesh is configured for directing the thermocline zone down towards the bottom portion of the tank (Liquid is drawn from the bottom of the tank and pumped to the top. Therefore, the liquid will move in the direction of the bottom of the tank).
Regarding claim 26, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21.
Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, does not disclose wherein the absorbing mesh has between 5 and 15 layers. However, the court has held that duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) In the present case, including additional layers would result predictably in an increase in absorber area for improved solar energy collection. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide more layers.
Regarding claim 27, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the plug flow injection system includes a pump for pumping cold heat transfer fluid from the bottom portion of the tank to the top portion of the tank above the absorbing mesh (“The assembly includes external pump/valve 25 which has its inlet 27 located inside of storage bag 7 near the bottom thereof, and its outlet 29 communicating with the interior of the absorber bag 11” column 3, line 24).
Regarding claim 28, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 27, wherein the plug flow injection system include one or more hoses extending within the tank, and wherein the hoses include openings, and wherein the cold heat transfer fluid from the bottom portion of the tank is directed out of the openings in the hoses and across the top portion of the tank (“The assembly includes external pump/valve 25 which has its inlet 27 located inside of storage bag 7 near the bottom thereof, and its outlet 29 communicating with the interior of the absorber bag 11” column 3, line 24).
Regarding claim 30, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the tank includes a vertical axis extending between the bottom portion and the top portion and wherein the tank includes a plurality of horizontal cross-sections, each horizontal cross-section extending perpendicular to the vertical axis between the bottom basis and the opening, and wherein the heat transfer fluid has a uniform temperature uniform across each horizontal cross-section when plug flow is established within the tank (“The deflector 23 and the partitions 9 tend to maintain the natural temperature gradient within the storage bag, with the cooler fluid at the bottom. The different levels T.sub.1, T.sub.2, etc. in FIGS. 1 and 2 represent decreasing temperature levels within the storage bag. This preservation of the natural temperature gradient means that the coolest fluid is always drawn from the bottom” column 4, line 59).
Regarding claim 31, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the thermal stratification and the plug flow assist in moving the thermocline zone from the top portion of the tank in proximity of the opening to the bottom portion of the tank in proximity of the basis (Liquid is drawn from the bottom of the tank and pumped to the top. Therefore, the liquid will move in the direction of the bottom of the tank).
Regarding claim 34, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses a method of establishing and maintaining thermal stratification within a concentrated solar power plant heat transfer fluid storage tank, the method comprising:
providing a thermal energy receiving and storage system for concentrated solar power plants according to claim 21, wherein the absorbing mesh is positioned in the top portion of the tank in the proximity of the opening (The absorber of Spitzer is located at the top portion of the tank in proximity of the opening and is modified by the teachings of Schriefer to comprise an absorbing mesh);
directing cold heat transfer fluid from the bottom portion of the tank to the top portion of the tank, wherein directing the cold heat transfer fluid into the top portion of the tank includes injecting the cold heat transfer fluid into a defined area of the tank (“The assembly includes external pump/valve 25 which has its inlet 27 located inside of storage bag 7 near the bottom thereof, and its outlet 29 communicating with the interior of the absorber bag 11” column 3, line 24); and
controlling the amount of cold heat transfer fluid that is injected into the defined area to establish and maintain a plug flow of heat transfer fluid and a thermocline zone in the tank, thereby establishing and maintaining thermal stratification within the tank (“The deflector 23 and the partitions 9 tend to maintain the natural temperature gradient within the storage bag, with the cooler fluid at the bottom. The different levels T.sub.1, T.sub.2, etc. in FIGS. 1 and 2 represent decreasing temperature levels within the storage bag. This preservation of the natural temperature gradient means that the coolest fluid is always drawn from the bottom” column 4, line 59).
Regarding claim 35, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the absorbing mesh moves the thermocline zone toward the bottom portion of the tank (Liquid is drawn from the bottom of the tank and pumped to the top. Therefore, the liquid will move in the direction of the bottom of the tank).
Regarding claim 38, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the defined area includes a circular area having a central axis intermediate the tank opening and the absorbing mesh, and wherein injecting the cold heat transfer fluid into the defined area includes directing the cold heat transfer fluid towards the central axis of the circular area (“the shape of said assembly, as viewed from above is of any convenient form, such as round” claim 12).
Regarding claim 39, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the tank has a vertical axis between the bottom portion and the top portion and horizontal cross-sections extending perpendicular to the vertical axis between the bottom basis and the opening, and wherein the heat transfer fluid has a uniform temperature across each horizontal cross-section after the plug flow is established (“The deflector 23 and the partitions 9 tend to maintain the natural temperature gradient within the storage bag, with the cooler fluid at the bottom. The different levels T.sub.1, T.sub.2, etc. in FIGS. 1 and 2 represent decreasing temperature levels within the storage bag. This preservation of the natural temperature gradient means that the coolest fluid is always drawn from the bottom” column 4, line 59).
Regarding claim 40, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the thermal stratification and the plug flow assist in moving the thermocline zone from the top portion of the tank in proximity of the opening to the bottom portion of the tank in proximity of the basis (Liquid is drawn from the bottom of the tank and pumped to the top. Therefore, the liquid will move in the direction of the bottom of the tank).
Claims 24 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer, in view of Schriefer, and further in view of Grulke (US 20110139147 A1), hereinafter Grulke.
Regarding claim 24, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21.
Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, does not disclose wherein the absorbing mesh is a woven wire mesh made of black anodized stainless steel.
However, Grulke teaches wherein the absorbing mesh is a woven wire mesh made of black anodized stainless steel (“the system of the present invention includes a weave 10 which is typically made of stainless steel, aluminum, copper or the like. The wires of the weave 10 may be "blackened" by, for example, using black anodized aluminum. The weft wires 12 of the weave may move vertically as it moves out and around the warp wires (not shown for clarity)” paragraph [0017]).
PNG
media_image5.png
357
293
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Spitzer, as modified by Dabrundashvili, does not disclose the claimed mesh material. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Grulke teaches black anodized stainless steel is suitable for solar thermal applications. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the mesh of Schriefer from black anodized stainless steel.
Regarding claim 36, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the method of claim 34.
Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, does not disclose wherein the absorbing mesh is a woven wire mesh made of black anodized stainless steel.
However, Grulke teaches wherein the absorbing mesh is a woven wire mesh made of black anodized stainless steel (“the system of the present invention includes a weave 10 which is typically made of stainless steel, aluminum, copper or the like. The wires of the weave 10 may be "blackened" by, for example, using black anodized aluminum. The weft wires 12 of the weave may move vertically as it moves out and around the warp wires (not shown for clarity)” paragraph [0017]).
Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, does not disclose the claimed mesh material. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Grulke teaches black anodized stainless steel is suitable for solar thermal applications. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the mesh of Schriefer from black anodized stainless steel.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer, in view of Schriefer, and further in view of Myers (US 3411163 A), hereinafter Myers.
Regarding claim 29, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 28, wherein the one or more hoses include a cylindrical hose positioned intermediate the opening in the tank and the absorbing mesh (“The assembly includes external pump/valve 25 which has its inlet 27 located inside of storage bag 7 near the bottom thereof, and its outlet 29 communicating with the interior of the absorber bag 11” column 3, line 24).
Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, does not disclose wherein the cylindrical hose defines a circle having a central axis, and wherein the cylindrical hose includes openings for directing cold heat transfer fluid inwardly in the direction of the central axis to establish plug flow within the tank.
However, Myers teaches wherein the cylindrical hose defines a central axis, and wherein the cylindrical hose includes openings for directing cold heat transfer fluid inwardly in the direction of the central axis to establish plug flow within the tank (“Each of the nozzles opens toward the center of the pool” column 2, line 34).
PNG
media_image6.png
248
485
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
245
498
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
218
456
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In view of the teachings of Myers, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the cylindrical hose defines a central axis, and wherein the cylindrical hose includes openings for directing cold heat transfer fluid inwardly in the direction of the central axis to establish plug flow within the tank as is taught in Myers, in the system disclosed by Spitzer because Myers states “I have found that a normal size residential swimming pool can gain about 100,000 B.t.u.s per hour on a typical sunny day during the fall in Southern California” (column 3, line 13). Therefore, directing the flow towards the center across the absorber will improve heat transfer.
The examiner notes that Myers does not teach a circular configuration, however Spitzer discloses “the shape of said assembly, as viewed from above is of any convenient form, such as round” (claim 12). Applying the teachings of Myers to the round embodiment of Spitzer would result in a generally circular hose configuration.
Claims 21, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margen (DE 2657244 A1), in view of Schriefer.
Regarding claim 21, Margen discloses a thermal energy receiving and storage system for concentrated solar power plants comprising:
a tank for receiving a heat transfer fluid, wherein the tank includes a bottom portion and a top portion and wherein the bottom portion includes a basis and wherein the top portion includes an opening (Figures 1 and 2);
an absorber mountable within the tank for establishing and maintaining thermal stratification resulting in a thermocline zone within the tank (“A hole 12 passing through the plate communicates with a pipe or hose 13 which projects vertically into the vicinity of the lower boundary 4 of the cooler layer. A pump 14 connected to the pipe or hose can pump water up to the upper surface of the plate 10. This surface is made to effectively absorb solar rays. You can e.g. B. be painted black. The water runs over the plate, is heated directly by solar radiation and by the heated surface layer on the plate, and flows down to layer 1 through openings 15 in the plate or over the edge of the plate” line 143 and “The reservoir contains two relatively homogeneous warm water layers, namely an upper warmer layer 1 and a lower cooler layer 2” line 108. All citations from the machine translation appended to the foreign reference); and
a plug flow injection system for establishing plug flow within the tank (13, 14, etc.).
PNG
media_image9.png
736
539
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
663
500
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Margen does not disclose wherein the absorber is an absorbing mesh, wherein each of the multiple layers of the absorbing mesh has a cell size and cell shape generally equal to a cell size and cell shape of the other layers.
However, Schriefer teaches wherein the absorber is an absorbing mesh, wherein each of the multiple layers of the absorbing mesh has a cell size and cell shape generally equal to a cell size and cell shape of the other layers (“The fluid then enters a fluid chamber 29 through fluid inlet ports 28. It is in the fluid chamber 29 where the heat transfer occurs. The forced fluid passes through a matrix of slit and expanded sheets 17 where the heat is transferred by convection to the fluid media” column 2, line 45 and “There is a top layer 18, a middle layer 19, and a bottom layer 20. Each layer of slit and expanded sheet 21 has black surfaces on opposite sides to absorb the radiant energy” column 2, line 59).
In view of Schriefer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the mesh as is taught in Schriefer, in the system disclosed by Spitzer because Schriefer states “An object of the invention is to provide an improved solar collector which is highly efficient in that the heat is collected in an improved manner” (column 1, line 48). Therefore, including the mesh of Schriefer will improve heat collection in Spitzer. Furthermore, the substitution of one known element (the absorber of Spitzer) for another (the absorber of Schriefer) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the absorber taught in Schriefer would have yielded predictable results, namely, means for absorbing solar radiation Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Regarding claims 32, Margen, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein the system is devoid of divider plates (Margen does not disclose divider plates).
Regarding claims 33, Margen, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21, wherein thermal stratification resulting in the thermocline zone is achieved without using divider plates (Margen does not disclose divider plates).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzer, in view of Schriefer, and further in view of Yogev (US 4408459 A), hereinafter Yogev.
Regarding claim 41, Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, discloses the system of claim 21.
Spitzer, as modified by Schriefer, does not disclose wherein the heat transfer fluid is molten salt.
However, Yogev teaches wherein the heat transfer fluid is molten salt (“wherein the heat storage liquid is a molten salt hydrate” claim 21).
PNG
media_image11.png
353
593
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Spitzer does not disclose molten salt. However, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this regard, it is noted that Yogev teaches molten salt. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use molten salt as the heat transfer fluid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tate (GB 1495563 A)
PNG
media_image12.png
353
503
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Margen (US 4227511 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
319
542
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Nevins (US 4296734 A) “A mesh or screen colored flat black that is lodged between the panes and is coextensive with the corresponding pane area provides an excellent heat sink for the purposes of the invention”
PNG
media_image14.png
526
456
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Ma (CN 2360764 Y) “radiating wire 7 microporous steel mesh black anodized to increase heat dissipation effect”
Barkdoll (US 6503241 B1)
PNG
media_image15.png
421
676
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Litwin (US 20100301062 A1)
PNG
media_image16.png
339
437
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762