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:
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Copeland (US 4,523,629).
Regarding claim 1, Copeland discloses:
a method for maximizing the exergy of a Thermal energy storage (TES) tank (7) (figs. 1 and 3-4), said method comprising the use of a thermally insulating suspension (3) [col. 2, lines 53-57] wherein said thermally insulating suspension (3) comprises a matrix made by a plurality of overlapping floating elements (honeycomb members 43) (fig. 4) [col, 5, lines 25-29], thus, providing an improved performance with respect to spherical pellets or, in general, elements that do not feature a flat face (it is noted, per MPEP 2112 – III, it has been held that since the prior art comprises the composition being claimed -a method comprising the use of a thermally insulating suspension-, then the prior art on record will meet the limitations of the claim, in which applicants claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic -providing an improved performance with respect to spherical pellets or, in general, elements that do not feature a flat face-).
Regarding claim 2, Copeland discloses:
said overlapping floating elements (43) comprise a plate (3) (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Copeland discloses:
said overlapping floating elements (43) have a circular form that suits the form of the TES (7) internal walls (best seen in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Copeland discloses:
said overlapping floating elements (43) comprise at least a first core material (fiberglass) [col. 5, lines 17-19] of relatively higher density and a second thermally insulating material (41: 47 polycarbonate plus 49 plexiglass) [col. 5, lines 27-29] of relatively lower density, encapsulating said first core material (fiberglass) (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Copeland discloses:
the TES tank (7) containing hot and cold fluids [col. 2, lines 53-56] and wherein a resultant density of the suspension matrix (3) is designed to be of intermediate value between the densities of the hot and cold fluids of the TES (7) [col. 4, lines 25-29].
Regarding claim 13, Copeland discloses:
said TES tank (7) being a single tank storage system (figs. 1 and 3-4) being able to deliver the exergy levels of a two-tank storage system (it is noted, per MPEP 2112 – III, it has been held that since the prior art comprises the composition being claimed -a single tank storage system that use of a thermally insulating suspension-, then the prior art on record will meet the limitations of the claim, in which applicants claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic -being able to deliver the exergy levels of a two-tank storage system-).
Regarding claim 14, Copeland discloses:
said TES tank (7) belonging to a solar water heater [col. 4, lines 18-20].
Regarding claim 15, The recitation "said overlapping floating elements comprising a cast of said first core material and said second thermally insulating material" is considered to be a product by process limitation (emphasis added). MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In this instance, the product taught by Copeland, is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting this limitation of the claim.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (GB 2485950A).
Regarding claim 1, Williams discloses:
a method for maximizing the exergy of a Thermal energy storage (TES) tank (110), said method comprising the use of a thermally insulating suspension [col. 2, lines 53-57] wherein said thermally insulating suspension comprises a matrix made by a plurality of overlapping floating elements (115) (fig. 1) [page 8, lines 21-25], thus, providing an improved performance with respect to spherical pellets or, in general, elements that do not feature a flat face (it is noted, per MPEP 2112 – III, it has been held that since the prior art comprises the composition being claimed -a method comprising the use of a thermally insulating suspension-, then the prior art on record will meet the limitations of the claim, in which applicants claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic -providing an improved performance with respect to spherical pellets or, in general, elements that do not feature a flat face-).
Regarding claim 3, Williams discloses:
said overlapping floating elements (115) being smaller than the diameter of a port hole (116, 118) of the TES tank (110) (as can be gleaned from fig. 1) and being suitable to be installed at the manufacturing stage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Claims 7-10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copeland.
Regarding claim 7, Copeland does not disclose:
said suspension matrix (3) comprising a plurality of floating elements of mixed shape and size.
However, Copeland alludes to the option of the matrix (3) sealingly engaging the thank (7) walls as desired [col. 6, lines 1-3] just as in the instant specification PGPub par. 0049. It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the suspension matrix (3) of Copeland comprising the floating elements (43) having the required size and shape to sealingly engage the tank walls as a matter of an obvious design choice according to the user’s needs.
Regarding claim 8, Copeland discloses:
said TES tank (7) being configured to work with higher temperature storage fluids including molten salts (see TES tank 7’ of fig. 6, as obvious variation of the embodiment of figs. 1 and 3-4) [col. 6, line 67 – col. 7, line 10], said molten salts comprising molten chlorides [col. 7, lines 42-43].
Regarding claim 9, Copeland does not disclose:
said first core material comprising copper or stainless steel and said second thermally insulating material comprising alumina paper to operate with temperature above 450° C.
However, Copeland alludes to the possibility of having said insulating suspension (3) comprising metal foil [col 5, lines 17-22] and steel plates (51) [col. 5, lines 35-39] and already discloses the use of heat insulators like urethane or fiberglass as part of the insulating suspension (3) [col. 5, lines 11-22].
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to try -choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success-. Refer to MPEP 2143 (I) (E). In this instance, it would have been obvious to try to have the first core material of Copeland comprising copper or stainless steel and the second thermally insulating material comprising alumina paper to achieve a desired density for the insulating suspension or to achieve a desired insulating property between the cold and hot fluids contained in the storage tank. Furthermore, the election of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Copeland does not disclose:
a ceramic-to-metal binder being used to bond said first and said second materials.
However, as it applies to claim 9, above, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the different components of the insulating suspension using a ceramic-to-metal binder in situations in which the components comprise ceramic and metal materials. Furthermore, the election of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 16, Copeland discloses:
the overlapping floating elements (43) comprising of a single material of a shell (honeycombs 43) of any shape (honeycomb shape), but does not disclose the shell (honeycombs 43) being made out of metallic or ceramic materials.
However, Copeland alludes to the possibility of having said insulating suspension (3) comprising metal foil [col 5, lines 17-22] and steel plates (51) [col. 5, lines 35-39].
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to try -choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success-. Refer to MPEP 2143 (I) (E). In this instance, it would have been obvious to try to have the overlapping floating elements (43) of Copeland comprising metallic or ceramic materials to achieve a desired density for the insulating suspension or to achieve a desired insulating property between the cold and hot fluids contained in the storage tank. Furthermore, the election of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Copeland does not disclose:
said mixed shape comprising at least one of spherical and ellipsoidal. It is noted, however, it has been held that changing the shape of an old device is a matter of design choice which involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04, section IV, part A. In the instant case, Copeland alludes to the option of having the shape of the suspension matrix (7) having a shape that engages the tank walls if desired, according to the user’s needs [col. 6, lines 1-3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA whose telephone number is (571)272-6018. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/GUSTAVO A HINCAPIE SERNA/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763