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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have been considered and new art rejections have been written in view of Kishimoto and Melink.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have incorporated structure overcoming the 112(f) interpretation and therefore claims are no longer being interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: "a heat medium circuit switching device" should be "a water circuit switching device". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: water circuit switching device in claim claims 11-20 which corresponds to valves in the applicant’s specification and figures.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (JP 2007-205618) in view of Melink et al. (US 2021/0156601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto discloses a hot-water supply apparatus including a water circuit (Kishimoto 22) through which water circulates, the hot-water supply apparatus being configured to perform a heat storage operation of storing heat of the water (Kishimoto translation [0049]) and a hot-water supply operation of supplying hot water to a hot-water demand side through use of the heat of the water (Kishimoto translation [0049]), the hot-water supply apparatus comprising:
A latent heat storage device (Kishimoto 28a) having a latent heat storage material (Kishimoto translation [0050]), the latent heat storage device being configured to store heat (Kishimoto translation [0052]) and reject heat (Kishimoto translation [0055]) through transfer of heat between the latent heat storage material and the water;
A water heat storage device (Kishimoto 28b) in which the water is stored so that thermal stratification is formed; and
A heater(Kishimoto 21) in the form of a heat pump configured to heat the water,
Wherein the heater is directly connected to the latent heat storage device by a pipe (Kishimoto H2) (see Kishimoto figure 3) and directly connected to the heat medium storage device by a pipe (Kishimoto H1) (see Kishimoto figure 3) (Examiner notes that the latent heat storage directly receives heated water from the heating device through a supply pipe H2 while the water heat storage device is directly connected to the heating device by a return pipe H1),
A tap water supply source (Kishimoto 23) is connected indirectly to both the latent heat storage device and the heat medium heat storage device by a heat exchanger (Kishimoto 29, see
Kishimoto figure 3), and
The heater is configured to heat the water flowing out from a lower portion of the latent heat storage device (Kishimoto translation [0054]) or the water heat storage tank (Kishimoto translation [0052]), and
Supply the heated water to either of the latent heat storage device (Kishimoto translation [0054]) and the water heat storage device (Kishimoto translation [0052]).
Kishimoto is silent regarding the laten heat storage device and the water heat storage device being connected in parallel to the heater.
However, Melink teaches a heat pump system comprising a heater (Melink 120) in the form of a heat pump (see Melink figure 1), a latent heat storage device (Melink 170) having a latent heat storage material (Melink 172), and a water heat storage device (Melink 160) that are connected to the heater in parallel to each other (see Melink figure 1, where 170 and 160 have their own respective branch lines 178 and 168 connected to a main supply line 118) and respective control valves (Melink 197 and 196) to allow independent control of flow to the latent heat storage device and water heat storage device (Melink [0047], “the water tank valve 196 may control the flow of facility loop refrigerant 111 through the water tank return line 169. Similarly, each PCM tank valve 197, 197′ may control the flow of facility loop refrigerant 111 through the corresponding PCM tank return line 179, 179′”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto’s system to incorporate Melink’s teachings of having the latent heat storage device and water heat storage device in parallel to each other with separate branch lines and control valves to produce a predictable result of allowing independent heating of each to improve efficiency by shutting off flow to a storage device when it cannot store any further heat.
Regarding claim 5, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 1 further teach the water flowing out from the water heat storage device (Kishimoto translation [0055]) is supplied to the hot-water demand side (Kishimoto translation [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 1 further teach, the hot-water supply apparatus comprises a heat exchanger (Kishimoto 29) configured to exchange heat between the water and atap water (see Kishimoto figure 3), wherein the tap water subjected to heat exchange is supplied to the hot-water demand side.
Regarding claim 8, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 5 further teach, the hot-water supply apparatus comprises a heat exchanger (Kishimoto 29) configured to exchange heat between the water and tap water (see Kishimoto figure 3)from a supply source, wherein the tap water is supplied to the hot-water demand side.
