DETAILED ACTION
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The metes and bounds of “conventional air-cooling system” are unknown. The specification merely recites ‘conventional “one-fits-all” air-cooling system’ in Para. [0009]. This broad recitation appears to encompass all previously known cooling systems while the specification generates the claimed percentage energy savings against a single particular system under test. It is unknown how one could determine what the savings potential is against every known or possible under the existing art cooling system “conventionally” available. Furthermore, the limitations of the term ‘conventional’ itself are unknown.
Claims 2-15 depend from claim 1.
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) opposite the insulation layer (fig. 1a) sealed by an infrared transparent membrane (130) 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]).
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).
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.
The further reduction of the temperature requirement to 5 degrees is lower than the temperature cited by Teitelbaum (an exemplary tested temperature of 10 degrees C). However, Teitelbaum indicates that lower temperatures are both desirable and possible (final line of Para. [0046]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the lower temperature of 5 degrees C, as recited, in order to increase cooling power as indicated by Teitelbaum. It is noted that, as there are no structural differences claimed between the invention and the rejection statement, such a temperature is within the possibility of the device.
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.
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 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments against the claimed 5-15 degree C window not being routine optimization, this is not dispositive as Teitelbaum teaches a 10 degree C operating temperature and this aspect of the rejection statement does not rely upon routine optimization.
The arguments regarding portability of Teitelbaum are addressed by the teachings of Hall.
The arguments against Norell and Buff are related to the question of condensation which is already solved by Teitelbaum.
While the arguments against Higuchi are not conceded, Higuchi was replaced above due to the newly entered limitation requiring height adjustability.
There follows a broad assertion that there is no combinability which is addressed above by the individual motivational statements for each combination.
The applicants arguments against Qian do not address the fact that the specific makeup of the paint of Teitelbaum was left to one of ordinary skill and that Qian teaches such a paint which is known in the art for use in such applications. The operating temperatures and conditions and humidity and condensation concerns are all already addressed by Teitelbaum and do not concern the paint selection.
The supposed unexpected results cited by the applicant appear to be related to the overall operating temperatures, not the nature of the paint.
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 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