DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Horster and Leifer 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.
Applicant’s argument that the present invention requires fewer parts is not substantiated by the language of the claims. The claims rely on open ended and inclusive language “comprising” thereby failing to exclude additional parts.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fewer parts) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the use of the device to cool distinguishes over the prior art, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s arguments that the claimed selective surfaces yield unpredictable results, Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, applicant has presented no evidence supporting any unexpected results. Instant specification page 2 admits that selective surfaces are known in the art and that the results are known and predictable. Esposito et al. US20230349595, Bystrome US10181815, and Yang US20190086164 (discussed below) teach various selective surfaces and the corresponding predictable results such surfaces produce.
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, wherein one of the heat exchangers directly exchanges heat energy with the thermal energy storage as required by claim 39 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 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 recites “wherein a selective surface is a surface with substantially different radiant properties in a visible light range from a long infrared range”. This appears to be a typographical error, intended to read “the selective surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites “a surface with substantially different radiant properties in a visible light range from a long infrared range”
The term “substantially different” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially different” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Instant specification is silent to the phrase “substantially different”. MPEP 2173.05(b)
Claim 24 recites “wherein one of the positions is for substantially cooling the enclosure”.
The term “substantially cooling” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially cooling” is not defined by the claim, instant specification is silent as to the phrase “substantially cooling”.
In the present instance, applicant has combined functional language with relative terminology and failed to provide appropriate guidance as to what would be considered “substantially cooling”.
MPEP 2173.05(g):
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234, 55 USPQ 381 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior").
In both of the above cases, examiner considers the prosecution history. Applicant has amended the claims to include relative terms in order to overcome the prior art. However, the specification, nor the claims, nor the prosecution history provide clear guidance as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would determine what would encompass the scope of “substantially different radiant properties” or “substantially cooling”.
Claims 25-43 are indefinite at least by virtue of dependency.
Claim 32 recites “without being substantially reflected or absorbed by the plate”. The term “substantially” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Instant specification is silent to the phrase “without being substantially reflected or absorbed by the plate”. MPEP 2173.05(b). Further, the limitation is a negative limitation broadened by amendment.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the enclosure is substantially cooled at night”. The term “substantially cooled” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially cooled” is not defined by the claim, instant specification is silent as to the phrase “substantially cooling”.
In the present instance, applicant has combined functional language with relative terminology and failed to provide appropriate guidance as to what would be considered “substantially cooled”.
MPEP 2173.05(g):
Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234, 55 USPQ 381 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior").
Claim 40 recites “the selective surface of the bottom cover is highly reflective to solar irradiation, and highly absorptive and emissive to infrared radiation.” Solar irradiation spans many wavelengths of light including infrared wavelengths. The claim requires a surface which is both highly reflective and highly absorptive to infrared wavelengths. The claim contradicts itself. This contradiction renders the claim indefinite. Instant specification fails to provide guidance as to what surfaces would meet the claimed limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 34, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595.
Regarding claim 24, Walker US3048375 discloses a selective surface for the use of moving net heat energy into and/or out of an enclosure in a desirable direction;
the surface comprising a top side or cover which substantially faces the sky, and a bottom side or cover which faces the enclosure (Fig. 3, frame 12, enclosure corresponding to B),
wherein between the top and the bottom sides or covers comprises a chamber and within the chamber is a moveable plate (seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, plate 11);
the movable plate comprising at least two surfaces (plate 11, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4), with at least one of the surfaces comprising a selective surface (Col. 4 Ln. 11-19);
wherein the movable plate can be moved to at least three positions (Col. 2 Ln. 12-59); wherein one of the positions is for substantially cooling the enclosure (Col. 2 Ln. 12-31), and a second position is for directly heating the enclosure (Col. 2 Ln. 32-45).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the selective surface is a surface with substantially different radiant properties in a visible light range from a long infrared range.
Instant specification page 2 admits that selective surfaces are known in the art and that selective surfaces with high absorption in the visible region and low emittance in the infrared are known and preferred for solar thermal applications (page 2, ¶1). Instant specification further admits that selective surfaces that are highly reflective to sunlight and highly emissive to infrared are known and the preferred type for cooling (page 2, ¶2).
Esposito et al. US20230349595 teaches a selective solar absorber coating wherein a complex multi layered structure of films is utilized to provide the desired performance of a solar absorber of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a coating as taught by Esposito since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar absorbers with the known predictable result of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity.
Regarding claim 34, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24, further comprising thermal energy storage (Walker, Fig. 1, tank 24). It is the Examiner’s position that Walker’s tank 24 meet the broadly claimed “thermal energy storage,” as claimed since it is a tank which is capable of storing thermal transfer medium. However, to the extent the Applicant may not agree, an alternative rejection below is provided to claim 34 per Walker in view of Esposito and Leifer.
Claim(s) 24. 34, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Bystrome US10181815.
Regarding claim 24, Walker US3048375 discloses a selective surface for the use of moving net heat energy into and/or out of an enclosure in a desirable direction;
the surface comprising a top side or cover which substantially faces the sky, and a bottom side or cover which faces the enclosure (Fig. 3, frame 12, enclosure corresponding to B),
wherein between the top and the bottom sides or covers comprises a chamber and within the chamber is a moveable plate (seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, plate 11);
the movable plate comprising at least two surfaces (plate 11, Fig. 1 and Fig. 4), with at least one of the surfaces comprising a selective surface (Col. 4 Ln. 11-19);
wherein the movable plate can be moved to at least three positions (Col. 2 Ln. 12-59); wherein one of the positions is for substantially cooling the enclosure (Col. 2 Ln. 12-31), and a second position is for directly heating the enclosure (Col. 2 Ln. 32-45).
Walker does not expressly disclose wherein the selective surface is a surface with substantially different radiant properties in a visible light range from a long infrared range.
Instant specification page 2 admits that selective surfaces are known in the art and that selective surfaces with high absorption in the visible region and low emittance in the infrared are known and preferred for solar thermal applications (page 2, ¶1). Instant specification further admits that selective surfaces that are highly reflective to sunlight and highly emissive to infrared are known and the preferred type for cooling (page 2, ¶2).
Bystrome US10181815 teaches a solar collector wherein the reflector element is provided with a selective surface having a high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum range (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device reflector with properties as taught by Bystrome since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar reflectors with the known predictable high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum.
Regarding claim 34, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24, further comprising thermal energy storage (Walker, Fig. 1, tank 24).
It is the Examiner’s position that Walker’s tank 24 meet the broadly claimed “thermal energy storage,” as claimed since it is a tank which is capable of storing thermal transfer medium. However, to the extent the Applicant may not agree, an alternative rejection below is provided to claim 34 per Walker in view of Bystrome and Gilles.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595 and in view of in view of Bystrome US10181815.
Regarding claim 25, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24 wherein at least one of the selective surfaces of the movable plate is a first surface that is highly absorbent to sunlight in a visible wavelength range, and low in emittance in a long wavelength range, and a second surface that is highly emissive.
Instant specification page 2 admits that selective surfaces are known in the art and that selective surfaces with high absorption in the visible region and low emittance in the infrared are known and preferred for solar thermal applications (page 2, ¶1). Instant specification further admits that selective surfaces that are highly reflective to sunlight and highly emissive to infrared are known and the preferred type for cooling (page 2, ¶2).
Esposito et al. US20230349595 teaches a selective solar absorber coating wherein a complex multi layered structure of films is utilized to provide the desired performance of a solar absorber of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a coating as taught by Esposito since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar absorbers with the known predictable result of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity.
Bystrome US10181815 teaches a solar collector wherein the reflector element is provided with a selective surface having a high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum range (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device reflector with properties as taught by Bystrome since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar reflectors with the known predictable high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum.
Regarding claim 26, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24 wherein at least one of the selective surfaces is a first surface that is highly absorptive to sunlight; and the moveable plate further comprising a second surface that is highly reflective to sunlight in a visible wavelength range, and high in emittance in a long wavelength range.
Instant specification page 2 admits that selective surfaces are known in the art and that selective surfaces with high absorption in the visible region and low emittance in the infrared are known and preferred for solar thermal applications (page 2, ¶1). Instant specification further admits that selective surfaces that are highly reflective to sunlight and highly emissive to infrared are known and the preferred type for cooling (page 2, ¶2).
Esposito et al. US20230349595 teaches a selective solar absorber coating wherein a complex multi layered structure of films is utilized to provide the desired performance of a solar absorber of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a coating as taught by Esposito since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar absorbers with the known predictable result of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity.
Bystrome US10181815 teaches a solar collector wherein the reflector element is provided with a selective surface having a high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum range (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device reflector with properties as taught by Bystrome since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar reflectors with the known predictable high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum.
Regarding claim 27, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24 wherein at least one of the selective surfaces is a first surface that is highly absorbent to sunlight in a visible wavelength range, and low in emittance in a long wavelength range, and at least one of the selective surfaces is a second surface that is highly reflective to sunlight in a visible wavelength range, and high in emittance in a long wavelength range.
Esposito et al. US20230349595 teaches a selective solar absorber coating wherein a complex multi layered structure of films is utilized to provide the desired performance of a solar absorber of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity (¶8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a coating as taught by Esposito since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar absorbers with the known predictable result of high solar absorbance and low thermal emissivity.
Bystrome US10181815 teaches a solar collector wherein the reflector element is provided with a selective surface having a high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum range (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device reflector with properties as taught by Bystrome since doing so amounts to known technique for improving solar reflectors with the known predictable high optical absorbance/emittance in a visible spectrum range and a low optical absorbance/emittance in an infrared spectrum.
Regarding claim 30, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 25, wherein a first position of the at least three positions places the first surface substantially facing the top cover, and the second surface substantially facing the bottom cover, wherein the plate will absorb sunlight as a heat energy, and concurrently emit a substantial majority of a radiant energy emitted from the plate toward the bottom cover, which in turn moves the heat energy directly into the enclosure. The functional limitation is interpreted in light of instant specification to encompass a first surface that is highly absorbent to sunlight in a visible wavelength range, and low in emittance in a long wavelength range, and a second surface that is highly reflective to sunlight in a visible wavelength range, and high in emittance in a long wavelength range. Walker teaches the various positions of the through which surface 11 can be positioned (Walker, Fig. 4) and Esposito and Bystrome teach the corresponding spectral properties of surfaces (see claim 25 above).
Regarding claim 31, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 26 wherein the moveable plate can be moved to a plurality of positions, wherein a second position of the at least three positions places the second surface substantially facing the top cover, and the first surface substantially facing the bottom cover, wherein the plate will reflect sunlight and emit a substantial majority of radiant energy coming from the plate toward the top plate (the particular surface features are addressed above in claim 25, Seen in Fig. 3 of Walker, the plate 11 of walker can be moved into the corresponding position).
Regarding claim 32, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in defined in claim 24, wherein the movable plate is moved to a third position of the at least three positions, wherein the plate is substantially perpendicular to the top and bottom covers; wherein the plate allows a radiant energy to pass between the top and bottom covers without being substantially reflected or absorbed by the plate (Walker, Col. 2 Ln. 54-59); wherein the enclosure is substantially cooled at night (the intended use or functional limitation fails to structurally distinguish over the prior art. The claim limitation fails to establish a nexus between structural elements of the claim and the function of cooling. The claim utilizes broad open-ended terminology “comprising” thus any form of cooling would meet the claims. Examiner asserts that during routing operation of the device the enclosure would be cooled when ambient temperatures are low).
Claim(s) 28 and 29, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Pedersen US4014313.
In the alternative Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Bystrome US10181815, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Pedersen US4014313
Regarding claim 28, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24 wherein the chamber comprises a vacuum or partial vacuum.
Pedersen US4014313 teaches an apparatus for collecting solar energy comprising a chamber containing a plurality panels (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, compartment 20, panels 12) wherein the chamber comprises a vacuum or partial vacuum thereby enhancing energy absorption and/or insulating the building (Col. 6 Ln. 6-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a chamber comprising a vacuum or partial vacuum, as taught by Pederson, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar devices with the known predictable result of enhancing energy absorption and/or insulating the building.
Regarding claim 29, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24 wherein the chamber comprises a gas.
Pedersen US4014313 teaches an apparatus for collecting solar energy comprising a chamber containing a plurality panels (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, compartment 20, panels 12) wherein the chamber comprises a vacuum or partial vacuum thereby enhancing energy absorption and/or insulating the building (Col. 6 Ln. 6-19). A partial vacuum, by definition would contain at least some gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a chamber comprising a vacuum or partial vacuum, as taught by Pederson, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar devices with the known predictable result of enhancing energy absorption and/or insulating the building.
Claim(s) 33, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595 and in view of Bystrome US10181815 and in view of Konstantino et al. US20060288645.
Regarding claim 33, the previously combined references do not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in defined in claim 25, wherein the first surface is comprised of a highly radiantly absorptive surface and an aerogel layer.
Konstantino et al. US20060288645 teaches in the field of selective solar panels (abstract) that aerogel layers have thermal and solar performance characteristics that enhance performance (¶37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with aerogel layers, as taught by Konstantino, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving solar panels with the known predictable result of providing insulation and enhancing performance.
Claim(s) 34, 35, and 36, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Leifer US20090173336.
In the alternative Claim(s) 34, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Bystrome US10181815, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Leifer US20090173336.
Regarding claim 34, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24, further comprising a storage tank (Walker, tank 24).
Walker, as modified above, doesn’t explicitly state that the storage tank 24 is a thermal energy storage system which stores collected thermal energy for later use.
Leifer US20090173336 teaches a thermal energy storage system for a building, comprising a solar panel (Fig. 2, panels 56) further comprising a thermal energy storage (abstract, 16, thermal storage 8, Fig. 2) wherein the thermal energy storage comprises phase change materials (¶15). Leifer teaches that such a thermal energy storage system provides the benefit of storing energy for later use (¶9, ¶10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a thermal energy storage system, as taught by Leifer, since doing so would provide the benefit of storing energy.
Regarding claim 35, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in in claim 34, wherein the thermal energy storage further comprises phase change materials.
Leifer US20090173336 teaches a thermal energy storage system for a building, comprising a solar panel (Fig. 2, panels 56) further comprising a thermal energy storage (abstract, 16, thermal storage 8, Fig. 2) wherein the thermal energy storage comprises phase change materials (¶15). Leifer teaches that such a thermal energy storage system provides the benefit of storing energy for later use (¶9, ¶10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a thermal energy storage system, as taught by Leifer, since doing so would provide the benefit of storing energy.
Regarding claim 36, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 34, wherein the thermal energy storage is within the enclosure.
Leifer US20090173336 teaches a thermal energy storage system for a building, comprising a solar panel (Fig. 2, panels 56) further comprising a thermal energy storage (abstract, 16, thermal storage 8, Fig. 2) wherein the thermal energy storage comprises phase change materials (¶15), wherein the thermal energy storage is within the building (Leifer, Fig. 2, storage 8 is withing the building). Leifer teaches that such a thermal energy storage system provides the benefit of storing energy for later use (¶9, ¶10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a thermal energy storage system, as taught by Leifer, since doing so would provide the benefit of storing energy.
Claim(s) 34, and 37-39, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Gilles US5678626.
In the alternative Claim(s) 34, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Bystrome US10181815, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Gilles US5678626.
Regarding claim 34, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24, further comprising a storage tank (Walker, tank 24).
Walker, as modified above, doesn’t explicitly state that the storage tank 24 is a thermal energy storage system which stores collected thermal energy for later use.
Gilles US5678626 teaches an air conditioning and thermal energy storage system comprising a storage tank (40, Fig. 1) containing a phase change thermal energy storage material (Col. 4 Ln. 16-20, 4 Fig. 1, 42), a heat pump (corresponding to compressor 12), at least three heat exchangers (44, 28, 70, 22), wherein one of the heat exchangers directly exchanges heat with the thermal energy storage (heat exchanger 44, Fig. 1) and only one pump (pump 64). Gilles’ system provides improved load leveling thereby meeting peak cooling and heating demands (Col. 3 Ln. 9-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a heat pump and thermal energy storage system, as taught by Gilles, since doing so would provide and air conditioning system for meeting peak heating and cooling demands.
Regarding claim 37, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 34, further comprising a heat pump.
Gilles US5678626 teaches an air conditioning and thermal energy storage system comprising a phase change thermal energy storage material (Col. 4 Ln. 16-20, 4 Fig. 1, 42), a heat pump (corresponding to compressor 12), at least three heat exchangers (44, 28, 70, 22), wherein one of the heat exchangers directly exchanges heat with the thermal energy storage (heat exchanger 44, Fig. 1) and only one pump (pump 64). Gilles’ system provides improved load leveling thereby meeting peak cooling and heating demands (Col. 3 Ln. 9-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a heat pump and thermal energy storage system, as taught by Gilles, since doing so would provide and air conditioning system for meeting peak heating and cooling demands.
Regarding claim 38, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 37, wherein the heat pump comprises only one pump, wherein the pump pumps fluid through and three heat exchangers (Gilles, Fig. 1, pump 64).
Regarding claim 39, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined in claim 38, wherein one of the heat exchangers directly exchanges heat energy with the thermal energy storage (Gilles, Fig. 1, heat exchanger 44 and storage material 42).
Claim(s) 40, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Yang US20190086164.
In the alternative Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Bystrome US10181815, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Yang US20190086164.
Regarding claim 40, as best understood, Walker does not expressly disclose the device of claim 24, wherein the bottom cover comprises a selective surface for the use of cooling where the selective surface of the bottom cover is highly reflective to solar irradiation, and highly absorptive and emissive to infrared radiation.
Yang US20190086164 teaches spectrally selective coating for use in the with solar collectors, windows, roofs, and other objects (¶8) comprising a layer which reflects solar radiation and emits infrared radiation (¶24) and provides the known predictable result reduced absorption of incident solar radiation (¶28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a selective coating as taught by Yang since doing amounts to a known technique for improving light transmissive windows with the known predictable result of reduced absorption of incident solar radiation
Regarding the limitation “for the use of cooling”, the intended use or functional limitation fails to structurally distinguish over the prior art. The claim limitation fails to establish a nexus between structural elements of the claim and the function of cooling. The claim utilizes broad open-ended terminology “comprising” thus any form of cooling would meet the claims. Examiner asserts that during routing operation of the device the enclosure would be cooled.
As discussed above the limitation “where the selective surface of the bottom cover is highly reflective to solar irradiation, and highly absorptive and emissive to infrared radiation” contradicts itself and its scope could not be reasonably determined by the examiner.
Claim(s) 41-43, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Esposito et al. US20230349595, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Field et al. US20120227926.
In the alternative Claim(s) 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker US3048375 in view of Bystrome US10181815, as applied to claim 24 above, and in view of Field et al. US20120227926.
Regarding claim 41, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24, wherein the top cover comprises one or more transparent PV cells.
Field et al. US20120227926 teaches that in the field of solar thermal panels, transparent solar PV material is a known replacement for any cover glass employed (¶310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with transparent solar PV material as taught by Field, since doing so amounts to a known technique for improving similar devices with the known predictable result of providing electricity.
US4284069 in view of Pardo US4461277.
Regarding claim 42, Walker does not expressly disclose the insulated selective surface defined in claim 24 further comprising a temperature sensor and a control system for the use of moving the movable plate to change the heat energy transferring into or out of the enclosure.
Pardo US4461277 teaches a rotatable solar collector (abstract) comprising a temperature sensor and a control system wherein the control system automatically rotates the collector in response to a preselected temperature (Col. 6 Ln. 3-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the prior art device with a sensor and control system as taught by Pardo, since doing so amounts to a known technique for controlling similar devices with the known predictable result of automatically moving the collector in response to temperature.
Regarding claim 43, the previously combined references teach the insulated selective surface defined claim 42, wherein the control system moves the plate in response to determining a temperature has exceeded a temperature threshold (Pardo, Col. 6 Ln. 3-24, see above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deepak Deean whose telephone number is (571)270-3347. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/DEEPAK A DEEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762