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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 of claim 1 recites “a material of which specific heat is lower than specific heat of the bottom of the salt lake”. Because ‘specific heat’ is not a discrete component of ‘a material’, but rather an intrinsic property of ‘a material’, ‘of which’ should be edited to indicate as much (e.g., “a material having a specific heat”). The phrase ‘specific heat of the bottom of the salt lake’ should also be edited to refer to a particular specific heat (e.g., “a specific heat of the bottom of the salt lake”).
Lines 2-3 of claim 3 recite “paint of which emissivity related to emission of absorbed solar heat is lower than emissivity of the bottom of the salt lake”. Because ‘emissivity’ is not a discrete component of ‘paint’, but rather an intrinsic property of ‘paint’, ‘of which’ should be edited to indicate as much (e.g., “paint having an emissivity”). The phraseL “emissivity of the bottom of the salt lake”. This phrase should be edited to refer to a particular emissivity (e.g., “an emissivity of the bottom of the salt lake”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4-10 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 term “low-emissivity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-emissivity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of emissivity, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2 and 4-10 are indefinite due to their dependence on the indefinite claim 1 and because they do not cure the indefiniteness of “low-emissivity” as it appears therein. However, claim 3 cures the indefiniteness of “low-emissivity” by specifying that “low-emissivity” is lower than that of the bottom of the salt lake and is therefore not rejected under the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 3 is 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: Chai (KR 2013-0127139 A) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below), Xie (CN 110345646 A, 2019) (the translation provided with the attached original document is referenced below), and Spears (U.S. Patent No. 4,078,976, 1978) are considered to be the closest prior art to the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10, Chai teaches a plate installed at the bottom of a salt lake to extract lithium (Chai, Figs. 1-7 of original document; [0018]-[0047] of translation), the plate comprising:
a base configured to be brought in close contact with a bottom of a salt lake for extraction of lithium (Chai, Figs. 2 and 7 of original document) and having a flat top (Chai, Fig. 7 of original document), which differs from the claimed box shape with an open top; and
a panel configured to cover the base (Chai, Fig. 7 of the original document; [0028], curved portion 70 formed on the upper surface of the board 10).
Chai does not explicitly teach that the panel configured to cover the base is made of a material of which specific heat is lower than specific heat of the bottom of the salt lake. However, Xie teaches constructing an evaporation pool bottom of stainless steel (Xie, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the panel covering Chai’s base be constructed of coated stainless steel because Xie teaches that coated stainless steel is an ideal material for promoting heat transfer in the evaporation pool (Xie, [0010]). Despite not referring directly to “specific heat”, the material in contact with the evaporation pool is selected for its thermal properties, which would include specific heat, and a specific heat of the stainless steel would therefore be obvious.
Chai does not explicitly teach that the panel configured to cover the base comprises a low-emissivity coating layer formed in a predetermined thickness on a top of the low specific heat panel. However, as discussed above, Xie renders a coated stainless steel material obvious for the purpose of heat transfer within the evaporation pool (Xie, [0010]).
Xie teaches that the coating is absorptive (Xie, [0010], “The absorption coating can fully absorb the oblique and direct sunlight, and the light loss rate is low”) but does not explicitly teach that the coating layer has a low emissivity. However, Spears teaches that, in a coating material fostering evaporation from a salt lake, a high absorptivity/emissivity ratio is appropriate (Spears, Col. 9, lines 10-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the coating of modified Chai to have a low emissivity because Spears teaches that this feature affects evaporation in a salt lake (Spears, Col. 9, lines 10-19).
However, as discussed above, Chai’s base is flat (Chai, Fig. 7 of original document), and there is no teaching or suggestion in any of the cited prior art references to instead use a base having a box shape with an open top. The claim therefore contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY J. BAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3590. 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.
/ZACHARY JOHN BAUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights