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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 24 June, 2025. The amendments have been entered.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-18 and 22 are pending.
Claims 19-21 have been cancelled.
Claim 22 is new.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure remains objected to because:
While Applicant has submitted an amended abstract within the reply filed on 24 June, 2025, the amended abstract has been further amended to include implied phrases. Specifically, the amended abstract has been amended to recite, “The disclosure is directed to”, “The disclosure further relates to”. For this, the amended abstract is objected to for the use of these implied phrases.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“compressing aid” in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 22 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.
Claim limitation “compressing aids” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Particularly, “compressing aids” is recited at page 17 of the originally-filed specification, but there is no express disclosure of the structure, material, or acts which correspond to the “aids” so as to carry out the full function of the limitation, i.e., “compressing”. At best, the disclosure, further, recites “processing aids” at pages 4 and 14 which are defined by particular materials. It is being interpreted for examination purposes, the intention of the claim is to encompass “processing aids”, but there is no clear link between “compressing aids” and “processing aids”, as disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHMIDT (DE 102019205788 A1 – published 29 October, 2020; furnished with the IDS filed on 20 October, 2023; see provided English machine translation for citations), in view of CUYPERS (WO 2018182413 A1 – published in English on 4 October, 2018).
As to claim 1, SCHMIDT discloses a thermochemical energy storage system (par. 109-110), comprising heat storage bodies (100; par. 105), said bodies comprising a thermochemical substance (par. 18-23) wherein said bodies comprise a first surface side and a second surface side at least substantially opposite to the first surface side (see annotated figures 1-4), wherein both of said surfaces are curved (figure 1-4).
However, SCHMIDT does not expressly disclose wherein the heat storage bodies are compressed.
CUYPERS, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a thermochemical energy storage system (abstract). CUYPERS discloses wherein the system includes heat storage bodies which are compressed (pg. 9, lines 11-18) by forming the heat storage bodies through a pill-press (i.e., low pressure extruder or pelleting machine). CUYPERS discloses that such formation enables obtaining a suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies, as desired (pg. 9, lines 13-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify SCHMIDT, in view of the teachings of CUYPERS to provide the heat storage bodies are compressed heat storage bodies, by way of the formation process of the heat storage bodies, to obtain the suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies (pg. 9, lines 11-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
468
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
436
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
402
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
As to claim 2, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein the heat storage bodies are anisotropic bodies having an aspect ratio defined as a shortest projected size to longest projected size (see annotated figures 1-3).
However, SCHMIDT, as presently modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the aspect ratio is in the range of 2:1 to 20:1.
First, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT to have the aspect ratio within the range of 2:1 to 20:1, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of SCHMIDT would not operate differently with the claimed aspect ratio and since the heat storage bodies are intended to include the shape of an ellipsoid (par. 29), known to have minor and major axis lengths that are different from one another, such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed aspect ratio.
Second, CUYPERS discloses that such formation enables obtaining a suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies, as desired (pg. 9, lines 13-16), wherein the changes in diameter and length of the resulting heat storage bodies necessarily would result in different aspect ratios of the heat storage bodies. As such, the aspect ratio is taught to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, that provides a desired shape to achieve desired properties of the heat storage bodies (pg. 9, lines 13-18). Further, it appears one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of SCHMIDT to have the aspect ratio within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT by making the aspect ratio be between 2:1 and 20:1 as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 – II.
Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “The anisotropic heat storage bodies usually have an aspect ratio defined as shorted projected size to longest projected size in the range of 2:1 to 20:1” and providing a number of different preferential aspect ratios different from that claimed.
As to claim 3, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein the heat storage bodies have at least one plane of symmetry (figures 1-2).
As to claim 4, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein the heat storage bodies have a rotational axis orthogonal to said first surface side and said second surface side (such as a rotational axis formed along the minor axis shown in annotated figures 1 and 2 that is perpendicular to the first and second side surfaces).
As to claim 5, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein said bodies are biconvex discoidal bodies (figures 1-4, in view of figure 7 to include the spacer chamber; par. 191-192).
As to claim 6, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein said bodies are biconcave discoidal bodies (figures 1-4, in view of figure 7 to include the spacer chamber; par. 191-192).
