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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 9/19/2024.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 10/31/2025 are as follows:
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 17 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claim 18 is newly added;
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12-16, and 18 are pending;
Claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 12-16, and 18 are being examined.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nies (US11460144B2, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Nies teaches a system (1) for heat storage (The italicized portion is intended use of the system, wherein the interior space 14 of the pipe can store heat. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II) ), the system consisting of (With respect to the “consisting of” limitation, Figure 1 of Nies only illustrates the recited limitations below, and thus satisfies the “consisting of” limitation):
a plurality of thermal insulation layers (8, 9, 10, 11) adapted to retain heat (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 12-39);
a glass reflector (2), or a paper inserted between each of the plurality of thermal insulation layers adapted to reduce radiative heat loss (Figure 1; Column 9 lines 29-38 teaches using a coated or uncoated glass fabric film as the carrier layer, which is considered a “glass reflector”. The carrier layer 2 is located between each layer of insulation);
an insulated lid to cover the system for heat storage (Figure 1; The insulation is on top, thus forming an insulated lid. Additionally, or alternatively, Nies teaches placing the insulation on a container and also forming the insulation as a flat surface, see Column 14 lines 15-65. The flat surface is considered an insulated lid); and
a heat resistant and a thermal insulation paint coated on an outer side of the system for heat storage, wherein the heat resistant and a thermal insulation paint is adapted to minimize the radiative heat loss (Figure 1; Column 9 lines 37-38 teaches applying a silicone-based lacquer and metal flakes to the outer surface, wherein the lacquer is considered a heat resistant and thermal insulation paint. No specific quantitative measurement is given to determine “to minimize the radiative heat loss”, and as such, the mere presence of a coating will satisfy the limitation since the coating will create an additional barrier for radiative heat loss), and
wherein the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises a fiberglass, super wool, a ceramic fiber, a polycrystalline fiber, or a combination thereof (Figure 1; Column 4 lines 26-39 and Column 9 lines 28-49 teaches using “glass needle mat”, which is interpreted as fiberglass; using “silicon dioxide mat”, which is interpreted as a ceramic fiber; and using “glass wool” or “rock wool”, which is interpreted as “super wool”), and
wherein the plurality of thermal insulation layers are configured to be arranged based on quality of heat storage required (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, and Column 10 lines 48-63 teach layering different grades of insulation from the inner to outer edges to better control thermal heat transfer);
wherein the plurality of thermal insulation layers are further configured to be arranged in a configuration based on their thermal and physical properties (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, and Column 10 lines 48-63 teach layering different grades of insulation from the inner to outer edges to better control thermal heat transfer. All insulation has thermal and physical properties. The claim makes no distinction for the different grades),
wherein for low heat retention requirement: the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises thermal insulation layers of a grade 3 insulation material, for medium heat retention requirement: the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises an innermost layer of a grade 2 insulation material, an intermediate layer of a grade 2 insulation material, and an outermost layer of a grade 3 insulation material, and for high heat retention requirement: the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises an innermost layer of a grade 1 insulation material, an intermediate layer of a grade 2 insulation material, and an outermost layer of a grade 3 insulation material, and wherein thermal conductivity of the grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 insulation materials is in an order of grade 1>grade 2>grade 3 (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, and Column 10 lines 48-63 teach layering different grades of insulation from the inner to outer edges to better control thermal heat transfer).
Re Claim 2. Nies teaches the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises the same or different material (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 12-54, and Column 10 lines 48-63).
Re Claim 5. Nies teaches the system (Figure 1) is configured for modular applications, wherein the modular applications comprise cooking, water heating, or power generation (The italicized portion is intended use of the system. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP2114(II)).
Re Claim 8. Nies teaches the system is rechargeable, and portable (Figure 1; Column 14 lines 15-65 teaches using the insulation on a container, which is considered portable. The heat source would be rechargeable in order to release heat again. Additionally, the system is considered portable based on the built size).
Re Claim 12. Nies teaches the thermal and physical properties comprise density, operating temperature limits, thermal conductance, thermal conductivity, emissivity and thermal transmittance (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, and Column 10 lines 48-63 teach layering different grades of insulation from the inner to outer edges to better control thermal heat transfer. All insulation has thermal and physical properties).
Re Claim 13. Nies teaches the grade 1 insulation material is configured to retain heat in a temperature range of 350°C - 1000°C, the grade 2 insulation material is configured to retain heat in a temperature range of 150°C - 350°C and the grade 3 insulation material is configured to retain heat at a temperature up to 150°C (Figures 1-2, wherein Figure 2 illustrates all three grades of insulation temperature ranges as indicated by M1, M2, M3, M4; Column 4 lines 45-54, Column 11 lines 4-13).
Re Claim 14. Nies teaches the grade 1 insulation material is calcium silicate, glass cellular high temperature, glass fiber, mineral fiber, perlite, ceramic fiber, or high temperature mineral wool, wherein the grade 1 insulation material has a thermal conductivity in a range of 0.083-0.15 Watt/meter K, and wherein the grade 1 insulation material has a density in a range of 64-190 Kg/m3 (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, Column 9 lines 29-56, and Column 10 lines 48-63; The alkaline earth silicate wool and rock wool has a thermal conductivity and density within the cited ranges).
Re Claim 15. Nies teaches the grade 2 insulation material is calcium silicate, glass cellular, glass fiber, mineral fiber, perlite, elastomeric foam, polystyrene, polyurethane, polyethylene, or polyisocyanurate, wherein the grade 2 insulation material has a thermal conductivity in a range of 0.027-0.076 (Watt/meterK), and wherein the grade 2 insulation material has a density in a range of 15-200 Kg/m3 (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, Column 9 lines 29-56, and Column 10 lines 48-63; The SiO2 mat has a thermal conductivity of approximately 0.04W/mK and a density of approximately 120-200 kg/m3, which is within the cited ranges).
Re Claim 16. Nies teaches the grade 3 insulation material is glass fiber, polystyrene, glass cellular, elastomeric foam, polyurethane, or polyisocyanurate, wherein the grade 3 insulation material has a thermal conductivity in a range of 0.025-0.035 (Watt/meter0K), and wherein the grade 3 insulation material has a density in a range of 24-50 Kg/m3 (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, Column 9 lines 29-56, and Column 10 lines 48-63Nies teaches the use of fiberglass insulation, which is known to have the desired thermal conductivity and density as recited).
Re Claim 18. Nies teaches wherein a total thickness of the plurality of thermal insulation layers is optimized based on a critical thickness calculation derived from thermal conductivities of insulation materials and an external convection heat transfer coefficient (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 31-42, Column 4 lines 26-54, and Column 10 lines 48-63; The insulation layers of Nies have a thickness, thereby satisfying the claim limitations. No specific formula or thickness dimension is positively recited in the claim).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant generally argues on pages 8-11 of the reply that Nies fails to teach “wherein the plurality of thermal insulation layers are further configured to be arranged in a configuration based on their thermal and physical properties, wherein for low heat retention requirement: the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises thermal insulation layers of a grade 3 insulation material, for medium heat retention requirement: the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises an innermost layer of a grade 2 insulation material, an intermediate layer of a grade 2 insulation material, and an outermost layer of a grade 3 insulation material, and for high heat retention requirement: the plurality of thermal insulation layers comprises an innermost layer of a grade 1 insulation material, an intermediate layer of a grade 2 insulation material, and an outermost layer of a grade 3 insulation material, and wherein thermal conductivity of the grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 insulation materials is in an order of grade 1>grade 2>grade 3” . Nies teaches in column 10 lines 48-63 layering different grades of insulation from the inner to outer edges to better control thermal heat transfer. Specifically, Nies teaches “A high-temperature insulation according to the invention is preferred (preferably as referred to above as preferred), wherein the thermal conductivity of the individual insulating layers decreases radially from the outside inwards in comparison to one another”. Thus, Nies teaches multiple insulation layers with decreasing thermal conductivities, thereby satisfying the claim limitation of “grade 1>grade 2>grade 3”. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763