DETAILED ACTION
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's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) and species 9B (Fig. 9B) and species B1 (Fig. 3A) in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant alleges (page 2) that the “species 1-10CD are not described as specifically different embodiments”. This is not found persuasive as the allegation is fully false. The identified species are specifically described as different embodiments (see para. 8-18 specifically identifying “the various embodiments”) and throughout the description the alternative systems are described. It is not persuasive to make false allegations. The applicant further alleges (page 2) that the species have various features. However none of these descriptions overcome the finding that the identified species are alternatives of one another. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 15-20 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14 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.
In regard to claim(s) 1, 13, the recitation, “the first and second electric fields are complimentary” is indefinite as the specification never states what structure or function this requires. For the purposes of present examination, in context of the recitation (see “such that when the first and second electric fields are applied, heat is transferred”), so long as heat can be transferred in some association with the application of the first and the second fields, then the system is considered to provide sufficient structure for the present recitation.
The recitation, “proximate” is indefinite since it is not clear how close the objects must be to one another to be considered “proximate” in view of the specification. The term is a relative term of degree and the specification does not provide an indication of what does and does not constitute such a sufficient distance.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “the support layer comprises a thermally insulating material, the thermally insulating material maintaining a low thermal conductance between adjacent capacitors on a same layer of the first and second layers.” is indefinite for being inconsistent and confusing in combination with the other limitations of claim 1. The support layer is “disposed between the first layer and the second layer” and therefore the thermally insulating material does not dictate conductance on a same layer but between the layers and therefore the functional recitation is indeterminate for ascribing to the thermal insulating material of the support layer a function that it does not appear to perform.
The recitation, “low thermal conductance” is indefinite since “low” is a relative term of degree and the specification does not provide a clear indication of what does and does not meet the term.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the support layer is a structural support layer” is indeterminate as there is no way to determine what structure the recitation requires. Supposing that one interprets the term to mean a particular degree of support, it is unclear what degree of is and is not within the scope of the recitation.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “proximate” is indefinite since it is not clear how close the objects must be to one another to be considered “proximate” in view of the specification. The term is a relative term of degree and the specification does not provide an indication of what does and does not constitute such a sufficient distance.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “low thermal conductivity” is indefinite since “low” is a relative term of degree and the specification does not provide a clear indication of what does and does not meet the term.
In regard to claim 6, the recitations of low and high are considered to only limit that the recited support layer has a lower thermal conductivity in a lateral direction than in a vertical direction. Therefore, as the recitation is considered acceptable so long as the recitation is not considered to require any particular thermal conductivity values, just that the lateral thermal conductivity is lower than the vertical conductivity.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim limitation “first support structure” and “second support structure” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The application never identifies what structure the support structure has other than using the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the recitation is interpreted as a layer of material that is in at least indirect mechanical contact with the first layer and the second layer.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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 1-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng (US 2015/0033762).
In regard to claim 1, Cheng teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 6, 8, 9, 10) comprising:
a first layer (at least top row) of electrocaloric capacitors (710), the first capacitors separated from each other by a first set of insulation regions (720, 740; para. 61); and
a second layer (at least bottom row) of electrocaloric capacitors (730), the second capacitors separated by a second set of insulation regions (720, 740; para. 61); and
a support layer (para. 72, Fig. 9a, 10; 910, 920, 930 as outlined below) disposed between the first layer (top row) and the second layer (bottom row), the support layer (910, 920, 930 ) comprising thermally conductive vias (920); and
a voltage source (see source of “applied electric field” - para. 4; also see para. - 11, 12, 13, 44 - “an electrical power supply”) configured to apply a first voltage thereby applying a first electric field (para. 12) to the first electrocaloric capacitors (710) and a second voltage thereby applying a second electric field to the second electrocaloric capacitors (730) (para. 12, 13, 44, 46 - see clearly the first and second EC rings have first and second electric fields applied to them; note that the provision of these two fields is not exclusion of other fields), and
wherein the first and second electric fields are complementary (interpreted as provided in a desired sequence; para. 15, 52, 53) such that when the first and second electric fields are applied , heat is transferred (see, e.g., para 53, 52, 57), through the thermally conductive vias (920) from the first electrocaloric capacitors (710) to the second electrocaloric capacitors (730) or from the second electrocaloric capacitors (730) to the first electrocaloric capacitors (710).
In regard to claim 2, Cheng teaches that the support layer (910, 920, 930) comprises a thermally insulating material (para. 71).
In regard to claim 3, Cheng teaches that the support layer (910, 920, 930) is a structural support layer (provides support to the layer).
In regard to claim 4, Cheng teaches that the structural support layer (910, 920, 930) comprises: a first support structure (see figure below, hereafter first support structure) proximate the first layer (top row); a second support (see figure below, hereafter second support structure) structure proximate the second layer (bottom row); and a lubricant (para. 72) disposed between the first support structure (first support structure) and the second support structure (second support structure), and wherein the thermally conductive vias (920) comprises first vias (920 upper) and second vias (920 lower) through the respective support structures.
[AltContent: textbox (First support structure)][AltContent: textbox (second support structure)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
626
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 5, Cheng teaches that the lubricating layer (para. 72) has low thermal conductivity (lower than other structures).
In regard to claim 6, Cheng teaches that the support layer (910, 920, 930) has a relatively low thermal conductivity in a lateral direction (due to insulation portions), wherein the thermal vias (920) comprise a relatively high thermal conductivity in a vertical direction (due to the vias 920) resulting in thermal conductance between the first (710) and second (730) electrocaloric capacitors when the first and second electrocaloric capacitors are aligned (para. 68, 62).
In regard to claim 7, Cheng teaches that the support layer (910, 920, 930) comprises a polymer (polymer para. 62), and wherein the thermally conductive vias (920) are filled with metal (para. 70).
In regard to claim 8, Cheng teaches that the first and second electrocaloric capacitors (710, 730) comprise multilayer chip capacitors (para. 77).
In regard to claim 9, Cheng teaches an actuator (800/ 810) configured to cause a relative shift between the first layer (top row) and the second layer (bottom row) to cause a change in alignment between the first and second electrocaloric capacitors (para. 49).
In regard to claim 10, Cheng teaches that the actuator (800, 810) causes the relative shift intermittently or continuously (fully capable thereof) in correspondence with the heat transfer between the first and second electrocaloric capacitors (para. 39, 44).
In regard to claim 12, Cheng teaches that the relative shift comprises moving one or both of the first and second layers according to a rotational motion (para. 49).
In regard to claim 13, Cheng teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 6, 8, 9, 10) comprising:
a first layer (at least top row) of electrocaloric capacitors (710), the first capacitors separated from each other by a first set of insulation regions (720, 740; para. 61); and
a second layer (at least bottom row) of electrocaloric capacitors (730), the second capacitors separated by a second set of insulation regions (720, 740; para. 61); and
a support layer (para. 72, Fig. 9a, 10; 910, 920, 930 as outlined above) disposed between the first layer (top row) and the second layer (bottom row), the support layer (910, 920, 930 ) comprising thermally conductive vias (920) between vertically aligned pairs of the first and second electrocaloric capacitors (710, 730),
the support layer (910, 920, 930) comprising a thermally insulating material (para. 61, 62) between vertically aligned ones of the first and second insulating regions (720, 740); and
a voltage source (see source of “applied electric field” - para. 4; also see para. - 11, 12, 13, 44 - “an electrical power supply”) configured to apply a first voltage thereby applying a first electric field (para. 12) to the first electrocaloric capacitors (710) and a second voltage thereby applying a second electric field to the second electrocaloric capacitors (730) (para. 12, 13, 44, 46 - see clearly the first and second EC rings have first and second electric fields applied to them; note that the provision of these two fields is not exclusion of other fields), wherein the first and second electric fields are complementary (interpreted as provided in a desired sequence; para. 15, 52, 53) such that when the first and second electric fields are applied, heat is transferred (see, e.g., para 53, 52, 57), through the thermally conductive vias (920) from the first electrocaloric capacitors (710) to the second electrocaloric capacitors (730) or from the second electrocaloric capacitors (730) to the first electrocaloric capacitors (710).
In regard to claim 14, Cheng teaches that the support layer (910, 920, 930) comprises a polymer (polymer para. 62), and wherein the thermally conductive vias (920) are filled with metal (para. 70).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20150033762) in view of Schwartz (US 2015/0362225).
Cheng teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the relative shift comprises moving one or both of the first and second layers according to a linear motion. However, employing linear motion is old and well known as taught by Schwartz (para. 6, 28 - “linear reciprocal motion”). Further, it is well known that refrigeration is provided in a wide variety of geometrical scenarios. Further, Schwartz explicitly suggests that providing motion to electrocaloric units in a linear reciprocating manner is an obvious alternative to rotational motion (para. 28). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cheng to move the first and second layers in linear reciprocal motion to obtain the desired relative motion in situations and geometries not suited for rotation and to provide a repeating motion that permits repetition of the heat pump cycle and as Schwartz explicitly suggests that linear reciprocating motion is an obvious alternative to rotational motion (para. 28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
October 28, 2025
Prosecution Insights