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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN216115559U, “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a heat pipe integrated thermal battery (“HITB”) (fig 1) comprising:
a storage tank (8);
a thermal storage medium within the storage tank (page 3, lines 6-20);
a guide tube (fig 2) extending within the storage tank and through at least one end of the storage tank; and
a heat pipe (6) configured to be movable within the guide tube, the heat pipe being capable to discharge heat to and absorb heat from the thermal storage medium within the storage tank. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, as a general rule, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. On the other hand, patent claims can distinguish from the prior art by claiming functional features which are a result of structural differences. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature “by what it does rather than by what it is” (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 4, Yang further discloses wherein the guide tube comprises an end cap (12) allowing access within the guide tube (fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Yang further discloses a thermal interface within the guide tube, the thermal interface (112) being between an inner surface of the guide tube (fig 2) and an external surface of the heat pipe (6).
Regarding claim 6, Yang further discloses wherein the thermal interface comprises a sleeve (112) disposed against the inner surface of the guide tube (fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Yang further discloses wherein the sleeve (112) comprises a porous metal (asbestos, page 3, lines 22-38).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weibezahn (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0068282).
Regarding claim 1, Weibezahn discloses a heat pipe integrated thermal battery (“HITB”) (fig 2) comprising:
a storage tank (210);
a thermal storage medium within the storage tank (¶0028);
a guide tube (208) extending within the storage tank and through at least one end of the storage tank; and
a heat pipe (114) configured to be movable within the guide tube, the heat pipe being capable to discharge heat to and absorb heat from the thermal storage medium within the storage tank. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). As such, as a general rule, the manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. On the other hand, patent claims can distinguish from the prior art by claiming functional features which are a result of structural differences. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature “by what it does rather than by what it is” (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 2, Weibezahn further discloses a heat pipe drive mechanism (see ¶0020) configured to move the heat pipe (114) within the guide tube (208).
Regarding claim 12, Weibezahn further discloses wherein the guide tube (208) protrudes from a first end of the storage tank (210) and protrudes from a second end of the storage tank opposite the first end of the storage tank (see annotated fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
667
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popovich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,169,460, “Popovich”).
Regarding claim 14, Popovich discloses a thermal energy storage system (fig 4) comprising:
a feed and drain tank (48) comprising a heating element (50) operable to melt a thermal storage medium (29) to a molten state;
a heat pipe integrated thermal battery (“HITB”)(53) comprising a storage tank (53), the storage tank operable to hold the thermal storage medium such that latent heat of the thermal storage medium may be stored in the HITB;
a thermal storage medium transport line (34) connecting the feed and drain tank to the HITB; and
a pump (55) configured to move the thermal storage medium from the feed and drain tank to the HITB and from the HITB to the feed and drain tank.
Regarding claim 15, Popovich further discloses a HITB venting line (49) connecting the HITB and the feed and drain tank, the HITB venting line being configured to vent gas (as during boiling of the fluid gas would be transferred from 53 to 48) from the HITB to the feed and drain tank (48).
Regarding claim 16, Popovich further discloses a HITB vacuum line (40) connecting the pump (55) to the HITB, the HITB vacuum line comprising a first valve (56); and
a feed and drain vacuum line (34) connecting the pump to the feed and drain tank (48), the feed and drain vacuum line comprising a second valve (45), wherein when the first valve is opened and the second valve is closed, a vacuum is applied to the HITB to move the thermal storage medium from the feed and drain tank to the HITB via the thermal storage medium transport line, and wherein when the first valve is closed and the second valve is opened, a vacuum is applied to the feed and drain tank to move the thermal storage medium from the HITB to the feed and drain tank (col 4, lines 29-62).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ward (U.S. Patent No. 4,267,285).
Regarding claim 17, Ward discloses a method for operating a heat pipe integrated thermal battery (“HITB”) (fig 1) comprising:
charging the HITB, the charging comprising:
moving a heat pipe (2) through a guide tube (4) of the HITB to a charging position;
absorbing heat into the heat pipe from a first external system (7) and transferring heat from the heat pipe to a thermal storage medium in a storage tank (8) of the HITB (col 3, line 54-col 4, line 3);
discharging the HITB, the discharging comprising:
moving the heat pipe through the guide tube to a discharging position;
absorbing heat into the heat pipe from the thermal storage medium in the storage tank of the HITB and discharging heat from the heat pipe to a second external system (60, col 3, line 54-col 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 20, Ward further discloses wherein heat stored in the thermal storage medium is stored as latent heat of the thermal storage medium (as Ward teaches bringing water to a boiling point, col 3, lines 22-42).
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adachi (Japanese Patent Publication JPS58136436A).
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses all previous claim limitations. Yang further discloses wherein the storage tank (9) comprises a cylindrical tank (fig 1). However, Yang does not explicitly disclose the tank comprising an inner wall, an outer wall, and an insulating liner between the inner wall and the outer wall. Adachi, however, disclose a wall which may be used for a tank (page 1, lines 32-33) having an inner wall (R), an outer wall (R), and an insulating liner (H) between the inner wall and the outer wall. Adachi teaches that this configuration allows for optimal heat insulation of the tank (page 1, lines 55-58). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yang to provide the wall of Adachi in order to provide greater thermal insulation of the tank.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yang and Adachi discloses all previous claim limitations. Yang, as modified, further discloses wherein the inner wall and the outer wall comprise stainless steel and wherein the insulating liner comprises a boron nitride coating (see page 1, line 38 and page 2, line 1 of Adachi).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Romagnoli et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2020/0200047, “Romagnoli”).
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermal storage medium comprises a metal alloy and wherein heat stored in the thermal storage medium is stored as latent heat of the metal alloy. Romagnoli, however, discloses a thermal storage system (fig 1) wherein the thermal storage medium comprises a metal alloy and wherein heat stored in the thermal storage medium is stored as latent heat of the metal alloy (¶0028). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yang to provide a thermal storage medium comprising of a metal alloy in order to provide the optimal heat storage for the application.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yang and Romagnoli discloses all previous claim limitations. Yang, as modified, further disclose wherein the metal alloy comprises an aluminum alloy (see ¶0028 of Romagnoli).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Popovich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,169,460, “Popovich”).
Regarding claim 18, Ward discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Ward does not explicitly disclose prior to charging, filling the HITB with the thermal storage medium from a feed and drain tank. Popovich, however, discloses a thermal storage system (fig 4) wherein prior to charging, filling a HITB (48) with the thermal storage medium from a feed and drain tank (41). Popovich teaches that this drain and feed tank allows for air to be removed from the system (col 4, lines 35-39). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Ward to provide the feed and drain tank of Popovich in order to remove air from the system and thus ensure optimal heat transfer efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, Ward discloses all previous claim limitations. However, Ward does not explicitly disclose emptying the thermal storage medium from the HITB to a feed and drain tank. Popovich, however, discloses a thermal storage system (fig 4) emptying the thermal storage medium from the HITB (48) to a feed and drain tank (41). Popovich teaches that this drain and feed tank allows for air to be removed from the system (col 4, lines 35-39). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Ward to provide the feed and drain tank of Popovich in order to remove air from the system and thus ensure optimal heat transfer efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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:
With regards to claim 3, the prior art does not teach wherein the guide tube comprises fins on a portion of the guide tube that extends outside the storage tank. Weibezahn, considered the closest prior art, teaches a guide tube (208) with fins (see fig 2). However, Weibezahn fails to teach the fins being outside the storage tank (210). The prior art fails to render this obvious and thus the claim contains allowable subject matter.
With regards to claim 13, the prior art does not teach wherein when the heat pipe is moved to a first end of the guide tube, the heat pipe is configured to absorb heat and to transfer heat to the thermal storage medium, and wherein when the heat pipe is moved to a second end of the guide tube, the heat pipe is configured to absorb heat from the thermal storage medium and release heat from the guide tube. Weibezahn, considered the closest prior art, teaches moving a heat pipe (114) to a first end of a guide tube (208, i.e. when the heat pipe is inserted into the guide tube) absorbing heat and transferring heat to a thermal storage medium (of the thermal storage tank 210). However, Weibezahn fails to teach wherein when the heat pipe is moved to a second end of the guide tube, the heat pipe is configured to absorb heat from the thermal storage medium and release heat from the guide tube. The prior art fails to render this obvious and thus the claim contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights