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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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. device for charging and discharging the heat storage reservoir in at least claim 20.
b. a gas retention device in at least claim 28.
c. volume changing device in at least claim 31.
d. device for mechanical volume change in at least claim 34.
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.
a. device for charging and discharging the heat storage reservoir is interpreted to cover a charging pump and a discharge pump as per para [0069] of applicant specification.
b. a gas retention device is interpreted to cover a plate as per para [0076] of applicant specification.
c-d. volume changing device is interpreted as being the same structure as the device for mechanical volume change; wherein said structure is at least one of a blower, compressor, turbine, and compactor as per para [0040] of applicant specification.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 20-21, 28-31, and 33-36 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 calls for the limitation “a device for charging and discharging the heat storage reservoir, which is connected to the cold region and the hot region” in lines 7-8; which limitation is indefinite as it is unclear which previously recited limitation the term “which is” is referring to. Is it the (i) the device for charging and discharging that is connected to the cold region and the hot region? Or (ii) the heat storage reservoir that is connected to the cold region and the hot region? It uncertain.
To overcome this issue, applicant is encouraged to recite “a device for charging and discharging the heat storage reservoir, said device connected to the cold region and the hot region”.
A similar issue is found in claim 28 with the recitation “which retains” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 21, 28-31, and 33-36 is/are indefinite for their dependency on an indefinite base claim.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20, 30-31, and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wortmann (US 20110271953 A1).
Regarding claim 20:
Wortmann (Figure 4) discloses a heat storage device for sensible heat storage in molten salts, comprising:
a heat storage reservoir (1) for receiving molten salt (3) (Paragraph 40), where a separating layer (53) is arranged in the heat storage reservoir for separating a cold region in which cold molten salt is arranged (Figure 6 and Paragraph 115: Defined by a lower region 51) and a hot region in which hot molten salt is arranged (Figure 6 and Paragraph 115: Defined by an upper 49), where the cold region is arranged below the hot region (Figure 6 and Paragraph 115),
a device for charging and discharging the heat storage reservoir (Figure 4: Including at least 29 and associated valves), which is connected to the cold region and the hot region (Figure 4), and
a volume compensation device (Figure 4: Including at least 21, 23, 25) for compensating for a temperature-related volume change of the molten salt (Figures 4 and 8, see also Paragraph 64), where the volume compensation device comprises:
a compensation reservoir (21) comprising a gas conduit (one of #23 and #27) coupled to the heat storage reservoir (Figure 4 & [0106]: #23 carries gases and therefore qualifies as a gas conduit. #23 is structurally, fluidically, and thermally coupled to the heat storage reservoir#1. Also, #27 qualifies as a gas conduit because due its hollow profile, it can conduct gas. #27 is structurally, fluidically, and thermally coupled to the heat storage reservoir#1), an inlet valve (Figure 4: See valve associated with 23), and an outlet valve (Figure 4: See valve associated with 25),
a compensation fluid ([0106]: A gas, such as nitrogen) disposed in the compensation reservoir (Figure 4 and Paragraph 106), where the compensation device is configured to cooperate with the cold region and/or the separating region (Figures 4 and 8, see also Paragraph 64), during charging and discharging of the heat storage reservoir, the compensation fluid is a gas (Paragraph 106: A gas, such as nitrogen), which can be introduced into the cold region and/or the separating layer for volume compensation (Figures 4 and 8, see also Paragraph 64: Connected to the cold region via 27).
To enhance clarity, when charging and discharging of the heat storage reservoir #1, the compensation fluid is capable of being introduced into the cold region. With appropriate tools provided, an ordinary skill artisan can couple gas conduit #23 to the inlet of reservoir #1 that receives #27.
Regarding claim 30:
Wortmann further discloses wherein the outlet valve of the compensation reservoir is a pressure relief valve having a connection to the atmosphere (Figure 4: Via 25), where the gas can be transferred to the atmosphere in the event of temperature-related expansion of the molten salt (Paragraph 107).
Regarding claim 31:
Wortmann further discloses wherein a volume changing device (23) is arranged on the compensation reservoir for changing the volume of the gas (Paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 33:
Wortmann further discloses wherein the volume changing device has a thermal energy storage on the compensation reservoir by means of which the gas can be heated or cooled (Figures 4 and 8, see also Paragraph 118: The compensation reservoir has a gas side above 69 and a thermal energy storage side below 69, the sides being in thermal contact with each other).
Regarding claim 34:
Wortmann further discloses wherein the volume changing device has a device for mechanical
volume change of the gas (Paragraphs 106-107: Defined by 23, 25).
Regarding claim 35:
Wortmann further discloses wherein the compensation reservoir has a variable volume (Paragraphs
106-107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wortmann (US 20110271953 A1).
Regarding claim 21:
Wortmann further discloses wherein the compensation reservoir is connected to the cold region to a riser (Figures 4 and 6, see also Paragraph 115: pipe from #21 to #27 is a riser connecting #21 and #1).
Wortmann does not disclose wherein a valve is used for said connection.
Nonetheless, the usage of flow control valve is well known in the art (official notice).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Wortmann with a valve used for the connection.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have selectively regulate flow over the riser; thereby, optimizing flow control of the thermal storage material.
Regarding claim 28:
Although Wortmann discloses wherein the compensation reservoir defines a gas retention device,
Wortmann does not disclose wherein the gas retention device as arranged in the heat storage reservoir.
Wortmann (Figure 9 embodiment) teaches a heat storage device, comprising at least a heat storage reservoir (Figure 9 and Paragraph 119), wherein a gas retention device (i.e. a compensation reservoir) (Figure 9: Defined by container including at least 69) is arranged in the heat storage reservoir (Figure 9 and Paragraph 119: The heat storage device and the gas retention device are integrated into a single
structure), which retains the gas in a predetermined section (Figure 9: See section bounded by 69 and 73 in communication with 23) in the heat storage reservoir after it has been introduced into a cold region (Figure 9 and Paragraph 119: See section bounded to the left of 73 that includes at least 69, 71, 83) or into the separating layer (Figure 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Wortmann with the gas retention device as arranged in the heat storage reservoir in a similar manner as further taught by Wortmann.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have reduce heat storage
device complexity at least by reducing an overall number of components necessary to
manufacture the heat storage device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Wortmann to provide a gas retention device formed as a plate having a side edge projecting downwardly, wherein a diffuser is arranged at the edge region of the gas retention device to stabilize the stratification in the molten salt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant submitted that claim 20 recites a compensation reservoir comprising a gas conduit coupled to the heat storage reservoir; which does not appear to be disclosed by Wortmann.
It was pointed out to the applicant that Wortmann discloses a compensation reservoir (21) comprising a gas conduit (one of #23 and #27) coupled to the heat storage reservoir (Figure 4 & [0106]: #23 carries gases and therefore qualifies as a gas conduit. #23 is structurally, fluidically, and thermally coupled to the heat storage reservoir#1. Also, #27 qualifies as a gas conduit because due its hollow profile, it can conduct gas. #27 is structurally, fluidically, and thermally coupled to the heat storage reservoir#1), an inlet valve (Figure 4: See valve associated with 23), and an outlet valve (Figure 4: See valve associated with 25), a compensation fluid ([0106]: A gas, such as nitrogen) disposed in the compensation reservoir (Figure 4 and Paragraph 106), where the compensation device is configured to cooperate with the cold region and/or the separating region (Figures 4 and 8, see also Paragraph 64), during charging and discharging of the heat storage reservoir, the compensation fluid is a gas (Paragraph 106: A gas, such as nitrogen), which can be introduced into the cold region and/or the separating layer for volume compensation (Figures 4 and 8, see also Paragraph 64: Connected to the cold region via 27).
For further clarification, when charging and discharging of the heat storage reservoir #1, the compensation fluid is capable of being introduced into the cold region. With appropriate tools provided, an ordinary skill artisan can couple gas conduit #23 to the inlet of reservoir #1 that receives #27.
Accordingly, Wortmann discloses all the features of claim 20.
With respect to claim 21, It was pointed out to the applicant that the usage of flow control valves is well known in the art (official notice). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the apparatus of Wortmann with a valve used on the riser; with the benefit of selectively regulating flow over the riser; thereby, optimizing flow control of the thermal storage material.
Refer to the 102 and 103 sections above for the complete rejections of all pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whitney (US 20190170449 A1).
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 LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 PM.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights