DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-6, 8, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over EP 1,455,155 (‘155) in view of Longardner (US 5,220,954), EP 3,175,196 (‘196), and CN 101769690 (‘690).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-14, ‘155 teaches a unit for a thermal regulation fluid (air) comprising a loop (42) where a heat transfer fluid circulates comprising a phase change material (14) configured to store energy; at least one heat exchanger (10) for the heat transfer fluid to flow through (20) and cool or warm the storage material; the heat exchanger comprises a first structure (20) with a conduit (22) disposed through a central portion of the first structure for the heat transfer fluid to flow through and a second structure (12) around the first structure (Fig. 2) with a gap defining a housing for the phase change material (14) wherein the unit cools or warms the thermal regulation fluid (air) thanks to the second structure of the heat exchanger (see Fig. 3); the second structure has internal and external surfaces (facing toward and away from the PCM 14 respectively).
‘155 does not teach fins.
Longardner teaches that it is old and well-known to provide such devices with first fins (264) extending from the first structure (260) into the PCM (216) without contacting the second structure (see Fig. 13) in order to increase thermal transfer from the heat transfer fluid (Col. 3:63-68) to the PCM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide the device of ‘155 with the first fins, as taught by Longardner, in order to increase thermal transfer to the PCM.
‘196 teaches that it is old and well-known to provide such devices with multiple second fins (see Fig. 10) extending inward from the interior surface of the second structure (12; see Fig. 10) into the PCM (6) and not contacting the first structure (Figs. 8 and 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide the device of ‘155 with the second fins, as taught by ‘196, in order to increase the thermal transfer to the PCM.
While ‘155 teaches metallic (aluminum) construction and dividing structures (18) it does not teach the construction of the device from separate structures. However, as the final device of the claim has been joined to form a unitary structure, this is treated as a product by process limitation which is met by the structure of ‘155 as the resultant structure is not patentably distinguishable from that of ‘155.
If the above product-by-process evaluation is not accepted, it is noted that both Longardner (first and second structures joined by 264 and 272; see Fig. 13) further teaches the construction of the final device from initially separate first and second structures which are then joined via multiple internal fins of the first and second structure joining. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to form the device of ‘155 from separate structures in order to allow for more complex shapes in manufacturing, such as the fins discussed above, or for the mixing and matching of different structures to form differently sized devices depending on the requirements of individual applications.
‘155 teaches that the external surface of the second structure exchanges heat with airflow (see Fig. 3) but does not specify external fins.
‘690 teaches that devices which exchange thermal energy between a contained fluid (inside 1) and air (the device is a radiator) are commonly formed with external fins (2) which may each extend a different distance than each other (Fig. 1), per claim 12; the outer perimeter is defined by end portions of the external fins (Fig. 1), per claim 13; and the outer perimeter may be rectangular (Fig. 1; a square is a subset of rectangle), per claim 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide the device of ‘155, as modified, with the external fins taught by ‘690 in order to increase the efficiency of thermal transfer to the external environment. Transfer of thermal energy from the second structure via the external fins will necessarily include transfer of heat from the phase change material received via the internal fins of the combined teachings above.
‘155 further teaches: a means of circulation (28) of the thermal regulation fluid (Fig. 3), per claim 2; a pump (see Fig. 3; pump along 42) to circulate the heat transfer fluid through the loop, per claim 3; the heat exchanger is positioned inside a sheath (24) where the gap between the sheath and the second structure defines a conduit for the thermal regulation fluid (the air; see Fig. 3), per claim 6; the unit interfaces with or integrates with an air conditioning unit (“a heat exchanger for cooling room air”), per claims 8 and 10;
Regarding claims 11 and 16, in the combined teachings of ‘155, Longardner, and ‘196, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to interleave the first and second internal fins to prevent contact between them as each of these inventions already comprises a separate structure that spans the first and second structures (i.e. ‘155: elements 18; Longardner: the 264 which engage with 272 to create supports; ‘196: elements 3 in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, ‘196 teaches second fins which extend varying distances internally (see Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘155 in view of Longardner, ‘196, and DE 10 2010037474 (‘474).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, ‘155 does not teach the controller.
‘474 teaches the use of a controller in such systems (“As a result, the storage tank device can be used flexibly, for example in conjunction with an electronic control and / or control unit, which ensures optimized energy yields by evaluating different measured values and influencing the volume flows with the aid of adjusting devices”) which utilizes temperature measurements of at least the phase change material (“energy storage system heat sources measured, evaluated and then connected according to needs accordingly”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the controller and sensors of ‘474 to the device of ‘155 to allow for precision use and optimization of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has asserted that the structures 272 of Longardner are not fins. There is no support for this assertion. 272 are structurally indistinguishable from fins. They will inherently transfer thermal energy by nature of their location and connectivity. Applicant’s reliance of the use of the term “tabs” for them in Longardner is a distinction without meaning and not persuasive.
It is noted that separate arguments are presented above as to the patentable weight of this two-part construction limitation and are not repeated here.
It is further noted that the applicant’s arguments regarding the lack of “separate spacer/support components” (Remarks page 9) is belied by the illustration of separate support components in the applicant’s device (Remarks page 7) where the figure 4 clearly illustrates support features unique to the joint between first and second internal fins which join to each other.
Conclusion
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