As to claim 7, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein – in addition to said first surface side and said second surface side – the bodies further comprises an essentially cylindrical surface side (see annotated figure 1, in view of par. 103 that provides the cross-sectional view of the heat storage body and par. 30) and the at least substantially opposing surface sides are on opposite sides of said cylindrical surface side (see annotated figure 1), thereby defining a curved base side of the heat storage bodies(see annotated figure 1).
As to claim 8, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, discloses wherein the heat storage bodies have a longest projected size (see annotated figures 1-3).
However, SCHMIDT, as presently modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the longest projected size is in the range of 2mm to 20mm.
First, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT to have the longest projected size within the range of 2mm to 20mm., since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of SCHMIDT would not operate differently with the claimed longest projected size and since the heat storage bodies are intended to include the shape of an ellipsoid (par. 29), known to have a major axis length, such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed longest projected size.
Second, CUYPERS discloses that such formation enables obtaining a suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies, as desired (pg. 9, lines 13-16), wherein the changes in diameter and length of the resulting heat storage bodies necessarily would result in different longest projected sizes of the heat storage bodies. As such, the longest projected size is taught to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, that provides a desired shape to achieve desired properties of the heat storage bodies (pg. 9, lines 13-18). Further, it appears one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of SCHMIDT to have the longest projected size within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT by making the longest projected size within the range of 2mm to 20mm as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 – II.
Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “Usually, the heat storage bodies have a longest projected size of about 1mm or more, in particular 2mm or more, preferably at least 4mm, more preferably of at least 6mm…the longest projected size of the heat storage bodies is about 30 mm or less, preferably 20mm or less, more preferably 15 mm or less, in particular 12 mm or less.”, which provides a number of different preferential longest projected sizes different from that claimed.
As to claim 9, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, previously taught wherein the heat storage bodies were compressed bodies (see rejection of claim 1).
As such, the resulting combination provides wherein the compressed bodies are compacted bodies for the reasons previously provided.
As to claim 10, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein the heat storage bodies comprise a thermochemical substance selected from the group consisting of thermochemical salts (par. 18-23).
As to claim 11, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein the thermochemical substance content of the heat storage bodies is relative to the total weight of the bodies (in view of the resulting heat storage bodies containing an amount of thermochemical substance apart of the total weight of the resulting bodies).
However, SCHMIDT, as presently modified, does not expressly disclose wherein content of the thermochemical substance is at least 90 wt.% of the total weight of the bodies.
First, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT to have the content of the thermochemical substance to be at least 90 wt.% of the total weight of the bodies, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of SCHMIDT would not operate differently with the claimed weight percentage of the thermochemical substance and since the heat storage bodies are intended to include an amount of thermochemical substance to perform the heat storage function (par. 7-9, 17, and 23), such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed weight percentage to total weight of the heat storage body.
Second, CUYPERS discloses that the weight of the thermochemical material may be varied (pg. 7, line 13-19). As such, the weight percentage is taught to be a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, that provides a desired function the heat storage bodies (pg. 7, line 13-19). Further, it appears one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the device of SCHMIDT to have the weight percentage to the total weight within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT by making the content of the thermochemical substance to be at least 90 wt.% of the total weight of the bodies as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 – II.
Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “Usually, the thermochemical substance content, preferably the thermochemical salt content, is about 80-100 wt.% of the weight of the heat storage bodies, preferably at least 90 wt.%, more preferably at least 95 wt.%, in particular at least 96wt.%, more in particular 97 wt.%”, which provides a number of different preferential weight percentages different from that claimed.
As to claim 12, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses wherein the heat storage bodies further comprise an additive (114; par. 149 and 153-155).
As to claim 13, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS discloses wherein the heat storage bodies have a density (as a result of the materials forming the heat storage bodies).
However, SCHMIDT, as presently modified, does not expressly disclose wherein the density is in the range of 1.5 – 3.0 g/cm³.
First, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of SCHMIDT to have the density is in the range of 1.5 – 3.0 g/cm³, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). In the instant case, the device of SCHMIDT would not operate differently with the claimed density of the heat storage bodies, such that the device would function appropriately having the claimed density the heat storage body.
Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “The density of the (individual) heat storage bodies generally is in the range of about 1.5 to about 3.0 g/cm³, preferably in the range of 1.5-2.5 g/cm³, more preferably in the range of 1.5-2.3 g/cm³”, which provides a number of different preferential densities different from that claimed.
As to claim 14, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, discloses wherein the heat storage bodies are monolithic structures (par. 14).
As to claim 15, SCHMIDT, as modified, by CUYPERS, discloses wherein essentially all of the heat storage bodies have essentially the same shape, essentially the same longest projected size and essentially the same aspect ratio (par. 6).
As to claim 16, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, discloses applying the heat storage bodies to a system (see rejection of claim 1).
However, SCHMIDT, as modified, does not disclose the requirements of the claim.
CUYPERS, however, teaches a housing containing a thermochemical reaction bed (figure 1A) comprising the heat storage bodies (20). CUYPERS teaches wherein the housing includes one or more openings (30 connected to openings at the right and left ends thereof) configured for introducing gas into the thermochemical reaction bed and/or withdrawing gas from the reaction bed (pg. 8, line 23-pg. 9, line 2), wherein the reaction bed is situated in a passageway between said one or more inlets and one or more outlets (figure 1A). Particularly, CUYPERS provides structural definition to the application of the heat storage bodies, so as to provide a heat exchanger system for thermochemical storage and release (pg. 2, lines 25-26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify SCHMIDT, in view of CUYPERS, for the purpose of providing a heat exchanger system for thermochemical storage and release (pg. 2, lines 25-26).
As to claim 17, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, discloses a method for producing shaped heat storage bodies comprising a thermochemical substance, which bodies have a first surface side and a second surface side at least substantially opposite to the first surface side, wherein both of the side surfaces are curved and the bodies form the thermochemical energy storage system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
SCHMIDT, further, discloses providing a powder comprising the thermochemical substance (par. 14).
Furthermore, it was previously provided within the rejection of claim 1, that CUYPERS discloses compressing the powder into the shaped bodies using a die or a mould (pg. 9, lines 11-18). Again, CUYPERS discloses that such formation enables obtaining a suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies, as desired (pg. 9, lines 13-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify SCHMIDT, in view of the teachings of CUYPERS to provide step requirements of compressing, as claimed, to obtain the suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies (pg. 9, lines 11-18).
As to claim 18, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, previously taught wherein the powder is compressed into the shaped bodies (see rejection of claim 17).
More so, CUYPERS, further, teaches wherein the compression is by direct compression (pg. 9, lines 11-18), whereby the powder subsequently undergoes (i) rearrangement, (ii) deformation, (iii) compaction and (iv) relaxation, by way of undergoing the compression within the pill press. Again, CUYPERS discloses that such formation enables obtaining a suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies, as desired (pg. 9, lines 13-16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify SCHMIDT, in view of the teachings of CUYPERS to provide step requirements of compressing, as claimed, to obtain the suitable diameter and length of the heat storage bodies (pg. 9, lines 11-18).
As to claim 22, SCHMIDT, as modified by CUYPERS, further discloses the powder (see rejection of claim 17), but does not expressly disclose the further inclusion of a compressing aid.
CUYPERS, however, further teaches including graphite (pg. 8, lines 18-22) for the purpose of further enabling enhanced heat transport (pg. 8, lines 18-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify SCHMIDT, in view of the teachings of CUYPERS, as claimed, for this reason.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment to claim 6 at page 3 and Applicant’s remarks at page 6, filed 24 June, 2025, with respect to the objection of claim 6, for minor informalities, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment to claim 17 at page 5 and Applicant’s remarks at page 6, filed 24 June, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 17-18, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 17-18, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 7, Applicant argues, “For example, the Office contends that the Warmespeichervorrichtung (100) corresponds to the claimed heat storage bodies. But if Warmespeichervorrichtung (100) were to correspond to the claimed heat storage bodies, which the Applicant does not concede, than Schmidt fails to disclose the overall claimed thermochemical storage system, which comprise a plurality of heat storage bodies”. It is clear from the rejection, as a whole, the structure intended to be designated as the heat storage bodies was intended to be element 102, in view of the combination of the recitation of the element with paragraph 105, not element 100. Paragraph 105 of SCHMIDT states,
“ [0105]
In the Fig. 1 until Fig. 7 Different embodiments of storage units 102 are shown.
