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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/2025 has been entered.
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: turbulizing element
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.
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 § 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.
1-5, 7-8, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luka (EP2455696A2) in view of Zortea (EP2481991A2).
Regarding claim 1, Luka teaches a stratified storage tank (see Fig. 1) for a heat transfer fluid for a heating and/or cooling system, the stratified storage tank comprising: at least one connection chamber (see top layer 3) which has at least one connection (see 15 or 10) for connection of a line for at least one of supplying or discharging heat transfer fluid at least one of into or out of the stratified storage tank; at least one buffer chamber (see middle layer 3) arranged at least one of beneath or above the at least one connection chamber; at least one first barrier element (see top one of 5) having a first, peripherally arranged opening (see opening at periphery thereof); and at least one second barrier element (see top one of 6) having at least one second opening (see opening at center thereof) and being arranged between the at least one first barrier element and the at least one buffer chamber; wherein fluidic communication is established between the at least one connection chamber and the at least one buffer chamber by the first opening and the at least one second opening, and the at least one second opening is arranged centrally relative to the buffer chamber.
Luka does not teach wherein the at least one buffer chamber does not have external connections, but rather that a heater (23) is connected thereto.
Zortea teaches wherein the at least one buffer chamber does not have external connections (see 12), and that such a heater as taught by Luka may be connected to chambers above and below the buffer chamber (see connections of 15 and/or 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include the connections of Zortea, thereby providing a buffer chamber void of external connections, in order to provide the highest temperature heat transfer fluid to the consumer (Page 4).
The recitations: “such that turbulence caused by the fluidic communication with the at least one connection chamber is decoupled from the at least one buffer chamber resulting in a substantially uniform temperature stratification in the at least one buffer chamber” are considered to be statements of intended use. The applicant is reminded 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 structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114(II). In the instant case, all of the structural limitations are taught by Luka as modified.
Regarding claim 2, Luka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Luka further discloses the first opening extends as far as a wall of the stratified storage tank (see annular opening of 5).
Regarding claim 3, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Luka does not teach the first opening is formed as a circular ring segment.
Zortea teaches the first opening is formed as a circular ring segment (see shape of 9), in order to provide a peripheral opening to the barrier element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka with the circular ring segment opening of Zortea, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 3, and Luka as modified does not teach the first opening spans an angle of between 60 and 110 (as gleaned from Zortea, the angle is approximately 120 degrees), however, as recognized by Luka (see at least Page 2), the cross-sectional area is large enough to allow flow, and small enough to achieve a low velocity to preserve stratification (Page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include wherein the angle of 60-100, in order to optimize the cross-sectional flow area of the opening, to achieve a desired flow rate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II). It is noted an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize the width and angle of the segment are the only two available variables to achieve the desired cross-sectional area.
Regarding claim 5, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Luka is silent to a width of the first opening is substantially equal to a distance between the at least one first barrier element and the at least one second barrier element such that a fluid volume flowing through the first opening to the second opening will not undergo flow-inhibiting turbulence, however, as recognized by Luka (see at least Page 2-3), the overlap dimension 8, which is defined by the width of the first opening, is greater than the gap 7, in order to prevent turbulences from affecting the adjacent buffer area (Page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include a width of the first opening is substantially equal to a distance between the at least one first barrier element and the at least one second barrier element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Luka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Luka further discloses
the at least one second barrier element (6) has a peripheral impenetrable portion and a central, at least partly penetrable portion in which the at least one second opening is arranged.
Regarding claim 8, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Luka is silent to a ratio of an area between the penetrable portion and the impenetrable portion is between 60% and 90%, however, as recognized by Luka (see at least Page 2-3), the overlap dimension 8, which is defined by the diameter of the penetrable portion, is greater than the gap 7, in order to prevent turbulences from affecting the adjacent buffer area (Page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include a ratio of an area between the penetrable portion and the impenetrable portion is between 60% and 90%, in order to prevent turbulences from affecting the adjacent buffer area (Page 3).
Regarding claim 10, Luka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Luka further discloses
at least one of the stratified storage tank (see shape of container 2), the at least one connection chamber (see shape thereof), or the at least one buffer chamber (see shape thereof & Page 3) has a substantially cylindrical basic shape.
Regarding claim 11, Luka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Luka further discloses
at least one of the at least one first barrier element or the at least one second barrier element has a substantially circular basic shape (see shapes of 5 & 6 & Page 3).
Regarding claim 12, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Luka does not teach a turbulizing element arranged substantially centrally in the at least one connection chamber.
Zortea teaches a turbulizing element (13, Fig. 1b) arranged substantially centrally in the at least one connection chamber, in order to ensure mixing of the fluid for uniform temperature in the connection chamber (Page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include the turbulizing element of Zortea, in order to ensure mixing of the fluid for uniform temperature in the connection chamber (Page 2).
Regarding claim 13, Luka discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Luka further discloses the at least one connection comprises a pipe element (15 or 10) which projects into an interior of the at least one connection chamber.
Regarding claim 14, Luka discloses the limitations of claim 13, and Luka further discloses length that the pipe element projects into the interior of the at least one connection chamber is greater than a width of the first opening (see relative length and width thereof).
Regarding claim 15, Luka further discloses a system for at least one of heating or cooling, comprising the stratified storage tank as claimed in claim 1 (see Fig.1 & Page 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luka (EP2455696A2) in view of Zortea (EP2481991A2) and Cromer (US4598694).
Regarding claim 6, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Luka does not teach the at least one second opening comprises a plurality of the second openings, which are arranged in a center of the at least one second barrier element.
Cromer teaches (see Fig. 1-6) the at least one second opening (see opening in 25) comprises a plurality of the second openings (via buffer screen 35), which are arranged in a center of the at least one second barrier element, in order to improve stratification (Col. 2, lines 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include screen of Cromer, in order to improve stratification (Col. 2, lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 9, Luka teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Luka does not teach a ratio of an area of the at least one second opening to an area of the at least partly penetrable region is between 10% and 80%.
Cromer teaches a ratio of an area of the at least one second opening to an area of the at least partly penetrable region is less than 100% (via buffer screen 35), in order to improve stratification (Col. 2, lines 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Luka to include screen of Cromer, in order to improve stratification (Col. 2, lines 25-35), and provide the ratio is between 10-80% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2015 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Luka does not teach the buffer chamber is arranged such that turbulence caused by the fluidic communication with the at least one connection chamber is decoupled from the at least one buffer chamber resulting in a substantially uniform temperature stratification in the at least one buffer chamber. Specifically, Applicant argues neither Luka nor Zortea address the turbulence problem generated by outside flows or contemplate a solution to address this issue. Further, Applicant argues the openings of Luka are on opposite sides of the buffer chamber, and thus fails to provide a substantially uniform temperature.
In response to applicant's argument that the instant invention addresses the turbulence problem generated by outside flows, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, all of the structural elements the claim are taught by Luka in view of Zortea.
In response to applicant's argument that the newly cited limitations are not taught (see rejection above), 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).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Zortea is not relied upon for the diagonal openings, but rather its teaching of a buffer chamber void of connections.
For at least the reasons stated above, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763