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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal phraseology Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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”, “said” and “comprising” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “A heat store” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – The heat store--, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baechil (USP 4153103A), hereinafter referred to as Baechil.
Regarding Claim 1, Baechli discloses a heat store for an energy storage system, comprising:
an inner vessel (4) housing a thermal energy store (6); and
an outer vessel (2) surrounding the inner vessel (shown in figures 1-3), the inner and outer vessels being spaced by a vacuum region extending therebetween (5, shown in figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, Baechli further discloses the heat store is configuration to heat the thermal energy store to a temperature (“Various systems have been used to store heat over long periods of time”) greater than 300°C (see intended use analysis below).
Regarding limitations “a temperature greater than 300°C” recited in Claim 11, which are directed to an operating temperature of the heat store, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andonian (USP 4674289A), hereinafter referred to as Andonian.
Regarding Claim 1, Andonian discloses a heat store for an energy storage system, comprising:
an inner vessel (3) housing a thermal energy store (interior of the inner shell (3)); and
an outer vessel (4) surrounding the inner vessel (shown in figure 2), the inner and outer vessels being spaced by a vacuum region extending therebetween (50, “a vacuum pump is attached to fitting 29 drawing down a vacuum in space 50 between the shells”, ¶43).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0155745A1), hereinafter referred to as Chou.
Regarding Claim 1, Chou discloses a heat store for an energy storage system, comprising:
an inner vessel (110) housing a thermal energy store (interior of the inner wall (110)); and
an outer vessel (105) surrounding the inner vessel (shown in figure 1), the inner and outer vessels being spaced by a vacuum region extending therebetween (120, “there may be one or more layers of high vacuum between layers of thermal reflective film. In some embodiments, the gap 120 includes a substantially evacuated gaseous pressure relative to the atmospheric pressure external to the container 100”, ¶43).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baechil (USP 4153103A) in view of Verschuur et al. (GB2158214A) hereinafter referred to as Verschuur.
Regarding Claim 2, although Baechli discloses a vacuum region, Baechli fails to disclose the vacuum region has a vacuum pressure between 0.05 mbar and 1 mbar.
Verschuur, also drawn to a container having vacuum insulation, teaches a vacuum region has a vacuum pressure between 0.05 mbar and 1 mbar (“the end face of the heat insulating layer is maintained at vacuum level for several hours to several days, it is possible to reduce the pressure in the inside of the cell in the heat insulating layer to a vacuum level of the order of 0.5 to 3 mbar (abs.), depending on the structure of the heat insulating layer” (Pg. 2 ll. 55-60). Verschuur further states, “according to the theory of vacuum insulation, as the pressure approaches to vacuum level and the free mean path of the gas is increased to the cell diameter d (several to tens of microns), the heat conduction coefficient is the function of pressure in such a manner that, for the general range of pressure (less than several to tens of microns), the heat conduction coefficient is reduced in direct proportion to the decrease in pressure. Therefore, even though the insulating material is lumber, the value of A2 of the second term of the equation (1) can be reduced if the pressure in the cell (in the void portion 12) could be decreased to sufficiently close to vacuum level. The above finding has led to the completion of the present invention” (Pg. 2 ll. 32-39).
Regarding Claim 2, Baechli fails to explicitly disclose the vacuum region has a vacuum pressure between 0.05 mbar and 1 mbar. Baechli does, however, disclose the vacuum region comprises a vacuum pressure and Verschuur teaches the claimed pressure range is old and well known while pressure directly correlates with the level of insulation within an insulating section. Therefore, the vacuum region pressure is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a lower vacuum pressure improves insulation while decreasing mechanical stability or durability, other parameters remaining constant. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the vacuum region comprising a vacuum pressure, was disclosed in the prior art by Baechli and the claimed vacuum pressure range was disclosed by Verschuu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the vacuum region having a vacuum pressure between 0.05 mbar and 1 mbar in order to maintain a desired level of insulation and mechanical integrity. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 3, although Baechli discloses the heat store comprises a vacuum, Baechli fails to disclose a vacuum pump operative to maintain the vacuum pressure in the vacuum region.
Verschuur, also drawn to a container having vacuum insulation, teaches a vacuum pump (13) operative to maintain the vacuum pressure in the vacuum region (“the vacuum pump unit 1 3 is preferably composed of a large capacity pump 1 3a for creating vacuum and a small capacity pump 1 3b for maintaining vacuum” (Pg. 3 ll. 16-18)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Baechli with a vacuum pump operative to maintain the vacuum pressure in the vacuum region, as taught by Verschuur, the motivation being to maintain a desired level of vacuum in real time within the system, wherein the loss of the required level of insulation would result in unwanted heat conduction and failure of thermal storage.
Regarding Claim 4, although Baechli discloses the heat store comprises a vacuum, Baechli fails to disclose the heat store comprises a sensor operative to measure a parameter at one or more location in the heat store and the vacuum pump is configured to operate whenever the sensor indicates that the parameter reaches a predetermined value.
Verschuur, also drawn to a container having vacuum insulation, teaches a sensor (15) operative to measure a parameter at one or more location in the heat store (shown in figure 3, wherein multiple pressure sensing units are attached to different areas of the tank) and the vacuum pump (13) is configured to operate whenever the sensor indicates that the parameter reaches a predetermined value (“The pressure gauge 15c is used when switching the operation from the large capacity pump 13a for establishing vacuum to the small capacity pump 13b for maintaining vacuum” (Pg 3 ll. 25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat store of Baechli with a sensor operative to measure a parameter at one or more location in the heat store and the vacuum pump is configured to operate whenever the sensor indicates that the parameter reaches a predetermined value, as taught by Verschuur, the motivation being to maintain a desired level of vacuum in real time within the system, wherein the loss of the required level of insulation would result in unwanted heat conduction and failure of thermal storage.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baechil (USP 4153103A) in view of Wimberley (USP 6276143B1) hereinafter referred to as Wimberley.
Regarding Claim 5, Baechli fails to disclose thermal insulation provided within the vacuum region.
Wimberley, also drawn to a vacuumed space between to nested containers, teaches thermal insulation (46, “A vacuum is maintained between the inner and outer container to help insulate the inner container where the cryogenic liquid is stored. Additional insulation may be provided through alternate layers of paper and aluminum foil to reduce heat transfer through conduction and radiation” (col. 1 ll. 44-48) provided within the vacuum region (43, shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat store of Baechli with thermal insulation provided within the vacuum region, as taught by Wimberley, the motivation being to increase the level of insulation within the container thereby further eliminating any thermal loss from the inner container.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Wimberley further teaches the thermal insulation comprises n layers of multilayer insulation wrapped around the outer wall of the inner vessel, each layer of multilayer insulation comprises a reflective layer and a spacer layer (“an insulation means, such as a vacuum 43, and may include alternate insulation means such as layers of aluminum foil and paper 46, exists between the outer and inner container 42, 44” (col. 4 ll. 1-4).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Baechli in view Wimberley fails to explicitly disclose where n >50 and n is approximately 200. Wimberley does, however, teach (see rejection of Claim 5 above) thermal insulation (46) provided within the vacuum region (43), wherein said thermal insulation comprises multiple alternating layers of aluminum foil and paper that reduces heat transfer through conduction and radiation. Therefore, the number of layers of alternating layers is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a larger number of layers results in a greater thickness of insulation, a greater level of insulation, more material required to fabricate the assembly and a greater space between the inner and outer containers, other parameters remaining constant. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the thermal insulation comprises n layers of multilayer insulation wrapped around the outer wall of the inner vessel, was disclosed in the prior art by Baechli in view Wimberley, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for n >50 and n is approximately 200. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baechil (USP 4153103A) in view of Energy Systems (WO2020217045A1), hereinafter referred to as Energy Systems.
Regarding Claim 8, Baechli fails to disclose the heat store comprises: at least one electrical heating element operative to act as a heat input to the thermal energy store; and at least one heat exchanger operative to receive a heat transfer fluid.
Energy Systems, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches at least one electrical heating element (70) operative to act as a heat input to the thermal energy store (20”””); and at least one heat exchanger (30”””) operative to receive a heat transfer fluid (shown in figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat store of Baechli with at least one electrical heating element operative to act as a heat input to the thermal energy store; and at least one heat exchanger operative to receive a heat transfer fluid, as taught by Energy Systems, the motivation being to charge the storage device to a predetermined heat load thereby insuring a required amount of heat exchange and to extract/store additional heat through a heat exchanger for a separate process/circuit that requires a separate working medium when compared to the medium of the heat store.
Regarding Claim 9, Baechli fails to disclose the thermal energy store is a solid store and the at least one electrical heating element and at least one heat exchanger are each embedded within the solid store.
Energy Systems, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches the thermal energy store is a solid store (20”””, solid metal composite block) and the at least one electrical heating element (70, as previously taught in the rejection of Claim 9 above) and at least one heat exchanger (30’’’, as previously taught in the rejection of Claim 9 above) are each embedded within the solid store (“a solid metal composite block 20’”” (formed in accordance with block 20 of heat store 10), an embedded heat exchanger 30’””, heat transfer fluid inlet 42’ and outlet 52’ and an embedded electric heating element 70”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat store of Baechli being a solid store and the at least one electrical heating element and at least one heat exchanger are each embedded within the solid store, as taught by Energy Systems, the motivation being to provide “an improved heat store that overcomes or at least alleviates problems associated with the prior art and provides the potential for an energy-dense, low-cost solution…a solid block heat store is provided in which a thermally conductive matrix forms a thermally conductive pathway to distributed thermal filler material and provides structural integrity to the heat store. By suitable selection of thermally conductive matrix and thermal filler materials, good heat storage and good heat transfer properties may be achieved…Solid metal composite block 20 has good thermal conductivity as has been previously described and hence the heat flows rapidly from all parts of the solid metal composite block 20 to the heat exchanger 30”.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Baechli further teaches the thermal energy store comprises a solid body comprising a solid thermally conductive matrix with a solid thermal filler material embedded therein (“a solid body (20) comprising a solid thermally conductive matrix (22) with a solid thermal filler material (21) embedded therein” of Energy Systems), the solid thermally conductive matrix forming a thermally conductive pathway to the solid thermal filler material distributed within the solid thermally conductive matrix (“the solid thermally conductive matrix (22) forming a thermally conductive pathway to the solid thermal filler material (21) distributed within the solid thermally conductive matrix (22); and a thermal transfer element (30)” of Energy Systems).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0155745A1) in view of Energy Systems (WO2020217045A1), hereinafter referred to as Energy Systems.
Regarding Claim 8, Chou fails to disclose the heat store comprises: at least one electrical heating element operative to act as a heat input to the thermal energy store; and at least one heat exchanger operative to receive a heat transfer fluid.
Energy Systems, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches at least one electrical heating element (70) operative to act as a heat input to the thermal energy store (20”””); and at least one heat exchanger (30”””) operative to receive a heat transfer fluid (shown in figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat store of Chou with at least one electrical heating element operative to act as a heat input to the thermal energy store; and at least one heat exchanger operative to receive a heat transfer fluid, as taught by Energy Systems, the motivation being to charge the storage device to a predetermined heat load thereby insuring a required amount of heat exchange and to extract/store additional heat through a heat exchanger for a separate process/circuit that requires a separate working medium when compared to the medium of the heat store.
Regarding Claim 9, Chou fails to disclose the thermal energy store is a solid store and the at least one electrical heating element and at least one heat exchanger are each embedded within the solid store.
Energy Systems, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches the thermal energy store is a solid store (20”””, solid metal composite block) and the at least one electrical heating element (70, as previously taught in the rejection of Claim 9 above) and at least one heat exchanger (30’’’, as previously taught in the rejection of Claim 9 above) are each embedded within the solid store (“a solid metal composite block 20’”” (formed in accordance with block 20 of heat store 10), an embedded heat exchanger 30’””, heat transfer fluid inlet 42’ and outlet 52’ and an embedded electric heating element 70”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat store of Chou being a solid store and the at least one electrical heating element and at least one heat exchanger are each embedded within the solid store, as taught by Energy Systems, the motivation being to provide “an improved heat store that overcomes or at least alleviates problems associated with the prior art and provides the potential for an energy-dense, low-cost solution…a solid block heat store is provided in which a thermally conductive matrix forms a thermally conductive pathway to distributed thermal filler material and provides structural integrity to the heat store. By suitable selection of thermally conductive matrix and thermal filler materials, good heat storage and good heat transfer properties may be achieved…Solid metal composite block 20 has good thermal conductivity as has been previously described and hence the heat flows rapidly from all parts of the solid metal composite block 20 to the heat exchanger 30”.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Chou further teaches the thermal energy store comprises a solid body comprising a solid thermally conductive matrix with a solid thermal filler material embedded therein (“a solid body (20) comprising a solid thermally conductive matrix (22) with a solid thermal filler material (21) embedded therein” of Energy Systems), the solid thermally conductive matrix forming a thermally conductive pathway to the solid thermal filler material distributed within the solid thermally conductive matrix (“the solid thermally conductive matrix (22) forming a thermally conductive pathway to the solid thermal filler material (21) distributed within the solid thermally conductive matrix (22); and a thermal transfer element (30)” of Energy Systems).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0155745A1) as applied in Claim 1 above in view of Reid (USP 4976110A), hereinafter referred to as Reid.
Regarding Claim 12, Chou further discloses the inner vessel (110) is suspended within the outer vessel (105) via a neck connector (115) connecting an upper section of the inner vessel to an upper section of the outer vessel (shown in figure 1), wherein the neck connector supports the weight of the inner vessel (shown in figure 1) and the thermal energy store and includes a central chamber (125). Chou fails to disclose supply lines for the thermal energy store.
Reid, also drawn to a thermal storage device having an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches supply lines for the thermal energy store (30, 32, shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the central chamber of Chou with supply lines for the thermal energy store, as taught by Reid, the motivation being to allow for a working medium to be delivered and removed from the thermal store thereby allowing for heat exchange between the store and an external device.
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “a central chamber housing supply line for the thermal energy store”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language. It is noted that the central chamber of Chou is capable of receiving a plurality of lines.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0155745A1) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Liao et al. (Translation of CN102635776A), hereinafter referred to as Liao.
Regarding Claim 13, Chou fails to disclose the outer vessel has an interface for engaging with a transportation device, the interface comprising at least one socket provided on the outer vessel, the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device.
Liao, also drawn to a heat storage device, teaches the outer vessel has an interface for engaging with a transportation device (shown in figures 1-2, being the socket on the top right and top left of the device), the interface comprising at least one socket provided on the outer vessel (shown in figures 1-2), the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device (shown in the figure, the sockets are capable of receiving a bolt through their respective openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Chou with the outer vessel having an interface for engaging with a transportation device, the interface comprising at least one socket provided on the outer vessel, the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device, as taught by Liao, the motivation being to allow for easy transport of the device through predetermined contact points that provide balance and stability during movement and mitigating degradation or failure of said device through contact with environmental structures.
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “an interface for engaging with a transportation device …configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0155745A1) as applied in Claim 1 above in view of Liao et al. (Translation of CN102635776A) as applied in Claim 13 above and in further view of Reid (USP 4976110A).
Regarding Claim 14, Chou fails to disclose the heat store further comprises at least one spreader plate movable between an inoperative position and deployed position, wherein in the deployed position the spreader plate is operative to constrain the movement of the inner vessel relative to the outer vessel.
Reid, also drawn to a thermal storage device having an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches the heat store further comprises at least one spreader plate (40) movable between an inoperative position and deployed position (shown in figure 2, wherein the ring (40) moves in relation to the container (14)), wherein in the deployed position the spreader plate is operative to constrain the movement of the inner vessel relative to the outer vessel (shown in figure 1, wherein the deployed position, relative to a ring situated on top of the container, is a stretched position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Chou with the heat store further comprising at least one spreader plate movable between an inoperative position and deployed position, wherein in the deployed position the spreader plate is operative to constrain the movement of the inner vessel relative to the outer vessel, as taught by Reid, the motivation being “Loads are thus transmitted between the external supports 34 and the supports 36 and 38 without applying bending moments or shearing forces on the outer jacket 12”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andonian (USP 4674289A) as applied in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12, Andonian further discloses the inner vessel (3) is suspended within the outer vessel (4) via a neck connector (31-34) connecting an upper section of the inner vessel to an upper section of the outer vessel (“a thick wall outer structural tube 31 and a thin wall inner tube 32, the structural tube providing support for the inner shell from the outer shell”, (col. 5 ll. 12-14)), wherein the neck connector supports the weight of the inner vessel (“The channel is formed by a thin wall sealing tube that conducts little heat, because the wall is so thin, sealed to the inner shell and enclosed by a support structure including a thick wall structural tube enclosing the thin wall tube and connected rigidly and sealed to the outer shell for structural support between the shells”, see abstract) and the thermal energy store and includes a central chamber (30) housing supply line for the thermal energy store (“Access to the inside of the container for filling it with liquefied gas and for drawing liquefied gas from it and for connection to a liquid level meter 43 is all through an access channel 30 in the neck 2 at the top of the container” (col. 3 ll. 63-68)).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a single supply line as taught by Andonian with multiple supply lines; further the prior art to Andonian teaches a supply line is known for inputting and removing a medium from an insulated container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Andonian with having multiple supply lines, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the container; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Andonian there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Andonian by having multiple supply lines, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include multiple supply lines, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI (B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andonian (USP 4674289A) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Liao et al. (Translation of CN102635776A), hereinafter referred to as Liao.
Regarding Claim 13, Andonian fails to disclose the outer vessel has an interface for engaging with a transportation device, the interface comprising at least one socket provided on the outer vessel, the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device.
Liao, also drawn to a heat storage device, teaches the outer vessel has an interface for engaging with a transportation device (shown in figures 1-2, being the socket on the top right and top left of the device), the interface comprising at least one socket provided on the outer vessel (shown in figures 1-2), the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device (shown in the figure, the sockets are capable of receiving a bolt through their respective openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andonian with the outer vessel having an interface for engaging with a transportation device, the interface comprising at least one socket provided on the outer vessel, the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device, as taught by Liao, the motivation being to allow for easy transport of the device through predetermined contact points that provide balance and stability during movement and mitigating degradation or failure of said device through contact with environmental structures.
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “an interface for engaging with a transportation device …configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andonian (USP 4674289A) as applied in Claim 1 above in view of Liao et al. (Translation of CN102635776A) as applied ion Claim 13 and in further view of Reid (USP 4976110A).
Regarding Claim 14, Andonian fails to disclose the heat store further comprises at least one spreader plate movable between an inoperative position and deployed position, wherein in the deployed position the spreader plate is operative to constrain the movement of the inner vessel relative to the outer vessel.
Reid, also drawn to a thermal storage device having an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches the heat store further comprises at least one spreader plate (40) movable between an inoperative position and deployed position (shown in figure 2, wherein the ring (40) moves in relation to the container (14)), wherein in the deployed position the spreader plate is operative to constrain the movement of the inner vessel relative to the outer vessel (shown in figure 1, wherein the deployed position, relative to a ring situated on top of the container, is a stretched position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Andonian with the heat store further comprising at least one spreader plate movable between an inoperative position and deployed position, wherein in the deployed position the spreader plate is operative to constrain the movement of the inner vessel relative to the outer vessel, as taught by Reid, the motivation being “Loads are thus transmitted between the external supports 34 and the supports 36 and 38 without applying bending moments or shearing forces on the outer jacket 12”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baechil (USP 4153103A) as applied in Claims 1 and 11 above and in further view of Boudier (Translation of FR2287020A2), hereinafter referred to as Boudier.
