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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
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 16, 25-27 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " the first plate and the second plate ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 25-26 recite “of great than about”, wherein it is unclear what “of great than about” is referring to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite and the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- of greater than -- for clarity.
Claim 27 recites “of great than about 10 or 25”, wherein it is unclear what “of great than about” is referring to. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite and the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- of greater than 10 or 25-- for clarity.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 27 recites the broad recitation “great than about 10”, and the claim also recites “great than about …25” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RADZINSKY et al. US 2017/0146251 Al.
Re claim 1, RADZINSKY et al. teach a phase change material (PCM) storage unit comprising: a first side and a second side, each side having a perimeter (the top side 1.3, the bottom side 1.4 with the perimeters at the joints 1.6 - Fig. 1A. 1B; para [00801);
a perimeter seal (1.5) joining the first and second sides together at the perimeters of the first and second side,
whereby the first and second sides are at least partly spaced apart from each other to define at least one PCM storage area between the first and second sides (para 80, noting the area generally extend between the sides and between the perimeter of the sides , also noting an area is considered a generally area around one or more of the 1.2); and PCM contained in the least one PCM storage area (the PCM 1.1 in 1.2);
wherein the first and second sides are made of a material comprising a metal or a metal alloy (para 49).
Re claim 3, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the PCM storage unit comprises a flammable PCM (the PCM 1.1 in the storage area 1.2 and are flammable see para [0025]-[00291).
Re claim 8, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the first side and the second side are made of a material comprising aluminum or an aluminum alloy (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 25, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the flammable PCM when burned has a Smoke Developed Index great than about 50 (noting the flammable PCM is taught and all structural requirements of the claim are met).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
For clarity, the recitation “…when burned has a Smoke Developed Index great than about 50 …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 26, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the flammable PCM when burned has a Smoke Developed Index great than about 450 (noting the flammable PCM is taught and all structural requirements of the claim are met).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
For clarity, the recitation “…when burned has a Smoke Developed Index great than about 450 …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 27, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the flammable PCM when burned has a Flame Spread Index of great than about 10 or 25 (noting the flammable PCM is taught and all structural requirements of the claim are met).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
For clarity, the recitation “…when burned has a Flame Spread Index of great than about 10 or 25 …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 28, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the PCM storage unit when burned has a Flame Spread Index of less than about 25 when subjected to an ASTM E 84 fire test (noting the PCM storage unit is taught and all structural requirements of the claim are met).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
For clarity, the recitation “…when burned has a Flame Spread Index of less than about 25 when subjected to an ASTM E 84 fire test …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 29, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the PCM storage unit when burned has a Smoke Developed Index less than about 450 when subjected to an ASTM E 84 fire test (noting the PCM storage unit is taught and all structural requirements of the claim are met).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
For clarity, the recitation “…when burned has a Smoke Developed Index less than about 450 when subjected to an ASTM E 84 fire test …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 30, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the PCM storage unit when burned has a Smoke Developed Index less than about 50 when subjected to an ASTM E 84 fire test (noting the PCM storage unit is taught and all structural requirements of the claim are met).
It is also unclear whether or not the limitations after the phrase “when” actually occur/are required since the term “when” is a conditional phrase.
For clarity, the recitation “…when burned has a Smoke Developed Index less than about 50 when subjected to an ASTM E 84 fire test …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
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 RADZINSKY et al. in view of Johnson US 2003/0064176 Al.
Re claim 2, RADZINSKY et al. fail to explicitly teach are hermetically sealed.
Johnson teach wherein the first and second sides are hermetically sealed by the perimeter seal (para [0028], [0035], [0071]) to barrier the environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include are hermetically sealed as taught by Johnson in the RADZINSKY et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for avoiding extreme temperature flux is helpful in preserving moisture barriers, preserving structural seals.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADZINSKY et al. in view of Sawafta US 20150056404 A1.
Re claim 16, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the perimeter seal is sealed (see the rejection of claim 1).
RADZINSKY et al. fail to explicitly teach plates.
Sawafta teach and the first plate and the second plate are joined (28, 22) to create a composite layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include plates as taught by Sawafta in the RADZINSKY et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for construction material with PCM for construction and buildings.
The recitation of “are joined, using ultrasonic welding by use of an ultrasonic welder manufactured to comprise: an ultrasonic stack or transmission line; a high-power ultrasonic transducer capable of operating between 100 and 6,000 Watts at frequencies between 10 and 60 kHz; a series of ultrasonic boosters; and a sonotrode” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RADZINSKY et al. in view of Sawafta US 20150056404 A1 and Short US 2015/0210003 A1.
Re claim 16, RADZINSKY et al. teach wherein the perimeter seal is sealed (see the rejection of claim 1).
RADZINSKY et al. fail to explicitly teach plates.
Sawafta teach and the first plate and the second plate are joined (28, 22) to create a composite layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include plates as taught by Sawafta in the RADZINSKY et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for construction material with PCM for construction and buildings.
Additionally, Short teach using ultrasonic welding by use of an ultrasonic welder manufactured to comprise: an ultrasonic stack or transmission line; a high-power ultrasonic transducer capable of operating between 100 and 6,000 Watts at frequencies between 10 and 60 kHz; a series of ultrasonic boosters; and a sonotrode for manufacture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include manufacturing structure as taught by Short in the RADZINSKY et al. , as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for welding manufacture.
The recitation of “are joined, using ultrasonic welding by use of an ultrasonic welder manufactured to comprise: an ultrasonic stack or transmission line; a high-power ultrasonic transducer capable of operating between 100 and 6,000 Watts at frequencies between 10 and 60 kHz; a series of ultrasonic boosters; and a sonotrode” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. In product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20110179807 A1, US 20080017352 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763