Regarding claim 11, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 1 teaches the hot-water supply apparatus comprises a water circuit switching device in the form of a valve (Melink 197) located in a pipe (Melink 179) downstream of the latent heat storage device (see Melink figure 1). Examiner notes that examiner has interpreted the claim language in the lower portion of the latent heat storage device to mean downstream of the latent heat storage device, this is consistent with applicant’s figures.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (JP 2007-205618) and Melink et al. (US 2021/0156601 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatanaka et al. (EP 3 546 846 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 1 teach a heat storage operation (Kishimoto translation [0049]) and a hot-water supply operation (Kishimoto translation [0049]) and switching between the two by utilizing different pumps (see Kishimoto figure 3) for the different modes.
Kishimoto is silent regarding the use of a heat medium circuit switching device and a controller configured to switch between the modes based upon temperatures of the latent heat storage device, heat medium heat storage device, and a set hot-water supply temperature.
However, Hatanaka teaches a hot-water supply apparatus comprising water circuit switching devices (Hatanaka 6A and 9) configured to switch from one flowpath to another and a controller (Hatanka Cnt) configured to control the water circuit switching device based upon water storage temperature from a water tank temperature sensor (Hatanaka 10D), and a set hot-water supply temperature (Hatanaka translation [0056]) such that either of the heat storage operation (Hatanaka translation [0044]) and hot-water supply operation (Hatanaka translation [0047]) can be performed while requiring only a single pump (Hatanaka 5) in the heat medium circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto's hot-water supply apparatus to incorporate Hatanaka's teachings of a controller and switching valves to produce a predictable result of enabling switching between the heat storage operation and hot-water supply operation while requiring only a single pump reducing equipment costs and controlling switching based upon temperatures of the storage mediums to ensure storage is kept at optimal temperatures to improve system efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (JP 2007-205618) and Melink et al. (US 2021/0156601 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hatanaka et al. (EP 3 546 846 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 5 teach a heat storage operation (Kishimoto translation [0049]) and a hot-water supply operation (Kishimoto translation [0049]) and switching between the two by utilizing different pumps (see Kishimoto figure 3) for the different modes.
Kishimoto is silent regarding the use of a heat medium circuit switching device and a controller configured to switch between the modes based upon temperatures of the latent heat storage device, heat medium heat storage device, and a set hot-water supply temperature.
However, Hatanaka teaches a hot-water supply apparatus comprising water circuit switching devices (Hatanaka 6A and 9) configured to switch from one flowpath to another and a controller (Hatanka Cnt) configured to control the water circuit switching device based upon water storage temperature from a water tank temperature sensor (Hatanaka 10D), and a set hot-water supply temperature (Hatanaka translation [0056]) such that either of the heat storage operation (Hatanaka translation [0044]) and hot-water supply operation (Hatanaka translation [0047]) can be performed while requiring only a single pump (Hatanaka 5) in the heat medium circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto's hot-water supply apparatus to incorporate Hatanaka's teachings of a controller and switching valves to produce a predictable result of enabling switching between the heat storage operation and hot-water supply operation while requiring only a single pump reducing equipment costs and controlling switching based upon temperatures of the storage mediums to ensure storage is kept at optimal temperatures to improve system efficiency.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (JP 2007-205618) and Melink et al. (US 2021/0156601 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hatanaka et al. (EP 3 546 846 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 6 teach a heat storage operation (Kishimoto translation [0049]) a24nd a hot-water supply operation (Kishimoto translation [0049]) and switching between the two by utilizing different pumps (see Kishimoto figure 3) for the different modes.
Kishimoto is silent regarding the use of a heat medium circuit switching device and a controller configured to switch between the modes based upon temperatures of the latent heat storage device, heat medium heat storage device, and a set hot-water supply temperature.
However, Hatanaka teaches a hot-water supply apparatus comprising water circuit switching devices (Hatanaka 6A and 9) configured to switch from one flowpath to another and a controller (Hatanka Cnt) configured to control the water circuit switching device based upon water storage temperature from a water tank temperature sensor (Hatanaka 10D), and a set hot-water supply temperature (Hatanaka translation [0056]) such that either of the heat storage operation (Hatanaka translation [0044]) and hot-water supply operation (Hatanaka translation [0047]) can be performed while requiring only a single pump (Hatanaka 5) in the heat medium circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto's hot-water supply apparatus to incorporate Hatanaka's teachings of a controller and switching valves to produce a predictable result of enabling switching between the heat storage operation and hot-water supply operation while requiring only a single pump reducing equipment costs and controlling switching based upon temperatures of the storage mediums to ensure storage is kept at optimal temperatures to improve system efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto et al. (JP 2007-205618) and Melink et al. (US 2021/0156601 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 110702851 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kishimoto and Melink as applied to claim 11 are silent regarding a water circuit switching device connecting to a pipe in an upper portion of the latent heat storage device.
However, Zhao teaches a system for testing performance of phase change energy storage devices (see Zhao figure 1) comprising a latent heat storage device (Zhao 21), a water heat storage device (Zhao 26), and a plurality of water circuit switching devices in the form of valves(see Zhao figure 1) including a valve (Zhao 23) located upstream of the latent heat storage device(see Zhao figure 4, depicting the latent heat storage device receiving hot water via valve 23). Examiner has interpreted the claim limitation pipe in an upper portion of the latent heat storage tank as referring to upstream.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto’s hot-water supply apparatus to incorporate Zhao’s teachings of a valve upstream of the latent heat storage device to produce a predictable result of allowing precise control of the flow of water to the latent heat storage device.
Regarding claim 13¸Kishimoto, Melink, and Zhao as applied to claim 12 are silent regarding a third circuit switching device connecting to a water supply source.
However, Zhao further teaches the system for testing performance of phase change energy storage devices (see Zhao figure 1) further comprises a water supply source (Zhao 18) with a valve (Zhao 17) for controlling the supply of water into the system (see Zhao figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto’s system to incorporate Zhao’s teachings of a valve at the water supply to produce a predictable result of controlling the flow of water entering the system.
Regarding claim 14, Kishimoto, Melink, and Zhao as applied to claim 13 are silent regarding a fourth water circuit switching device having a connecting port to a hot-water demand side.
However, Zhao further teaches a hot-water demand side in the form of a radiator (Zhao 19) with flow of water to the radiator controlled by a valve (Zhao 8, see Zhao figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto’s system to incorporate Zhao’s teachings of a valve controlling the flow of water to the hot-water demand side of the system to produce a predictable result of controlling the flow of water from the system to the hot-water demand side.
Regarding claim 15, Kishimoto, Melink, and Zhao as applied to claim 14 are silent regarding a fifth water circuit switching device connected to both the first water circuit switching device and the third water circuit switching device.
However, Zhao further teaches the system for testing performance of phase change energy storage devices (see Zhao figure 1) comprises a valve (Zhao 7) situated downstream of the latent heat storage device (see Zhao figure 4)(Examiner notes that a valve downstream of the latent heat storage device is equivalent to applicant’s first tap water circuit switching device) and a further valve (Zhao 12) that connects the third valve (Zhao 17) to the first valve (Zhao 7)(see Zhao figure 4) creating the possibility for flow through the latent heat storage device in different directions (see Zhao figure 4, depicting the third valve closed allowing a closed loop of flow between the latent heat storage device and the water heat storage device and figure 6 depicting flow through the phase change heat source in the opposite direction to use the latent heat storage device to heat the supply of water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto’s system to incorporate Zhao’s teachings of a fifth valve situated between the first and third valves to produce a predictable result of allowing water flow through the latent heat storage device in both directions to allow storage of heat from the water heat storage device and allow release of heat from the latent heat storage device for heating the supply water.
Regarding claim 16, Kishimoto, Melink, and Zhao as applied to claim 15 teach a sixth switching valve (Melink 196) located downstream of the water heat storage device (see Melink figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kishimoto, Melink, and Zhao as applied to claim 16 are silent regarding a pump and seventh water switching circuit connected to the pump.
However, Zhao further teaches a pump (Zhao 4) with a valve (Zhao 3) at the suction side of the pump (see Zhao figure 5) that enables a mode of operation where the latent heat storage device discharges heat into the heat demand side independent of the water heat storage device (see Zhao figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kishimoto’s system to incorporate Zhao’s teachings of a seventh valve at the suction side of a pump to produce a predictable result of allowing a mode of operation where the latent heat storage device can supply heat to the demand side without flow through the water heat storage device and heater.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record is silent regarding a water circuit switching device situated between the heater and a pipe in the upper portion of the water heat storage device and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to further modify the already functional system to incorporate further valves.
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 CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights