DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the reply dated 11/11/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-67, 69-84, and 86-93 are canceled,
Claim 68 is amended,
Claims 94-110 are new,
Claims 68, 85, and 94-110 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 68, 96-97, and 100-109 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roethlinger (German Patent Publication DE202009003038U1, previously cited) in view of Murphy (U.S. Patent No. 4,761,866).
Regarding claim 68, Roethlinger discloses a PCM-HTF heat exchanger comprising:
an insulated enclosure (1, fig 5, ¶0021) containing a first fin-tube heat exchanger (fig 3, ¶0021) having a first channel and a PCM (phase change material) surrounding said first fin-tube heat exchanger (¶0003);
wherein said first fin-tube heat exchanger has a tube which is formed or
shaped to have a plurality of tube portions interconnected by U-bends configured in a serpentine configuration (fig 3);
wherein said plurality of tube portions respectively have a plurality of fins extending from said plurality of tube portions (fig 3);
wherein at least two adjacent tube portions of said plurality of tube portions are connected by at least one of said plurality of fins (fig 3):
wherein said plurality of tube portions has spaces between adjacent tube portions of said plurality of tube portions (fig 3);
wherein said spaces are filled by said PCM (Fig 3);
wherein said U-bends are surrounded by said PCM (fig 3);
wherein the first channel is configured to carry a first heat transfer (¶0014-0015).
However, Roethlinger does not explicitly disclose wherein said U-bends have U-bend return ends free of fins. Murphy, however, discloses a heat exchanger wherein U-bends have U-bend return ends (18) free of fins (fig 3). Murphy teaches that this allows the for the return ends to be optimally brazed thus improving the reliability of the tubes (col 6, lines 27-66). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Roethlinger to provide the finless return ends of Murphy in order to improve the reliability of the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 96, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses a second fin-tube
heat exchanger (fig 4) having a second channel configured to carry a second heat transfer fluid (¶0016-0017) and the PCM surrounding said second fin-tube heat exchanger (fig 4).
Regarding claim 97, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses a plurality of fin-
tube heat exchangers (figs 3 and 4) each having a channel configured to carry a heat transfer fluid and the PCM surrounding said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers.
Regarding claim 98, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses a plurality of fin- tube heat exchangers (figs 3 and 4) each having a channel configured to carry a heat transfer fluid and the PCM surrounding said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers, and
wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers are configured adjacent to one another so as to form a plurality of layers (fig 1).
Regarding claim 99, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers have an interconnected channel (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 100, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Roethlinger does not explicitly disclose wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers are configured to receive said heat transfer fluid from a manifold. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that manifolds are old and well known in the art heat exchangers and it would have been obvious for Roethlinger to provide manifolds in order to more uniformly distribute the heat transfer fluid with regards to temperature.
Regarding claim 101, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers (figs 3 and 4) each have a channel configured to carry a heat transfer fluid,
wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers are configured to provide a first heat transfer fluid (for fig 3) to a first channel and a second head transfer fluid (for fig 4) to a second channel, and
wherein said second heat transfer fluid is different from said first head transfer fluid.
Regarding claim 102, the limitation of wherein the PCM is shaped or formed by pressing the PCM when the PCM is in a solid state is considered a product by process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 103, the limitation of wherein the PCM is shaped or formed by stamping the PCM when the PCM is in a solid state is considered a product by process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 104, the limitation of wherein the PCM is shaped or formed by moulding the PCM when the PCM is in a solid state is considered a product by process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 105, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers (figs 3 and 4) are configured to form a network having a branching channel (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 106, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers are configured to form a network of connected channels (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
508
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 107, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers are configured to form a network of crossing channels (see annotated fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
508
626
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 108, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers are configured to form a network of non-crossing channels (channels within the PCM).
Regarding claim 109, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitations. Roethlinger further discloses a plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers each having a channel configured to carry a heat transfer fluid and the PCM surrounding said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers,
wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers has a first fin-tube heat exchanger (fig 3) having a first channel supplying a first service (heat extraction), and
wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers has a second fin-tube heat exchanger (fig 4) having a second channel supplying a second service (heat supply) different than said first service.
Claim 85 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roethlinger and Murphy as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Schroeter et al. (German Patent Publication DE102008034857A1, “Schroeter”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 85, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitation. However, Roethlinger does not explicitly disclose a thermal store which has a control system which controls a flow rate and a circulation path of the heat transfer fluid from a heat source by measuring an external energy input to the heat source, or measuring a temperature of the heat source; and which controls a rate at which e heat transfer fluid is directed to a PCM bank or a plurality of PCM banks. Schroeter, however, discloses a thermal store (fig 2) which has a control system which controls a flow rate and a circulation path of the heat transfer fluid from a heat source by measuring a temperature of the heat source (T1, fig 2); and which controls a rate at which the heat transfer fluid is directed to a PCM bank (13, ¶0032). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention for Roethlinger to provide the thermal store in order to provide optimal temperature of the PCM.
Claim 94 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roethlinger and Murphy as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0208354, “Liu”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 94, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitation. However, Roethlinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the PCM is a PCM composite material having a thermal conductivity enhancing additive. Liu, however, discloses a PCM composite have a thermal conductivity enhancing additive (dimethylsulfoxide, ¶0033). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention for Roethlinger to provide the thermal conductivity enhancing additive in order to enhance the efficiency the heat transfer to the PCM.
Claim 95 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roethlinger and Murphy as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Strauss (U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0044621, previously cited).
Regarding claim 95 the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitation. However, Roethlinger does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of fins extending from said plurality of tube portions forms a honeycomb of fins and the PCM fills the honeycomb of fins. Strauss, however, discloses provide fins (fig 43) which forms a honeycomb of fins and the PCM fills the honeycomb of fins (¶0138). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention for Roethlinger to provide the honeycomb shape in order to improve the strength and thus reliability of the heat exchanger (see ¶0010 of Liu).
Claim 110 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roethlinger and Murphy as applied to claim 68 above, and further in view of Christ et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0175609, “Christ”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 110, the combination of Roethlinger and Murphy discloses all previous claim limitation. Roethlinger further wherein said plurality of fin-tube heat exchangers has a first fin-tube heat exchanger,
wherein the PCM forms a PCM layer adjacent to said first fin-tube heat exchanger,
wherein said PCM layer has a thickness of PCM (fig 3), and
However, Roethlinger does not explicitly disclose wherein said thickness of PCM reduces in the direction of flow of the first heat transfer fluid.
Christ, however, discloses wherein a thickness of PCM reduces in the direction of flow of the first heat transfer fluid (see annotated fig 4 below). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention for Roethlinger to provide the fin shape (and thus thicknesses of PCM) in order to enhance the efficiency of the heat exchange to the PCM.
PNG
media_image5.png
610
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 7-10) that Roethlinger does not teach the U-bend with return ends free of fins. However, newly cited Murphy is now being relied upon to teach this limitation.
Conclusion
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 HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571)270-7740. 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763