Several storage units 102 form a heat storage device designated as a whole by 100.”
, wherein paragraphs 18-23 of SCHMIDT recognize the inclusion within the interior of the storage units, 102, is a thermochemical substance.
“ [0018]
The storage material is in particular a salt hydrate, a metal hydroxide, a metal carbonate, a metal oxide or mixtures thereof.
[0019]
The salt hydrates are in particular alkali hydrates and/or alkaline earth hydrates, for example magnesium sulfate hydrate, calcium sulfate and/or calcium chloride.
[0020]
The metal hydroxide(s) are selected in particular from alkali hydroxides and/or alkaline earth hydroxides, for example magnesium hydroxide and/or calcium hydroxide.
[0021]
The metal carbonates are in particular alkali carbonates and/or alkaline earth carbonates, for example calcium carbonate.
[0022]
The metal oxide(s) are preferably transition metal oxides, for example manganese oxide, alkali oxides and/or alkaline earth oxides, for example calcium oxide.
[0023]
However, other materials that react with water or water vapor in an exothermic reaction may also be suitable. ”
Further, the evidence of record suggests the thermochemical energy storage system was intended to be defined as the heat storage device, 100, formed of the several storage units 102 (par. 105 of SCHMIDT). Specifically, paragraphs 109-110 of SCHMIDT state the following:
“ [0109]
Such heat storage devices 100 are preferably used wherever energy is stored thermochemically.
For example, heat storage devices 100 are used in power plants, especially in conventional and/or concentrating solar thermal power plants.
[0110]
The heat storage devices 100 can also be used for seasonal heat storage in buildings and/or for storing renewable electricity, for example from wind power plants. ”
, which suggests the application of the heat storage bodies, i.e., more than one body, 102, to form as a whole the heat storage device defined by element 100, is applied as a thermochemical energy storage system across a range of applications. Furthermore, other than merely providing conclusory statements, in addition to the above single argument, Applicant does not provide further evidence to support why element 100 of SCHMIDT is not structurally sufficient to meet the requirements of the claimed invention, i.e., thermochemical energy storage system, nor why element 102 of SCHMIDT, as clearly intended within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 26 March, 2025, is not structurally sufficient to meet the requirements of the claimed invention, i.e., heat storage bodies comprised of a thermochemical substance. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2145 – I. See MPEP § 2152.06 which states, “ persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable over the prior art or amending the claims to overcome the prior art rejection”. For these reasons, the evidence of record supports the conclusion of obviousness, as previously set forth, and thereby, the arguments are not persuasive.
At page 7, Applicant alleges elements 102 are not heat storage bodies, and “Moreover, if the Warmespeichervorrichtung (100) is said to correspond to the recited heat storage bodies and the Speichereinheit (102) is said to correspond to the thermochemical substance, as set forth in the Office Action, than the annotated figures provided by the Office Action are not clear”. Again, it was indicated above, element 100 was fully intended, and understood through the cited paragraphs and subject matter recited within said paragraphs, to be the thermochemical energy storage system, wherein element 102 was fully intended, and understood through the cited paragraphs and subject-matter within said paragraphs, to be the heat storage bodies comprising thermochemical substance. In view of such, the evidence of record suggests the subject-matter of the claim is obvious, in view of the teachings of SCHMIDT at least. Further, as recited above for the Applicant, paragraphs 18-23 of SCHMIDT states thermochemical substances which are included within the storage units. Furthermore, other than merely providing conclusory statements, in addition to the above single argument, Applicant does not provide further evidence to support why element 102 of SCHMIDT is not structurally sufficient to meet the requirements of the heat storage bodies. Applicant alleges clarity issues with regards to the annotated figures supplied within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 26 March, 2025, but fails to provide what is unclear within the presentation of the annotated figures. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2145 – I. See MPEP § 2152.06 which states, “ persuasively arguing that the claims are patentably distinguishable over the prior art or amending the claims to overcome the prior art rejection”. For these reasons, the evidence of record supports the conclusion of obviousness, as previously set forth, and thereby, the arguments are not persuasive.
At pages 7-8, Applicant alleges the cross-sectional views in Figures 1-4 are insufficient to draw such conclusions (i.e., “two opposite curved surfaces, as claimed in independent claim 1 (and further fails to disclose two curved surfaces on opposite sides of a cylindrical surface, as recited in claim 7). Applicant resubmits annotated figure 1 from the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 26 March, 2025 and presented at page 6 of the referenced Office Action.
First, Applicant contends, at page 8, “Schmidt fails to disclose that the regions identified by the Office area actually different surfaces…the exemplary first surface and the dotted line marked as the exemplary second surface each form parts of the same curved surface, rather than first and second curved surfaces as claimed”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See MPEP § 2111.01 – I and III. The plain meaning provided by the dictionary sets forth “ the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body, a plane or curved two-dimensional locus of points (such as the boundary of a three-dimensional region), the external or superficial aspect of something, and an external part or layer” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surface) and “The outermost boundary (or one of the boundaries) of any material object, immediately adjacent to air, fluid, or empty space, or to another object” (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/surface_n?tab=meaning_and_use#19766533). Further, it is known that a cube has six surfaces, a sphere has one continuous surface, a cylinder has three surfaces, wherein cubes and cylinders have edges which delineate the beginning or end of different surfaces. See definition of edge which states “the line where an object or surface begins or ends” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edge). Page 7 of the instant application is consistent with such definition of surfaces by providing,
“ The surface of the storage bodies is usually essentially free of corners. The surface of the storage bodies may be essentially free of edge- lines (line segments on the boundary of two surface sides), such as in the case of spheroid bodies or ring-shaped bodies (tori). However, one or more edge lines may be present, such as in a biconvex body (typically having one or two edge lines, although in some embodiments it can be free of edge lines). A biconcave body is another preferred example of a body that may have edge lines (typically two, if present), although biconcave bodies can also have a fully smoothly curved surface without edge-lines (e.g. resembling the shape of a red blood cell). Biconvex and biconcave bodies are in particular preferred, for the favourable gas-flow properties they provide; e.g. when a plurality of biconvex bodies or of biconcave bodies are provided in a thermochemical storage system, they provide better flow through of gas (less friction), compared to e.g. (mono)concave or (mono)convex bodies or various irregularly shaped bodies of similar dimensions under similar conditions.”
, which provides wherein there is an edge or boundary of the structure, there is a beginning or end of a surface. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “surface” with regards to the instant application further includes wherein there are no edges between the surfaces, such as within biconcave bodies (i.e., two concave surfaces). See recitation of page 7 of the instant application above. As such, the mapping and delineation of the exemplary surfaces provided within the annotated figures of SCHMIDT within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 26 March, 2026 is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation given to the claims of the instant application. As such, Annotated Figure 1, at least, provides three surfaces, the cylindrical surface, the first surface, and the second surface, wherein the surfaces are delineated by the edges at the ends of the cylindrical surface. It is noted, and acknowledged by the Applicant the figures of SCHMIDT are cross-sections. It is known a regular cylinder would have exemplary cross-sectional, such as those depicted in Annotated Figure A. More so, SCHMIDT at least provides in paragraph 32 the storage unit has at least an approximately cylindrical shape. In view of paragraph 32 and Figure 1 of SCHMIDT, it is understood that the surface designated as the cylindrical surfaces is clearly a representation of cross-sectional view of a cylinder side. See Annotated Figure B which would be consistent, in view of the description and depiction of Figure 1 of SCHMIDT to show the approximately cylindrical shape of the storage unit, 102. See Annotated Page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments.
PNG
media_image5.png
805
814
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments
PNG
media_image6.png
437
825
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
PNG
media_image7.png
481
827
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B
Second, Applicant alleges at page 8, the preference of SCHMIDT is an ellipsoidal shape, such that the assertion within the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 26 March, 2025 is incorrect with the indication of a cylindrical surface. However, a preference does not negate the overall description provided by SCHMIDT, which includes the approximate cylindrical shape of the storage bodies (par. 32). For this, in view of the discussion above, the argument is not persuasive.
At page 9, Applicant asserts “Moreover, the Offices annotated FIG. 4 (reproduced below) also fails to disclose distinct curved surfaces, as claimed.”, and “The alleged second surface 122 in FIG. 4 (striped line) is an elastic part of the surface of the storage shell 104, in an expanded state. In a relaxed state, the shape will be essentially spherical, and thus there will be only one curved surface.”. However, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, in light of the specification, the designated sections of SCHMIDT encompass first and second surfaces. See recitation of page 7 of the instant application above. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not consistent with the instant application as disclosed and the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification, afforded to the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.01 – I, III, and IV. It will be further noted, Applicant suggests the relaxed state of SCHMIDT, with regards to figure 4, would be essentially spherical. However, SCHMIDT fails to disclose the relaxed state of figure 4, such that absent evidence to support Applicant’s conclusion, the argument is not persuasive. See MPEP § 2145 – I.
At page 10, Applicant argues against the combination of SCHMIDT and CUYPERS.
First, Applicant argues the combination would have changed the principle of operation of SCHMIDT, as CUYPERS is directed to forming pills in a pill press and forming SCHMIDT in a pill press would change the intended mode of operation of SCHMIDT (“By using the pill press, also known as a low pressure extruder or pelleting machine, there would no longer be a plurality of distinguishable units/granules.”, “Schmidt aims to provide a heat storage system comprising a granular storage material that can be transported without dust risk.”). However, the evidence of record supports the conclusion that the claimed invention is obvious, in view of the combination of SCHMIDT and CUYPERS. CUYPERS teaches a thermochemical energy storage system (abstract), in addition to the process of forming the thermochemical material to be specifically a granular material in the form of pellets (pg. 4, lines 20-22; pg. 4, line 30 – pg. 5, line 1), wherein the granular material is formed by a pill-press process (pg. 9, lines 13-16) which undergoes a compression of the heat storage bodies when forming them (pg. 9, lines 11-18). As such, CUYPERS necessarily provides wherein the pill-press process forms distinguishable granules/pellets. Second, CUYPERS specifically states “According to the property desired, through-hardened pellets or pellets just hardened on the outside can be produced in several kgs/h sieving after production yields stable dust-free cylindrical pellets.”. See CUYPERS at page 9, lines 16-18. Based on this evidence provided by CUYPERS, the combination would not yield any changes to the intended operation of SCHMIDT, and thereby, the arguments are not persuasive.
At page 10, Applicant alleges the combination, and specifically the teachings of CUYPERS, fails to provide compressed heat storage bodies, as required by the claims. Applicant points to page 8, line 27 and page 9, line 18 to support their conclusion. However, the evidence of record supports the conclusion that the claimed invention is obvious, in view of the combination of SCHMIDT and CUYPERS. Page 8, line 27 of CUYPERS recites,
“ pellets. These Pellets can be polymer tubes with porous walls, filled with salt/TCM.”
, wherein page 9, line 18 of CUYPERS recites,
“ production yields stable dust-free cylindrical pellets. One way of introducing the”.
Neither of these recitations supports the conclusion made by the Applicant. Second, the pill-press process at page 9, lines 11-16, defined as a “low pressure extruder” necessarily imparts pressure, such as compression of the material to form the pellets. Further, the material is pressed through the nozzles, which would further necessarily impart pressure, such as compression on the material to form the pellets. For this, compressed bodies are formed during the process. For this, the argument is not persuasive, in light of the evidence of record.
At page 11, Applicant alleges improper interpretation of the figures of SCHMIDT with regards to claims 5, 6, and 7. However, as noted above, the designation of the curved surfaces and/or cylindrical surfaces of SCHMIDT are in line with the appropriate broadest reasonable interpretation given to the claimed invention, in light of the instant specification. See discussion above provided with regards to figures 1 and 4 of SCHMIDT. For this reason, the argument is not persuasive.
At page 11, Applicant argues with regard to claim 11 “there is no suggestion whatsoever in Schmidt to provide heat storage bodies that are compressed and that have the claimed content of the thermochemical substance”. However, as noted above, SCHMIDT, in view of CUYPERS, teaches compressed heat storage bodies which include a content of thermochemical substance. See discussion above provided with regards to the combination of SCHMIDT, in view of CUYPERS. For this, the argument is not persuasive.
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