Regarding Claim 13, although Baechli further discloses the outer vessel (2) has an interface for engaging with a transportation device (“These reinforcement elements 16 are cast in the fabrication condition of the tank into the concrete of the pressure shell 1 and there can be mounted at the reinforcement elements 16 not particularly illustrated suspension eyelets for transport purposes”, (col. 5 ll. 1-5)) the interface comprising at least one eyelet provided on the outer vessel (shown in figure 8), the at least one eyelet being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device. Baechli fails to disclose at least one socket, provided on the outer vessel, the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device.
Boudier, also drawn to a heat storage device, teaches at least one socket (shown in the figure being the socket on the top right and top left of the device), provided on the outer vessel (shown in the figure), the at least one socket being configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device (shown in the figure, the sockets are capable of receiving a bolt through their respective openings).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an eyelet having an opening capable of receiving a bolt with a socket having an opening capable of receiving a bolt; further the prior art to Boudier teaches a socket is known to attach to a heat storage device for mounting or transportation. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Baechli with having a socket having an opening capable of receiving a bolt, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat storage device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Boudier there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Baechli by having a socket having an opening capable of receiving a bolt in order to mount or transport the storage device.
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “an interface for engaging with a transportation device …configured to receive a transport bolt provided on a transportation device”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0155745A1) as applied in Claim 1 above and in further view of Reinhadt (Translation of WO2012171832A1).
Regarding Claim 15, although Chou discloses an internal brace (930) provided inside the vacuum region (120), Chou fails to disclose the internal brace being configured to engage an inner surface of the outer vessel and resist compression of the outer vessel.
Reinhadt, also drawn to a storage tank, teaches an internal brace (13) provided between an internal vessel (14) and an outer vessel (12), the internal brace being configured to engage an inner surface of the outer vessel (shown in figure 1) and resist compression of the outer vessel (“the binder layer may also be formed as an insulating layer. This can be realized by the provision of insulating material, such as glass, in the binder layer…thereby formed double-walled pressure vessel has the particular advantage that it can withstand high pressures”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Chou with the internal brace being configured to engage an inner surface of the outer vessel and resist compression of the outer vessel, as taught by Reinhadt, the motivation being to increase the level of pressure the internal vessel can withstand before failure of said vessel.
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Chou further teaches the inner surface of the outer vessel has a substantially cylindrical profile (shown in figure 1) and the internal brace (as previously taught by Reinhadt in the rejection of Claim 15) has a substantially annular profile when viewed along a longitudinal axis of the internal brace (shown in figure 1 of Reinhardt).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baechil (USP 4153103A) as applied in Claims 1 and 11 above and in further view of Reinhadt (US PG Pub. 2015/0274006A1).
Regarding Claim 15, although Baechil discloses an internal brace (“it is possible, especially with large constructions of vacuum tanks or vessels, to provide the inner shell opposite the pressure shell with support elements and/or suspension means”) provided inside the vacuum region (5), Baechil fails to disclose the internal brace being configured to engage an inner surface of the outer vessel and resist compression of the outer vessel.
Reinhadt, also drawn to a storage tank, teaches an internal brace (13) provided between an internal vessel (14) and an outer vessel (12), the internal brace being configured to engage an inner surface of the outer vessel (shown in figure 1) and resist compression of the outer vessel (“the binder layer may also be formed as an insulating layer. This can be realized by the provision of insulating material, such as glass, in the binder layer…thereby formed double-walled pressure vessel has the particular advantage that it can withstand high pressures”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Baechil with the internal brace being configured to engage an inner surface of the outer vessel and resist compression of the outer vessel, as taught by Reinhadt, the motivation being to increase the level of pressure the internal vessel can withstand before failure of said vessel.
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Baechil further teaches the inner surface of the outer vessel has a substantially cylindrical profile (shown in figures 2 and 8) and the internal brace (as previously taught by Reinhadt in the rejection of Claim 15) has a substantially annular profile when viewed along a longitudinal axis of the internal brace (shown in figure 1 of Reinhardt).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights