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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iidia et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0216027) in view of Satake et al. (English machine translation of JP 2010267912A).
Iidia et al. teaches a heat storage device comprising a refrigerant circuit with a refrigerant pipe cooled by circulating refrigerant in a cooling device (refrigeration cycle apparatus) (Fig. 8 and [0187]). Iidia et al. teaches the device comprising a heat collection part that absorbs heat (heat absorber) comprising an alloy with a eutectic temperature of about 800-1000 °C ([0145-[0146], Tables 5-6, and [0162]).
Iidia et al. does not teach with sufficient specificity the claimed range of 1000 °C or greater. However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Iidia et al. is silent as to the heat capacity of the heat absorber. However, Satake et al. teaches a heat storage device having a heat capacity of 50 J/K or more ([0035]). Iidia et al. and Satake et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely heat storage devices. At the time of the invention a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Iidia et al. to have the heat capacity of Satake et al. and would have been motivated to do so mitigate the temperature rise thus having the capability of storing additional heat without raising the temperature above a desired temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are not persuasive because the data cited by Applicant (Table 1 of the original specification) is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention (MPEP 716.02(d)). The data cited utilizes one single refrigerant and a single heat absorbing material with one shape (mesh).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER F GODENSCHWAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3302. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00, M-F EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/PETER F GODENSCHWAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 March 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights