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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 3, and 5-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 11 is 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. Regarding “a substantially granular form” and “a substantially homogeneous electrical conductivity” does not provide enough structure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine when something is substantially in a granular form and when something has substantially homogenous electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “wherein said at least one electrical resistor is at least partly made in a substantially granular form, and wherein at least some granules of the at least one electrical resistor are made with a doped semiconductor and/or with an intermetallic compound” is unclear because the applicant discloses in par. 12 that intermetallic compounds such as molybdenum disilicate are not appropriate for the resistors of the invention of the instant application but also discloses its use for the resistors in par. 49 and 66. The examiner interprets that intermetallic compounds are acceptable for use in the inventio of the instant application.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, the recitation of “and/or” is unclear as to what is to be included or excluded from the claim limitations.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “wherein at least 50% by weight of a granular material of the at least some granules of the at least one electrical resistor consists of silicon carbide granules having a doping greater than 0.5%” is unclear if the applicant is intending at least 50% by weight of the granular material of the resistor disclosed in claim 1 contains silicon carbide or if some of the granules chosen as part of the resistor contain silicon carbide. Further, the examiner is unclear what the silicon carbide granules have a doping greater than 0.5% compared to. For example is the applicant intending the silicon carbide granules to be doped 0.5% silicone?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said plurality of storage granules ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “and having a different composition and thermal diffusion which is less than the primary storage zone” is unclear structure is required to meet the limitation of having a thermal diffusion less than the primary storage zone. The specification nor claims disclose what properties or materials are required to accomplish a difference in thermal diffusion.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “wherein said secondary storage zone has a thermal diffusion of less than 1 mm2/s” is unclear structure is required to meet the limitation of having a thermal diffusion less than 1 mm2/s. The specification nor claims disclose what properties or materials are required to accomplish a difference in thermal diffusion.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “at least partly compensate” is unclear to what degree an inductor has to compensate for capacitive reactive power to accomplish the limitation of “at least partly compensate”.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation of “in such a way as to interrupt physical bridges of thermal dispersion between the apparatus and the outside environment” is unclear as to what method is required to meet the limitation of in such away. Essentially the examiner is interpreting in such a way to be referencing an example of a way of interrupting physical bridges which leaves the applicant’s claim unclear because said way of interruption is not disclosed in the claims.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “for temporarily increasing electrical conductivity” is unclear what amount of time is required to meet the limitation of temporarily increasing electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “a start-up of the apparatus from cold” is unclear what degree of cold is is required to meet the limitation of cold or if the applicant means a cold to be a non-running state.
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 (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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US11754346B2 Klausner.
Regarding claim 1,
Klausner teaches,
An energy storage apparatus configured to store electricity in a thermal form (abstract) comprising:
a containment body (vessel 14) defining a storage space (interior volume 36) and having at least one inlet (column 3 lines 5 to 16 and fig. 1 teach second opening 40 and column 12 lines 7 to 28 teach second opening 40 being an inlet) for a heat carrier fluid and at least one outlet (column 3 lines 5 to 16 and fig. 1 teach first opening 38 column 11 lines 51 to 62 teach first opening 38 being fluidly connected to a suction side) for said fluid (flow pressurized oxygen and column 11 lines 51 to 62 and column 12 lines 7 to 28);
at least one electrical resistor (heater 16) positioned in the storage space (fig. 1);
at least one pair of electrodes (first end 50 and second end 52)positioned at the ends of said at least one electrical resistor (fig. 1) and designed to be connected to an electricity supply network (electrical source 120 column 3 lines 54 to 65);
a plurality of storage granules (reactive material 12) positioned for at least partly filling the storage space (fig. 1 reactive material 12 fully fills the storage space) and defining a thermal storage mass configured to receive thermal energy from said at least one electrical resistor and to release said thermal energy to the heat carrier fluid flowing from said at least one inlet to said at least one outlet (column 2 lines 58 to 67 and column 3 lines 1 to 3);
wherein said at least one electrical resistor is at least partly made in a substantially granular form (column 3 lines 66-67 and column 4 lines 1 to 9 teach the use of a resistive heating element comprising molybdenum disilicate and lanthanum chromate or zirconia where molybdenum disilicate has is made of the same material disclosed in the instant application and is therefore capable of being in a granular form being that it is a form of metal and metals comprise grains and are therefore granular), and wherein at least some granules of the at least one electrical resistor are made with a doped semiconductor and/or with an intermetallic compound (column 3 lines 66-67 and column 4 lines 1 to 9 teach the use of a resistive heating element comprising molybdenum disilicate and lanthanum chromate or zirconia where molybdenum disilicate has is made of the same material disclosed in the instant application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US11754346B2 Klausner in view of US 3864658A Pitha.
Regarding claim 2,
Klausner teaches, The apparatus according to claim1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Klausner does not teach: wherein at least 50% by weight of a granular material of the at least some granules of the at least one electrical resistor consists of silicon carbide granules having a doping greater than 0.5% and a diameter of between 0.5 mm and 50 mm.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Pitha teaches a method for forming a low resistance electrode…on a molded block of granular electrical resistance material (column 1 lines 9 to 20) wherein at least 50% by weight of a granular material of the at least some granules of the at least one electrical resistor consists of silicon carbide granules having a doping greater than 0.5% (column 5 lines 27 to 42 and claim 1 teach at least 20 percent by weight of Cr contained in a silicon carbide matrix which is a range that also includes at least 50%) and a diameter of between 0.5 mm and 50 mm.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Klausner with the teachings of Pitha for the purpose of achieving a desired doping rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761