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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzouz (WO 2017/042504 A1) in view of Rodgers (US Patent No. 3,217,799), Malanga (WO 2017/132122 A1) and Liberman (US Patent No. 5,860,282).
Regarding claim 1, Azzouz discloses a microchannel compact heat exchanging system (Fig. 1a), comprising:
a microchannel (a micro tube 1); and
a phase change material in the microchannel (each tube 1 contain a phase change material, paragraph 0030 of the translation); and
two plenums (a top half interior of the micro tube 1; and a bottom half interior of the micro tube 1) connected to the microchannel (both the top and bottom half interior of the tube 1 connect to the micro tube 1 itself).
Azzouz fails to disclose a ribbed microchannel including a plurality of radial ribs and fins, a ratio between a thickness of each radial rib and a radius of the ribbed microchannel being within a first predefined range;
a water-based nanofluid in the ribbed microchannel comprising polyethylene glycol (PEG), calcium chloride, and a graphene oxide carbon-based material; and
wherein a volume fraction of the graphene oxide carbon-based material in the water-based nanofluid is within a second predefined range is from 0.25% to 1.0%.
Rodgers discloses a ribbed channel (Fig. 14) including a plurality of radial ribs (ribs with thickness To) and fins (fins with spacing So), a ratio between a thickness of each radial rib (the thickness To) and a radius (outside diameter Do divided by 2) of the ribbed microchannel being within a first predefined range (the claimed ratio may be obtained by To/0.5Do, and embodiment Figs. 9-14 of Rodgers discloses a range of different thickness To and outside diameter Do having a range of said ratio).
Therefore, outer surface of the micro tube 1 of Azzouz may be provided with radial ribs with the ratio being within a first predefined range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a ribbed microchannel including a plurality of radial ribs and fins, a ratio between a thickness of each radial rib and a radius of the ribbed microchannel being within a first predefined range in Azzouz as taught by Rodgers in order to increase a heat transfer capacity in the form of fins/ribs (col. 1, lines 41-46 or Rodgers).
Malanga discloses a water-based nanofluid (a cooling fluid comprising a) one or more polar liquids; b) one or more functionalized carbon nanoparticles; and c) particles of one or more semi-crystalline polymers having a melting point from about 80 °C to about 180 °C dispersed in the one or more polar liquids, paragraph 0014) comprising polyethylene glycol (PEG), salt (polar liquids include water, polyglycols and a solution of a salt in water, and mixtures thereof, paragraph 0019. Polyglycols comprise multiple glycols linked in a chain and may be polyethylene glycols, paragraph 0019), and a graphene oxide carbon-based material (the one or more functionalized carbon nanoparticles that may be graphene oxide, paragraph 0026).
Malanga further discloses that exemplary polar liquids comprise water in admixture with a compound that depresses or lowers the freezing point of the mixtures thereof, and may comprise one or more of alcohols, glycols, polyglycols, salts or mixtures thereof (paragraph 0019). Liberman discloses the salt may be calcium chloride to obtain lower freezing point of water (col. 3, lines 40-50).
Therefore, the phase change material in the tube 1 of Azzouz may be replaced by the cooling fluid comprising polyethylene glycol (PEG), calcium chloride, and a graphene oxide carbon-based material as taught by Malanga and Liberman in an application that requires a greater heat conduction (paragraph 0026 of Malanga) and to obtain the melting/freezing temperature of the cooling fluid based on the application.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a water-based nanofluid in the ribbed microchannel comprising polyethylene glycol (PEG), calcium chloride, and a graphene oxide carbon-based material in Malanga and Liberman in order to provide a heat storage material in an application that requires a greater heat conduction (paragraph 0026 of Malanga) and to obtain the melting/freezing temperature of the cooling fluid based on the application.
Malanga further discloses that the volume fraction of the graphene oxide carbon-based material in the water-based nanofluid is a result effective variable. Paragraph 0026 of Malanga discloses that the one or more functionalized carbon nanoparticles enhances the transmission of heat through the composition. Paragraph 0027 of Malanga discloses the functionalized carbon nanoparticles may be present in the composition in a location and an amount which enhances the flow of heat through the composition and which allows the composition to exhibit the desired viscosity. Therefore, specifying the volume fraction in the claim is not novel because the volume fraction of the graphene oxide carbon-based material at least effectively results an enhancement amount of the heat flow and viscosity amount of the nanofluid. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the volume fraction including the claimed range in order to obtain the heat flow and viscosity of the fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a volume fraction of the graphene oxide carbon-based material in the water-based nanofluid is within a second predefined range is from 0.25% to 1.0% in Malanga through routine optimization of the volume fraction to obtain an optimum heat transfer and viscosity of the resultant phase change material.
Regarding claim 2, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the first predefined range is from 5 to 10.
Rodgers (Fig. 7C) further discloses a variation of the thickness T= 1/4” and T=1/16” results a change in a resistance factor R. Since the thickness T is a numerator of the claimed ratio, the claimed ratio inherently also results a change in a resistance factor R. Therefore, the ratio is result effective. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the ratio including the first predefined range from 5 to 10 in order for optimum resistance factor R of the fluid flowing around the ribs/fins. Therefore, specifying the first predefined range in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the first predefined range is from 5 to 10 in Azzouz as taught by Rodgers through routine optimization to obtain the optimum resistance factor R the fluid flowing around the ribs/fins in Azzouz.
Regarding claim 3, Azzouz as modified in claim 2 fails to disclose wherein the thickness of each radial rib is from 0.1 mm to 1 mm and the radius of the ribbed microchannel is from 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm.
As noted in claim 2 above, Fig. 7C of Rodgers discloses a variation of the thickness T= 1/4” and T=1/16” results a change in a resistance factor R. Therefore, the thickness of each radial rib is result effective. Although Rodgers lacks exact disclosure of the claimed thickness T, one of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the thickness T including the claimed range from 0.1 mm to 1 mm in order for optimum resistance factor R of the fluid flowing around the ribs/fins. Therefore, specifying the range of the thickness T in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the thickness of each radial rib is from 0.1 mm to 1 mm in Azzouz as taught by Rodgers through routine optimization to obtain the optimum resistance factor R the fluid flowing around the ribs/fins in Azzouz.
Also, the radius of the ribbed microchannel is also result effective. Azzouz further discloses the spacing between the outer walls of adjacent tubes 1 may be 0.6mm to allow a good circulation of the fluid between tubes 1 (paragraph 0089 of the translation). Therefore, changing an outer diameter of the tube (and radius) effectively results a change in the spacing between the outer walls of adjacent tubes 1 in the bundle of tubes 1 in Azzouz’s disclosure. Second, examiner takes official notice that changing a radius of a tube effectively results a change in size of the tube. Although Azzouz’s tube 1 has a diameter of 1-10 millimeters which fails to overlap the claimed range, one of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the radius of the tube 1 including the claimed range of 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm in order for optimum spacing between the tubes 1 and the size of the tubes 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the radius of the ribbed microchannel is from 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm in Azzouz through routine optimization to obtain optimum spacing between the tubes 1 and the size of the tubes 1.
Regarding claim 4, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein a length of each of the two plenums is from 0.1 m to 2 m (Azzouz discloses a tube length may be 100-300mm, paragraph 0030 of the translation. The length of each top and bottom half interior of the micro tube 1 is thus 1/2 of, for example, the total length 300mm of the tube 1, which is 150mm or 0.15 m within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein a distance between two adjacent radial ribs is from 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm.
Rodgers (Figs. 7A-7D) further discloses a variation of spacing/height ration S/H results a change in a resistance factor R. A change in a distance between two adjacent radial ribs (as the spacing S in Rodgers) results a change in the resistance factor R. Therefore, the distance between two adjacent radial ribs is result effective. One of ordinary skill in the art would perform routine optimization of the distance including from 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm in order for optimum resistance factor R of the fluid flowing around the ribs/fins. Therefore, specifying the range of the distance in the claim is not novel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a distance between two adjacent radial ribs is from 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm in Azzouz as taught by Rodgers through routine optimization to obtain the optimum resistance factor R the fluid flowing around the ribs/fins in Azzouz.
Regarding claim 7, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein the water-based nanofluid is prepared by preparing a solution by dispersing the PEG and the calcium chloride into water at 25 ℃ until the PEG and the calcium chloride reach saturation and by dispersing the graphene oxide carbon-based material into the solution (“by preparing”, “by dispersing” and limitations following the “dispersing” are product-by-process limitation, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, see MPEP 2113. The aforementioned “preparing” and “dispersing” do not imply a distinct structure to the “water-based nanofluid” itself. The only structure of the water-based nanofluid is a solution. Azzouz as modified by Malanga and Liberman discloses that the cooling fluid is a water solution having polyethylene glycol (PEG), calcium chloride, and a graphene oxide carbon-based material).
Regarding claims 9-11, “wherein the water-based nanofluid is stirred for a first time period and processed for a second time period using an ultrasonic signal”,
“wherein the first and the second time periods are from 5 mins to 60 mins”, and
“wherein a power and a frequency of the ultrasonic signal are 400 W and 24 kHz, respectively” are also product-by-process limitations, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, see MPEP 2113. The stirring for a first time period, processing for a second time period using an ultrasonic signal in claim 9, and further limitations for the time periods and the ultrasonic signal do not, at least in terms of its composition, imply a distinct structure to the “water-based nanofluid” itself. Please note that determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
Regarding claim 13, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 further discloses wherein the two plenums provide a laminar fluid flow in the ribbed microchannel (the two half interiors of tube 1 have a smooth surface, see Fig. 5 of Azzouz, providing a function of a laminar fluid flow of the PCM in the ribbed microchannel).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzouz (WO 2017/042504 A1) in view of Rodgers (US Patent No. 3,217,799), Malanga (WO 2017/132122 A1) and Liberman (US Patent No. 5,860,282) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hage (EP 0301121 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein a number of the plurality of radial ribs is 7.
Hage discloses radial fins having a number of at least 7 (Fig. 3).
Therefore, the fins provided onto the tubes 1 in Azzouz may have a number of at least 7 including the claimed number for a desired increased performance of the heat exchange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein a number of the plurality of radial ribs is 7 in Azzouz as taught by Hage in order to obtain a desired increased performance of the heat exchange.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azzouz (WO 2017/042504 A1) in view of Rodgers (US Patent No. 3,217,799), Malanga (WO 2017/132122 A1) and Liberman (US Patent No. 5,860,282) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pappert (DE 10 2020 001380 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Azzouz as modified in claim 1 fails to disclose wherein the water-based nanofluid further comprises carboxymethyl cellulose.
Pappert discloses a phase change material (paragraph 0043), the phase change material is mixed with at least one additive in order to gel the phase change material in its molten state to prevent large quantities of phase change material from being released in the event of leaks in the storage system. The gelling agent may be carboxymethyl cellulose sodium salt.
Therefore, the phase change material in Azzouz in view of Bolin may be further provided with the carboxymethyl cellulose sodium salt as taught by Pappert as a gelling agent to prevent large quantities of phase change material from being released in the event of leaks in the storage system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided wherein the water-based nanofluid further comprises carboxymethyl cellulose in Azzouz as taught by Pappert in order to prevent large quantities of phase change material from being released in the event of leaks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (the new teaching references Malanga, WO 2017/132122 A1 and Liberman, US 5,860,282).
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 FOR K LING whose telephone number is (571)272-8752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10 am to 6 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, 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.
/JIANYING C ATKISSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/F.K.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights