DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The final four lines added to claim 1 appear to constitute new matter. The recited 16.9% energy savings in the specification only refer to the “conventional air-cooling system”. The applicant’s attempt to replace this with a ‘precise technical baseline’ is not precise. The applicant appears to have modelled one theoretical system (generating the charts of Figs. 15a and 15b). This is not the same as establishing that the actual invention will operate with the modeled efficiency gains against literally any air conditioning system currently known that operates to maintain a uniform temperature at 24 degrees C. The sheer range of methods for providing cooling against which this claim is made are astoundingly large and include not only every method of providing the cooling to a region of air but also every method for generating the energy for the cooling. The claim also does not take into account the size of the load. For example, there are passive cooling schemes utilizing geothermal cooling, such as thermosiphons, which would theoretically utilize zero power under certain operating conditions.
If the applicant can find support within the application for a specifically defined comparison system against which the current invention was tested, they are requested to define such a system in the claim.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
All elements of claim 9 are already recited in claim 1.
Examiner’s Note on Claim Interpretation
Notwithstanding the above 112(a) rejection. The newly added subject matter in claim 1 is treated as intended use below. If the structure recited in the claim is capable of performing in such a manner, then the prior art structure applied is also “configured to” perform in such a manner. If there are structural elements which distinguish the invention and the prior art such that the prior art would not be so capable, then they would be required to be recited in the claim. See the quoted form paragraph below:
“ The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without [enumerated missing elements], which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).”
As such, a structure which meets the structural requirements of the apparatus claim 1 is treated as meeting the intended use recitation based on the presumption that the claim meets the requirements of 112(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teitelbaum (US 2020/0393148) in view of Norell (US 4,205,719), Buff (US 2018/0172296), and Hall (US 8,614,406).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Teitelbaum teaches a condensation free temperature adjustable radiant cooling board system comprising: a supporting panel (100) having a multi-layer structure comprising: at least one water (Para. [0031]) pipe layer (140); at least one insulation layer (160) on one side of the water pipe layer; at least one low humidity layer (110) having a thickness of 5-10 cm (see the calculations of Para. 39-40 which result in 110 layer thicknesses in the recited range) opposite the insulation layer (fig. 1a) sealed by an infrared transparent membrane (130) having a transmittance rate of at least 80% for infrared waves within a wavelength range of 2.5-22 microns (one construction material is LDPE, which is the same as the present application’s disclosure) over the radiant cooling surface in conjunction with at least one side frame (sides of 120), with desiccant materials positioned on the at least one side frame (Para. [0035]; the only available location for the desiccant is on the side frame; see Fig. 1a) to maintain dryness within the air-layer; the device radiates at temperatures within the recited range (see Para. [0046] reciting 10 degrees C); an angle adjuster allows for user selected change of a facing angle of the panel toward the user (see various tested angles; Para. [0040]); the membrane is maintained at a temperature above a dew point of a humid indoor environment for condensation free operation (see Para. [0042]; lack of condensation inherently means that the surface is above the dew-point).
Teitelbaum teaches that the humidity in the low humidity layer is a results effective variable with an optimum at zero (the cited ‘vacuum’ in Para. [0040]) but does not provide specific values (e.g. Para. [0040] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the humidity in the low humidity layer, including at the claimed values, as this is a recognized results effective variable.
Teitelbaum does not teach that the pipe layer is covered with at least one thermally-conductive conforming layer.
Norell teaches that it is old and well-known to surround such piping layers (11) with thermally conductive conforming layers (12).
It would have been obvious to provide the device of Teitelbaum with the layer of Norell to increase the surface area of effective thermal contact.
Teitelbaum does not teach that the pipe layer has a high-emissivity layer opposite the insulation layer.
Buff teaches that it is old and well-known in such devices to form a water pipe layer (11) with an insulation layer on one side (120) and a high emissivity radiative layer (100) on the other side creating a radiant cooling surface, per claim 1; formed from a thin metal layer coated with a high emissivity paint (Para. [0073]), per claim 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Teitelbaum with the layer of Buff to provide even radiation across the surface of the device.
Teitelbaum does not teach the moveable stand.
Hall teaches that infrared based localized thermal adjustment systems are known for indoor and/or outdoor use (Col. 1:39) and are on a moveable stand (245, 255) with a height (Col. 3:64-4:3) and facing angle (via 225; see angle adjust arrows in Fig. 2) adjuster.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Teitelbaum with the features of Hall in order to allow for adjustability of the device to changing needs in the environment and user location.
Regarding claim 12, Teitelbaum further teaches the method of installing the radiant cooling boards of claim 1 on each side of a user (Fig. 2); per the combination with ‘683 above, the boards are on movable stands and have angle adjusters. Teitelbaum does not specify the distance to the user. Hall further teaches that the spacing of the radiant cooling boards to other objects in the room is a results effective variable affecting airflow in the room and thus affecting comfort (Col. 1:43-44); the system is operated within a temperature range of 5 to 15 degrees C (Para. [0046]) such that a local operative temperature is regulated within a range suitable for human thermal comfort (see Para. [0003]) while preventing condensation on the radiant cooling board system (Para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the adjustable boards taught by Teitelbaum, as modified, as their location relative to other components of a space is a known results effective variable.
Teitelbaum further teaches that: the water pipe comprises supply and return capillaries (142, 144), per claim 2; the infrared transparent membrane is made from low density polyethylene (see Para. [0023]) thus having the transmittance rate recited of 80% in 2.5-22 microns), per claims 7 and 8; the device is useable with a facing angle of 90 degrees (see Para. [0041]), per claims 10 and 13; an inlet and outlet receive and return water to a chiller (142, 144), per claims 11 and 15; Teitelbaum teaches use in the recited temperature range (Para. [0046]), per claim 14.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 9, it is noted that no criticality has been presented in the disclosure for any of the recited dimensions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to choose any dimensions as driven by the requirements of a given application or installation, as such choices are within the ordinary skill. Regarding claim 9, specifically, see the rejection statement of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teitelbaum, Norell, Buff, Hall, and CN 103131274 (‘274).
Teitelbaum, as modified, does not specify the nature of the paint.
‘274 teaches that it is old and well-known to utilize carbon nanotube plus graphene laden paints for emissivity improvements (abstract).
It would have been obvious to utilize the paints of ‘274 in the device of Teitelbaum, as modified, as such details of the emissivity improving paint were left to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments in the 112 section are addressed in the newly entered 112(a) rejection above and not repeated here.
Regarding the applicant’s first assertion that the references individually or in combination doe not teach 5-10 cm air gap thickness or 80% infrared-transparent membrane, Teitelbaum teaches both of these. See the rejection of claim 1.
The applicant’s arguments regarding operation below 15 degrees C is not relevant. Firstly, Teitelbaum teaches operating the device by supplying it with 10 degree C coolant, successfully. Secondly, the claims only require operation at 15 degrees C, not lower, as claim 12 has been amended to recite the range of 5-15. Thirdly, even if the “operating at” language meant that the system overall radiates at a particular temperature rather than being supplied with coolant at that temperature, Teitelbaum also directly states that their system appeared to radiate at 15 degrees Celsius in real world conditions when operated with the 10 degree C coolant (see Para. [0046]).
In the section for claim 12, the applicant asserts precise calibration and other phrases related to criticality for various features. However, no citations to support in the disclosure were seen.
Regarding claim 5 and the combination with Qian, the applicant asserts that the purpose for which they have adopted a specific range of emissivity values is related to critical synergistic effects within the system and therefore the adoption of similar coatings from Qian in combination is improper. Firstly, no citation of support is found to the disclosure. Secondly, one of ordinary skill would easily recognize that high emissivities would directly cause high thermal transfer efficiencies and therefore the adoption of such high emissivity coatings would have been obvious. It is not relevant that the applicant arrived at the decision by another means, absent unexpected results which have not been disclosed or asserted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights