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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Upon review, claims 14 and 15 are directed to non-elected species E (Figures 11a-11f) since claim 14 recites two outer panels. The recited limitations in claims 14 and 15 are not compatible with the elected species as examined. Accordingly, claims 14 and 15 are further withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 6/11/2026 are as follows:
Claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 16 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-15, and 17-26 are pending;
Claims 14, 15, 23 and 24 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-13, 17-22, and 25-26 are being examined.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 6/11/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 5/12/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the form is blank. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The information disclosure statement filed 6/11/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-13, 17, 18, 20-22, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norell (US4205719) in view of Teitelbaum (US2020/0393148A1).
Re Claim 1. Norell teaches a radiant cooling and/or heating assembly (Figure 3; Column 5 lines 27-35 teaches heating and cooling) comprising:
a housing (1) containing a heat transfer pipe (11) through which a heat transfer medium is passable (Figure 3; Column 3 lines 21-36; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
at least one outer radiant heat transfer surface (bottom of 5 in Figure 3) for heat transfer with the surrounding environment (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
a first heat transfer panel (12) with a first inner heat transfer surface (lower surface of 12) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6), and
a second heat transfer panel (5) with a second inner heat transfer surface (top surface of 5) which faces said first inner heat transfer surface (lower surface of 12) of said first heat transfer panel (12) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
wherein said first heat transfer panel (12) is in contact with at least part of said heat transfer pipe (11) (11 is contained within 12, thus 11 contacts 12) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
wherein said first inner heat transfer surface and said second inner heat transfer surface are separated from each other by a separation (13 separates 12 and 5) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
wherein said separation is filled at least partly with a thermal conductive layer (13) made of at least one material having a thermal conductivity higher than that of air (13 is aluminum, thus it has a higher thermal conductivity than that of air) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6), and
wherein said housing contains insulation (8) adapted to at least reduce heat transfer between said heat transfer pipe and an outer major surface (outer top surface of 6) of said housing which is opposite to said outer radiant heat transfer surface (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6).
Norell teaches an insulation material (8) above the heat transfer pipe (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 25-29) but fails to specifically teach the insulation is polyurethane foam.
However, Teitelbaum teaches it is known to use polyurethane foam (160) in a radiant cooling assembly (100) (Figure 1A; Paragraph 32).
Therefore, in view of Teitelbaum's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the insulation of Norell to be polyurethane foam in order to provide a foam that is resistant to mold and mildew, thereby improving the overall lifespan and operation of the radiant assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the insulation of Norell to be polyurethane foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 2. Norell teaches a radiant cooling and/or heating assembly (Figure 3; Column 5 lines 27-35 teaches heating and cooling) comprising:
a housing (1) containing a heat transfer pipe (11) through which a heat transfer medium is passable (Figure 3; Column 3 lines 21-36; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
at least one outer radiant heat transfer surface (bottom of 5 in Figure 3) for heat transfer with the surrounding environment (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
a first heat transfer panel (12) with a first inner heat transfer surface (lower surface of 12) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6), and
a second heat transfer panel (5) with a second inner heat transfer surface (top surface of 5) which faces said first inner heat transfer surface (lower surface of 12) of said first heat transfer panel (12) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
wherein said first heat transfer panel (12) is in contact with at least part of said heat transfer pipe (11) (11 is contained within 12, thus 11 contacts 12) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
wherein said first inner heat transfer surface and said second inner heat transfer surface are separated from each other by a separation (13 separates 12 and 5) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6),
wherein said separation is filled at least partly with a thermal conductive layer (13) made of at least one material having a thermal conductivity higher than that of air (13 is aluminum, thus it has a higher thermal conductivity than that of air) (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6).
Norell teaches the separation is enclosed within the assembly (Figure 3) but fails to specifically teach wherein said separation is sealed against outside fluid communication.
However, Teitelbaum teaches it is known to seal a radiant assembly (Figure 1A; Paragraph 36, 40, 42. Teietelbaum also teaches forming a vacuum in the housing, wherein the housing would be hermitically sealed in order to maintain a vacuum. Thus, the assembly of Teitelbaum is sealed from outside fluid communication). When Teitelbaum is combined with Norell, the resulting combination would be the housing of Norell would be sealed from the exterior environment, thereby resulting in said separation of Norell being sealed against outside fluid communication.
Therefore, in view of Teitelbaum's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the separation of Norell to be sealed against outside fluid communication in order to prevent dust and debris from collecting inside the housing which is known to reduce overall performance.
Re Claim 9. Norell further teaches said heat transfer pipe meanders within said housing (Figure 3).
Re Claim 10 & 20. Norell further teaches said first heat transfer panel comprises a plurality of heat conductive metal or alloy panel sections lying adjacent to each other (Figures 1 and 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6).
Re Claim 11. Norell further 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 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6).
Re Claim 12. Norell further teaches said heat conducting portion of said panel section is c-shaped or semi-circular in shape (Figure 3 illustrates the outer surface at 11 is C-shaped; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6).
Re Claim 13. Norell further teaches two adjacent panel sections with oppositely arranged conducting portions surround said heat transfer pipe and cover an entire straight portion of said heat transfer pipe (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6; The panel 12 covers the straight portions of 11 as seen in Figure 3).
Re Claim 17. Norell as modified by Teitelbaum teach 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) (Norell Column 5 lines 27-35 teaches heating and cooling).
Re Claim 18. Norell further teaches said at least one radiant cooling and/or heating assembly comprises a plurality of radiant cooling and/or heating assemblies (Figure 3; Column 4 lines 57-68, Column 5 lines 1-6).
Re Claim 21. Norell as modified by Teitelbaum teach 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 (see claim 2 rejection above) (Norell Column 5 lines 27-35 teaches heating and cooling).
Re Claim 22. Norell as modified by Teitelbaum teach 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 (Norell Figure 3, Column 4 lines 25-29; Teitelbaum Figure 1A; Paragraph 32).
Re Claims 25 & 26. Norell 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 Norell 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. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select an operating range of 5°C to 12°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norell (US4205719) in view of Teitelbaum (US2020/0393148A1) and in further view of Langer (US2015/0000888A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 6 & 19. Norell teaches the thermal conductive layer is aluminum (Column 5 line 4) but fails to specifically teach said thermal conductive layer comprises at least an anisotropic graphite sheet.
However, Langer teaches a radiant heating or cooling assembly (10) that comprises a thermal conductive layer (12) that comprises at least an anisotropic graphite sheet (Figure 1; Paragraphs 4, 64). Langer teaches the benefit of anisotropic graphite sheet is “Due to their high heat conductivity in the plane and their heat storage capacity, heat conductivity plates of this kind arranged above a pipe body through which a heat transfer medium flows, such as a pipe meander or pipe spiral, and made of expanded graphite achieve a uniform heat distribution even over large surfaces and emit the heat supplied to them by the pipe body uniformly into the space surrounding them” (Paragraph 4).
Therefore, in view of Langer's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the thermal conductive layer of Norell to be anisotropic graphite sheet in order to achieve a uniform heat distribution even over large surfaces and emit the heat supplied to them by the pipe body uniformly into the space surrounding them (Langer Paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the thermal conductive layer of Norell to be anisotropic graphite sheet, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS 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
Prosecution Insights