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 .
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/7/2026 are as follows:
Claim 11 is newly added;
Claims 1-11 are pending;
Claims 1-11 are being examined.
Specification
The amended title of the invention was received on 1/7/2026 and is accepted.
The amended abstract was received on 1/7/2026 and is accepted.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 1/7/2026 and is accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McElwain (US4350200, as previously cited).
Re Claim 1: McElwain discloses an outdoor energy-storage device (20) of a system for air conditioning interior rooms of a building (18), wherein the outdoor energy-storage device is arranged outside the building (Figure 1 illustrates the energy storage device below ground and outside the main building above) and comprises
an energy store (20) for energy transmission and energy storage with a liquid reservoir (19), a water heat exchanger (128) in the liquid reservoir and an air heat exchanger (28, 29, 32, 21) above the liquid reservoir (Figure 3, the air handler 21 is above the liquid reservoir 19; Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37),
a heat pump (25), which is configured to exchange thermal energy via the water heat exchanger and the air heat exchanger (Heat pump 25 is centrally located in reservoir 19 and in thermal communication with the air heat exchanger; Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37), and
an exhaust-air connection (38-3 and 40-2), which is intended for exhaust air from the building and is coupled to the energy store and the heat pump so that the exhaust air entering through the exhaust-air connection adjusts the temperature of the heat pump, at least in certain regions, before the exhaust air enters the energy store (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32).
Re Claim 2: McElwain discloses the heat pump is designed so that the exhaust air flows past the heat pump and/or flows through the heat pump and adjusts the temperature of an electrical circuit of the heat pump (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; The exhaust air will flow past the heat pump).
Re Claim 3: McElwain discloses the heat pump is designed such that waste heat from the electrical circuit supports the temperature adjustment (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; The waste heat from the heat pump will be transferred to the energy store 20, thus supporting temperature adjustment).
Re Claim 4: McElwain discloses the heat pump is designed as at least one stackable functional module (Figure 3 illustrates the heat pump as a module), and the outdoor energy-storage device comprises at least one further stackable functional module (Figure 3 illustrates numerous other functional modules) which is designed to control heating, cooling and/or ventilation in the system, and the functional modules are arranged such that the exhaust air flows between the functional modules to the energy store and adjusts the temperature of the functional modules (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32).
Re Claim 5: McElwain discloses there is a vertical gap between the functional modules through which the exhaust air can enter the energy store (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; Air will enter into the energy store, thus satisfying the limitation).
Re Claim 6: McElwain discloses the functional modules are designed such that waste heat from electrical circuits in the functional modules supports the temperature adjustment (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; The waste heat will be transferred to the energy store 20, thus supporting temperature adjustment).
Re Claim 7: McElwain discloses a base plate, a cover and a circumferential side wall between the base plate and the cover (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; Figures 2-3 illustrate the energy store has walls and a cover on all sides).
Re Claim 8: McElwain discloses the energy store has an exhaust air-conducting heat exchanger (other of 28, 29, or 32), which is designed such that the exhaust air is guided to flow along an upper face of the liquid reservoir before the exhaust air flows to the air heat exchanger (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32).
Re Claim 9: McElwain discloses a cavity (26) designed as a drinking and/or domestic hot water store is arranged inside the liquid reservoir (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; 26 is a domestic hot water tank).
Re Claim 10: McElwain discloses a water pump designed as a functional module is coupled to the cavity (Figures 1-4; Column 2 lines 51-62, Column 3 lines 1-51, Column 5 lines 9-37; Column 16 lines 23-32; Column 15 lines 4-6 teaches placing a water pump in the reservoir).
Re Claim 11: McElwain discloses the outdoor energy-storage device is partially sunken in the ground (Figure 1 illustrates the energy storage device below ground and outside the main building above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 16 of the reply that McElwain fails to teach the outdoor energy storage device arranged outside the building. Figure 1 of McElwain illustrates that the energy storage device is not located within the main building structure. Additional views of Figure 1 can be seen in Figures 2 and 4A-J that illustrates the outdoor energy storage device as a separate structure from the main building. Thus, the device is considered to be arranged outside the building. Therefore, the applicants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 16-17 of the reply that “McElwain fails to disclose temperature adjustment of the heat pump and other components by air from the building”. The exhaust air from the building is introduced by duct 40-2 to the energy storage device. The energy storage device comprises the heat pump and other components. Thus, the exhaust air from the building that is introduced into the energy storage device will provide temperature adjustment of the heat pump and other components. Therefore, the applicants’ 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 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 TRAVIS C RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763