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 previously elected without traverse Species D (Figures 9a-9d) and Species S5 (anisotropic graphite sheet) in the reply filed on 8/5/2025.
Newly submitted claims 23 and 24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 23 and 24 recite “at least one frame member with an F-shaped cross-sectional profile”, which is directed towards Species A, B, or C. Elected Species D comprises L-shaped frame members. Thus, claims 23 and 24 are directed towards non-elected inventions. Accordingly, claims 23 and 24 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/5/2026 are as follows:
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 19-26 are newly added;
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-15, and 17-26 are pending;
Claims 23 and 24 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-15, 17-22, and 25-26 are being examined.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 1/5/2026. These drawings are entered and objected to.
The drawings remain objected to because:
Figures with a letter should be capitalized and the word Figure abbreviated to Fig. (i.e. “Figure 1a” should be “FIG. 1A”, and so forth) (See MPEP 608.02V, 37 C.F.R. 1.84(u) “Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."”).
Figures 2a, 2b, 3, 4 still contain faint lines, hand drawn reference characters, and poor image quality ((See 37 CFR 1.84(l) which states: “(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning”);
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-15, 17-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guckert (US2013/0168040A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1. Guckert teaches a radiant cooling and/or heating assembly (10) comprising (Figure 1):
a housing (2) containing a heat transfer pipe (12) through which a heat transfer medium is passable, at least one outer radiant heat transfer surface (bottom of 2a) for heat transfer with the surrounding environment, a first heat transfer panel (9, 11) with a first inner heat transfer surface, and a second heat transfer panel (2a) with a second inner heat transfer surface which faces said first inner heat transfer surface of said first heat transfer panel, wherein said first heat transfer panel is in contact with at least part of said heat transfer pipe (9, 11 holds the pipes 12) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41),
wherein said first inner heat transfer surface and said second inner heat transfer surface are separated from each other by a separation (9, 11 is separated from 2a vis graphite 1 and non-woven fabric 3), and wherein said separation is filled at least partly with a thermal conductive layer (1) made of at least one material having a thermal conductivity higher than that of air (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41; Layer 1 is a graphite film, wherein it is known that graphite has a much higher thermal conductivity than air); and
wherein said housing contains an insulation material (i.e. air) adapted to at least reduce heat transfer between said heat transfer pipe and an outer major surface of said housing which is opposite to said outer radiant heat transfer surface (Figure 1; Air fills the space above the heat transfer pipe, wherein air is an insulation material when compared to the thermal conductivity of the heat transfer pipe).
Re Claim 2. Guckert teaches a radiant cooling and/or heating assembly (10) comprising (Figure 1):
a housing (2) containing a heat transfer pipe (12) through which a heat transfer medium is passable, at least one outer radiant heat transfer surface (bottom of 2a) for heat transfer with the surrounding environment, a first heat transfer panel (9, 11) with a first inner heat transfer surface, and a second heat transfer panel (2a) with a second inner heat transfer surface which faces said first inner heat transfer surface of said first heat transfer panel, wherein said first heat transfer panel is in contact with at least part of said heat transfer pipe (9, 11 holds the pipes 12) (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41),
wherein said first inner heat transfer surface and said second inner heat transfer surface are separated from each other by a separation (9, 11 is separated from 2a vis graphite 1 and non-woven fabric 3), and wherein said separation is filled at least partly with a thermal conductive layer (1) made of at least one material having a thermal conductivity higher than that of air (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41; Layer 1 is a graphite film, wherein it is known that graphite has a much higher thermal conductivity than air); and
wherein said separation is substantially sealed against outside fluid communication (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41; The layers are adhesively bonded, thus forming a seal).
Re Claim 6. Guckert teaches said thermal conductive layer comprises at least an anisotropic graphite sheet (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 10. Guckert teaches said first heat transfer panel comprises a plurality of heat conductive metal or alloy panel sections (11) lying adjacent to each other (Figure 1 illustrates two panel sections; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 11. Guckert teaches each panel section of said panel sections includes a heat conducting portion with a concave surface having a curvature complementary to a curvature of an outer surface of said heat transfer pipe (Figure 1 illustrates the panel sections are curved to the shape of the pipes; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 12. Guckert teaches said heat conducting portion of said panel section is c-shaped or semi-circular in shape (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 13. Guckert teaches two adjacent panel sections with oppositely arranged conducting portions surround said heat transfer pipe and substantially cover an entire straight portion of said heat transfer pipe (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 14. Guckert teaches said assembly includes at least two outer radiant heat transfer surfaces (2b) for heat transfer with the surrounding environment (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 15. Guckert teaches said at least two outer radiant heat transfer surfaces face opposite directions (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 17. Guckert teaches a cooling and/or heating system including a heat exchanger and/or a boiler connected with at least one radiant cooling and/or heating assembly according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above) (Paragraph 35 teaches heating and cooling medium is passed through the piping 12, thus a cooling or heating system including a heat exchanger is implicitly taught in order to produce the heating or cooling medium).
Re Claim 18. Guckert teaches said at least one radiant cooling and/or heating assembly comprises a plurality of radiant cooling and/or heating assemblies (Figure 1; Paragraphs 18, 34-41).
Re Claim 19. Guckert teaches said thermal conductive layer comprises at least an anisotropic graphite sheet (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 20. Guckert teaches said first heat transfer panel comprises a plurality of heat conductive metal or alloy panel sections (11) lying adjacent to each other (Figure 1 illustrates two panel sections; Paragraphs 34-41).
Re Claim 21. Guckert teaches a cooling and/or heating system including a heat exchanger and/or a boiler connected with at least one radiant cooling and/or heating assembly according to Claim 2 (Figure 1; Paragraph 6 teaches the panels are used for heating or cooling a room. Thus, in order to transfer heat to or from the room, the fluid in the lines must exchange heat with another heat exchanger outside of the room to recool or reheat the fluid in the lines. Therefore, Guckert teaches a cooling or heat system with a heat exchanger and at least one radiant cooling or heating assembly).
Re Claim 22. Guckert teaches said insulation material in said housing is adapted to at least reduce heat transfer between said heat transfer pipe and outer surfaces of said housing other than said outer radiant heat transfer surface (Figure 1; Air fills the space above and to the side of the heat transfer pipe, wherein air is an insulation material when compared to the thermal conductivity of the heat transfer pipe. Thus, the insulation material reduces heat transfer between said heat transfer pipe and the side walls of the housing).
Re Claims 25 & 26. Guckert teaches said heat transfer medium in said heat transfer pipe is maintained at a temperature from 5°C to 12°C (It is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus, wherein the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Specifically, MPEP 2115 states that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). The heat transfer pipes of Guckert are capable of containing heat transfer fluid in the range of 5°C to 12°C as this is a standard temperature range for radiant heat exchangers).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guckert (US2013/0168040A1, hereinafter Guckert ‘040, as previously cited) in view of Guckert (US2013/0192793A1, hereinafter Guckert ‘793, as previously cited).
Re Claim 9. Guckert ‘040 teaches the heat transfer pipes (Figure 1) but fails to teach said heat transfer pipe meanders within said housing.
However, Guckert ‘793 teaches a similar cooling assembly (1) with heat transfer pipes (9) that meanders within said housing (Figures 1-3; Paragraph 18 teaches “The pipes 9 are preferably arranged in a serpentine shape in the interior of the panel 1. Other laying patterns of the pipes such as, for example, a spiral-shaped, grid-shaped or meander-shaped arrangement or an arrangement only in the edge zones of the panel 1 is feasible”).
Therefore, in view of Guckert ‘793's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to meander the heat transfer pipes of Guckert ‘040 in order to increase the time for heat transfer in each pipe, thereby achieving optimal heat transfer. Additionally, meandering pipes in heat exchanger assemblies is well-known and understood in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the reply that Guckert fails to teach the new limitations of claim 1, specifically the inclusion of insulation material. The space above the pipes of Guckert contain air, wherein air is considered an insulation material relative to the thermal conductivity of the heat transfer pipes. The applicant has failed to specifically claim the insulative material composition or thermal properties. Thus, a broad and reasonable interpretation of insulation material includes air. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the reply that Guckert fails to teach “said separation is substantially sealed against outside fluid communication”. The layers of Guckert are adhesively bonded, thus forming a seal. The applicant points to the sides of Guckert and alleges that the sides are not sealed, and thus cannot satisfy the claim limitation. However, the claim language does not require a perfect hermetic seal, but rather the broader “substantially” sealed. The inclusion of substantially broadens the scope of the sealing and does not require a perfect seal across the entire separation. Therefore, the adhesive bonding of the separation layer satisfies the limitation of being “substantially sealed” and the applicants’ argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the reply that Guckert fails to teach anisotropic graphite sheet. Guckert teaches said thermal conductive layer comprises at least an anisotropic graphite sheet (Figure 1; Paragraphs 34-41). The graphite sheet of Guckert will have anisotropic properties due to the expanded graphite being compressed into sheets. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Claim 19- This claim depends on Claim 1, and further specifies that the insulation material in the housing is adapted to at least reduce heat transfer between the heat transfer pipe and outer surfaces of the housing other than the outer radiant heat transfer surface”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cited limitations are not found in claim 19) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Claim 20 - The "F" shaped frame member 41 made of nylon resin will reduce heat transfer between the base plate 30 and the lateral edges. This configuration minimizes heat transfer to the sides of the housing frame and maximizes the heat transfer process at the functional side facing the room surrounding environment. In contrast, the constructions of US'040 and US'793 allow heat conduction from the heating/cooling register 9to the frame 2 and ceiling 5, in all directions. Claim20 thus further specifies that the housing contains at least a side wall and at least one frame member with an F-shaped cross-sectional profile, the frame member being between the first heat transfer panel and the side wall for reducing heat transfer between the first heat transfer panel and the side wall”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cited limitations are not found in claim 20) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 12 of the reply that “Claim 21 - According to the Inventor, condensation is suppressed when the radiant cooling/heating assembly according to their invention operates with chilled media at 5Cto12C through a well-coordinated design for the indoor environment dew point condition. This feature is claimed in new Claim 21”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cited limitations are not found in claim 21) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, it is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus, wherein the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Specifically, MPEP 2115 states that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). The heat transfer pipes of Guckert are capable of containing heat transfer fluid in the range of 5°C to 12°C as this is a standard temperature range for radiant heat exchangers.
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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763