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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-5 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/28/25.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 uses a shorthand (“according to claim 5”) to incorporate matter from another claim. While this is generally allowed examiner notes that applicant has cascaded this as claim 5 also uses the shorthand (“the reinforcing thermal radiation coating 1”) and can cause confusion (see the 12 below). It is recommended to write in the claimed matter rather than use the shorthand to avoid 112 issues and make certain that antecedent issues do not occur.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected as indefinite for the use of shorthand in the claim specifically “using the reinforcing thermal radiation coating film according to Claim 5”) to incorporate matter from another claim. While this is generally allowed examiner notes that the entire claim should be incorporated as referencing only part of a claim resulting in it being unclear exactly what is being incorporated. In this case it is unclear if applicant is merely trying to incorporate the coating of 6 (or of 5 actually), the coated metal material (the final product) of claim 5, or the metal material with the coating applied per the claim (requiring the method of making).
Further, the incorporation above is indefinite as it is unclear how the metal material of claim 5 (assuming it is to be incorporated) into the structure. As claim 6 requires “the reinforcing thermal radiation coating film is formed on a side surface of the heat exchange core plate” making it unclear if this is metal material of claim 5 or if it is in addition to the metal material of claim 5. If it is NOT the same as claim 5 then it is unclear how the metal material of claim 5 is incorporated into the claimed structure.
The claim will be examined as the coating of the side surface of the heat exchange plate is the incorporation of claim 5 (and 1).
It is recommended to write in the claimed matter rather than use the shorthand to avoid 112 issues and make certain that antecedent issues do not occur.
Claim 6 is further indefinite for the limitation of “wherein the second metal radiant plate is in contact with the heat transfer channel and forms a heat exchange core plate together the heat transfer channel”, specifically “together the heat transfer channel”. It is unclear if this is typographical remnant (meant to be deleted), a translation error, or an incomplete further use/modification/attribute for the heat transfer channel. The claim will be examined with it removed.
Claim 9 is indefinite for the limitation of “a first groove corresponding to the heat transfer coil is pressed on the second metal radiant plate”. It would be unclear to one skilled in the art if applicant is attempting to claim the method of forming the groove, or if applicant is claiming that the coil is pressed into the groove, or if applicant is attempting to claim a position of coil sunken into the plate. The claim will be examined as applicant is claiming the method of forming.
Claims 10-13 are indefinite for the limitation of “the thermal insulation body is bonded to the first metal radiant plate to form an insulating sealed cavity, which is used to prevent internal dew condensation caused by moisture entering an empty cavity between the heat exchange core plate and the first metal radiant plate and which is also used to isolate heat transfer between the housing and the heat exchange core plate” as it is unclear to one skilled in the art how such is determined or measured. Firstly with the dew condensation. Specifically it is unclear if the existence of dew would be determinant or if the dew had to come from moisture entering the cavity (for example what if moisture was present when it was sealed). It is unclear if the term “prevent” is meant to bar all dew or merely limit it (if so, what level is acceptable). Further, it is unclear if it is requiring the cavity to be sealed itself or if the insulation is the seal. Thirdly the term “isolate heat transfer” provides no clear limit or ratio or degree of insulation. As all materials have thermal transfer (no perfect insulator) such can NOT be perfectly isolated and thus it is unclear what degree of isolation would read on the limitation. The limitations are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms/limits are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Similarly, the limitations of “the housing is configured to reflect the energy of external thermal radiation through an outer surface thereof, and can protect the thermal insulation body from damage by an external force” would not be clear to one skilled in the art as to how such is determined or measured. It is unclear what level of reflectivity is required (no value in the claim) to meet the limitation. Similarly the limitation of protecting from damage by external force includes no clear force limit or measurement (no strength value or test limit). Further, it is unclear what is considered “damage” by the claim. Is a mere surface scratch or a small dent damage or does it require penetration of the of the housing. The limitations are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms/limits are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 10-13 will be examined as requiring “further comprising a housing, wherein the housing and the first metal radiant plate form a closed cavity and the heat exchange core plate is arranged in the cavity; a thermal insulation body is arranged in the housing, and the thermal insulation body is bonded to the first metal radiant plate to form an insulating sealed cavity (any sealing of the cavity will read on this “sealed”)two ends of the heat transfer coil respectively pass through the thermal insulation body and the housing and are exposed outside the radiant heat exchange apparatus; the housing is provided with a through hole at the position where the heat transfer coil runs out of the radiant heat exchange apparatus; a sealing ring fitted over the heat transfer coil is also arranged in the through hole”.
Claims 7-13 are rejected for dependence from one or more of the above rejected claims.
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.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedrich (U.S. Patent 5,931,381) in view of Nielsen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0115897), Hollemann (U.S. Patent 4,301,859), Research Report on “Acrylic Solar Spectrum Selective Coatings Cross linked at Room Temperature” 12/31/1989 (from PCT), and “MARAT(Space craft Materials)” 5/31/2018 (from PCT).
Regarding Claim 6, Fiedrich teaches a radiant heat exchange apparatus, comprising a first radiant plate (element 112), a second metal radiant plate (element 101), and a heat transfer channel (element 1), wherein the second metal radiant plate is in contact with the heat transfer channel and forms a heat exchange core plate (per fig. 11, Col. 8, ln 28-65); the first radiant plate is provided with a first radiant heat exchange area (face of element 101 facing element 1) on a side close to the heat exchange core plate (per fig. 11, the elements may reasonably be interpreted as “close to” each other as claimed), the heat exchange core plate corresponds to the first radiant heat exchange area of the first metal radiant plate and is placed in parallel to and spaced from the first radiant heat exchange area of the first metal radiant plate with an interval (per fig. 11, and descriptions of the panel).
Fiedrich does not teach first radiant plate is metal. Nielsen teaches radiant wall plates made of metal (element 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the filing date for Fiedrich to use metal for the wall plate as taught by Nielsen, the motivation would be increased fire resistance (para. 0003).
Fiedrich does not teach the minimum interval between the heat exchange core plate and the first metal radiant plate is defined as 1-3 mm. Hollemann teaches using a mesh (element 3) of 1-3mm (col. 1, ln 54-57) between a radiant plate (element 2) and a surface plate (element 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the filing date for Fiedrich to use mesh layer of Hollemann such that the minimum interval results, the motivation would be improved distribution of heat and stress (col. 1, ln 63-68).
Fiedrich does not teach a reinforcing thermal radiation coating film according to Claim 5, and the reinforcing thermal radiation coating film is formed on a side surface of the heat exchange core plate close to the first metal radian plate and on a surface of the first radiant heat exchange area.
“Research Report on Acrylic Solar Spectrum Selective Coatings Cross linked at Room Temperature” discloses a thermal radiation coating, comprising the raw materials of an acrylic resin and a light absorber, wherein the light absorber is a black pigment of iron oxide black, carbon black and/or manganese dioxide; and the monomer of the acrylic resin comprises butylacrylate, Bhydroxypropylacrylate and styrene, and a solvent is butylacetate, ethylacetateorxylene (page 7, section2, and page 9, section 3).
“MARAT(Space craft Materials)” provides the technical motivation of adding silicon to improve the thermal radiation of the coating layer; and a person skilled in the art would have been aware of the thermal radiation parameters of boron, and then would have been able to add Silicon and/or boron according to thermal radiation requirements and to adjust the amount of each component to the claimed levels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to , 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify Fiedrich to have this coating on a side surface of the heat exchanger plate as claimed, the motivation would be the beneficial thermal efficiency improvement the coating would provide (examiner further notes that the use of such coating on emissive layers is well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 7, as described above Hollemann teaches the interval is formed by an isolation net arranged between the heat exchange core plate and the first metal radiant plate (see rejection above), a skeleton of the isolation net is configured to provide isolation and support functions, mesh holes of the isolation net are configured to provide space for radiant heat exchange (per fig. 1) , and the isolation net has a thickness of 1-3 mm to ensure that the minimum interval between the heat exchange core plate and the first metal radian plate is within a range of 1-3 mm (col. 1, ln 54-57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the filing date for Fiedrich to use mesh layer of Hollemann such that the minimum interval results, the motivation would be improved distribution of heat and stress (col. 1, ln 63-68).
Regarding Claim 8, Holleman teaches the isolation net has a thickness of 2 mm to ensure that the minimum interval between the heat exchange core plate and the first metal radian plate is 2 mm (col. 1, ln 54-57). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the filing date for Fiedrich to use mesh layer of Hollemann such that the minimum interval results, the motivation would be improved distribution of heat and stress (col. 1, ln 63-68).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedrich (U.S. Patent 5,931,381) in view of Nielsen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0115897), Hollemann (U.S. Patent 4,301,859), Research Report on “Acrylic Solar Spectrum Selective Coatings Cross linked at Room Temperature” 12/31/1989 (from PCT), and “MARAT(Space craft Materials)” 5/31/2018 (from PCT) and Sokolean (U.S. Patent 6,910,526).
Regarding Claim 9, Fiedrich the heat transfer channel is configured as a heat transfer coil (fig. 14) provided with a heat transfer medium therein(abstract “water”).
Fiedrich does not teach a first groove corresponding to the heat transfer coil is pressed on the second metal radiant plate, the heat transfer coil is placed in the first groove of the second metal radiant plate, the first groove of the second metal radiant plate is also correspondingly provided with a bead, the bead also has a second groove corresponding to the first groove, the first groove and the second groove jointly form an accommodating channel for the heat transfer coil, the bead is also configured to make an outer wall of the heat transfer coil closely adhere to an inner wall of the groove of the second metal radiant plate. Sokolean teaches a plate and heat transfer channel where a first groove (element 8, fig. 2) corresponding to the heat transfer coil (element 4) is pressed (this is a product-by-process limitation and “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)) on the second metal radiant plate, the heat transfer coil is placed in the first groove of the second metal radiant plate (per fig. 2), the first groove of the second metal radiant plate is also correspondingly provided with a bead (element 12), the bead also has a second groove (per fig. 2) corresponding to the first groove, the first groove and the second groove jointly form an accommodating channel for the heat transfer coil (per fig. 2), the bead is also configured to make an outer wall of the heat transfer coil closely adhere to an inner wall of the groove of the second metal radiant plate (per fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the filing date to modify Fiedrich to use the coil connection (groove and bead) of Sokolean, the motivation would be the ability to modify/replace/maintain the coil.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedrich (U.S. Patent 5,931,381) in view of Nielsen et al. (U.S. PGPub 2020/0115897), Hollemann (U.S. Patent 4,301,859), Research Report on “Acrylic Solar Spectrum Selective Coatings Cross linked at Room Temperature” 12/31/1989 (from PCT), and “MARAT(Space craft Materials)” 5/31/2018 (from PCT) and Sokolean (U.S. Patent 6,910,526) for claim 13, in further view of Norell et al. (U.S. Patent 4,205,719), Bannister et al. (U.S. Patent 9,797,603), and Berchtold (U.S. PGPub 2015/0276233).
Regarding claim 10-13 (note see 112 above), Fiedrich does not teach a housing, wherein the housing and the first metal radiant plate form a closed cavity (note that the inside of Fiedrich may reasonably be considered a cavity, but does not reasonably teach the fully claimed housing) and the heat exchange core plate is arranged in the cavity; a thermal insulation body is arranged in the housing, and the thermal insulation body is bonded to the first metal radiant plate to form an insulating sealed cavity (any sealing of the cavity will read on this “sealed”) two ends of the heat transfer coil respectively pass through the thermal insulation body and the housing and are exposed outside the radiant heat exchange apparatus; the housing is provided with a through hole at the position where the heat transfer coil runs out of the radiant heat exchange apparatus; a sealing ring fitted over the heat transfer coil is also arranged in the through hole.
Norell teaches a housing (outer pieces of element 1), wherein the housing and the first metal radiant plate form a closed cavity (inside of element 1; note that the inside of Fiedrich may also reasonably be considered a cavity, but does not reasonably teach the fully claimed housing) and the heat exchange core plate (element 12&13) is arranged in the cavity; a thermal insulation body (8) is arranged in the housing, and the thermal insulation body is bonded to the first metal radiant plate to form an insulating sealed cavity (aera below element 12; note any sealing of the cavity will read on this “sealed”) two ends of the heat transfer coil respectively pass through the housing and are exposed outside the radiant heat exchange apparatus (per fig. 4); the housing is provided with a through hole at the position where the heat transfer coil runs out of the radiant heat exchange apparatus (per fig. 4).
Norell does not teach two ends of the heat transfer coil respectively pass through the thermal insulation body and the housing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to , since it has been held that rearranging parts or changes in shape of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144 (IV or VI). Applicant merely changes the piping form exiting on the side to exiting on the top, which would be an obvious change in shape motivated by connection points to fluid supplies.
The use of a sealing ring fitted over the heat transfer coil is also arranged in the through hole is well known in the art. This is an obvious application of a gasket/grommet for a pipe/tube passing through a housing as shown by Bannister (Col. 6) and Berehtold (element 86) motivated by sealing the opening the pipe passes through both to prevent air/fluid infiltration and to secure the pipe/tube from damaging vibration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 17/936,353 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawahara et al. (U.S. Patent 7,137,442) teaches mesh counts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M ATTEY whose telephone number is (571)272-7936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8-5 and Friday 8-10 and 2-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson be reached on (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 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.
/JOEL M ATTEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3763