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
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/02/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no lack of unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because Group I is a distinct invention taken in combination with the International search report and newly cited art (see rejection of claim 1 below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 12-13, 19 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the one or more surface " . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of “the surface has a thickness”, wherein it is unclear how a surface has a thickness. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the limitation is indefinite , the claim is rendered indefinite , and determined to be an antecedent basis issue. For examination purposes, the phrase has been interpreted as -- the coating layer -- for clarity.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency from a claim that has been rejected.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ast et al. US 2010/0263842 Al in view of Coleman US 9804607 B1.
Re claim 1, Ast et al. teach an energy transfer system comprising a thermal circuit with a working fluid configured to perform a thermodynamic cycle and/or an energy transfer process (paragraph [0002], fig.1 ),
the thermal circuit comprising a piping system for conveying the working fluid, and at least one energy transfer device, wherein the energy transfer device is configured to transfer a portion of energy from one part of the thermal circuit to another part of the thermal circuit (paragraph [0017], fig.2),
and wherein at least a portion of the thermal circuit comprises a coating layer (36) on surfaces in contact with the working fluid (para 18), wherein the coating layer includes an inert material (paras 20-21) that is inert with respect to the working fluid during operation and that maintains structural integrity at a temperature above 550 K.
Ast et al. fail to explicitly teach material details.
Coleman teach and wherein the inert material in a pure state/form has a thermal conductivity above 500 W/mK at room temperature to use a material with properties known in the art for fluid heat exchange (col 27 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by Coleman in the Ast et al. invention in order to advantageously allow for capturing heat from its surroundings and transfers the heat through fluid flow .
For clarity, the recitation “…that maintains structural integrity at a temperature above 550 K …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 2, Ast et al., as modified, teach claim 2 since no new structural requirements are claimed.
For clarity, the recitation “…wherein the inert material has a damage temperature above 620 K …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 3, Coleman teach wherein the inert material in a pure state/form has a thermal conductivity in a range of 500 to 5000 W/mK at room temperature to use a material with properties known in the art for fluid heat exchange (col 27 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by Coleman in the Ast et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for capturing heat from its surroundings and transfers the heat through fluid flow .
Re claim 5, Ast et al. teach wherein the coating layer is applied locally only in one or more parts of the thermal circuit (see the rejection of claim 1).
Re claim 6, Ast et al. teach wherein the heat transfer circuit of the energy transfer system comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion is configured to convey the working fluid in a first temperature range, and wherein the second portion is configured to convey the working fluid in a second temperature range (fig 1, noting condenser, evaporator, conduit connections, etc are configurated to operate fluid at different temperature ranges), wherein the first temperature range is below 550 K, wherein the second temperature range is above 570 K, and wherein only surfaces in contact with working fluid in the second portion of the heat transfer circuit are coated with the coating layer (on the boiling surface of the direct evaporator tube, paras 20, 25).
For clarity, the recitation “…wherein the first temperature range is below 550 K, wherein the second temperature range is above 570 K …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 7, Ast et al., as modified, teach claim 7 since no new structural requirements are claimed.
For clarity, the recitation “…wherein the second temperature range is between 570 K to 870 K …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 8, Ast et al. teach wherein the coating layer forms a surface (noting surface of layers or molecular layers have a surface naturally).
Re claim 9, Ast et al., as modified, teach claim 9 since no new structural requirements are claimed.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the working fluid is non-corrosive” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 10, Ast et al., as modified, teach claim 10 since no new structural requirements are claimed.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the working fluid is an organic liquid” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 12, Ast et al. teach wherein the heat transfer system is a thermal oil system, a geothermal loop or a concentrated solar collector system, a thermal conversion system such as an organic Rankine cycle electrical generator, or a heat pump system (fig 1).
Re claim 13, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the one or more surfaces coated with the coating layer are made of stainless steel for increased heat transfer and strength as is known in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 16, Coleman teach wherein the thermal conductivity is above 1000 W/mK at room temperature to use a material with properties known in the art for fluid heat exchange (col 27 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by Coleman in the Ast et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for capturing heat from its surroundings and transfers the heat through fluid flow .
Re claim 17, Ast et al., as modified, teach claim 17 since no new structural requirements are claimed.
For clarity, the recitation “…wherein the damage temperature is above 670 K …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 18, Ast et al., as modified, teach claim 18 since no new structural requirements are claimed.
For clarity, the recitation “…wherein the first temperature is below 520 K and the second temperature is above 600 K …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 20, Coleman teach wherein the thermal conductivity is in a range of 500 to 5000 W/mK at room temperature to use a material with properties known in the art for fluid heat exchange (col 27 last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by Coleman in the Ast et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for capturing heat from its surroundings and transfers the heat through fluid flow .
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ast et al. US 2010/0263842 Al in view of Coleman US 9804607 B1 and Sayir US 20070053168 A1.
Re claim 4, Ast et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach material details.
Sayir teach wherein the inert material is graphene or contains graphene to add a coating on a heat exchanger (para 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by Sayir in the Ast et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for structural integrity, and handling strength.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ast et al. US 2010/0263842 Al in view of Coleman US 9804607 B1 and ISHIHARA US 20170268834 A1.
Re claim 11, Ast et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach material details.
ISHIHARA teach the coating layer forms a smooth film with a surface roughness in a range of about 0.1 micrometer to 5 micrometer (para 59-60) to polish a surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by ISHIHARA in the Ast et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for increased heat transfer properties.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ast et al. US 2010/0263842 Al in view of Coleman US 9804607 B1 and Chu US 20040134646 A1.
Re claim 19, Ast et al., as modified, fail to explicitly teach material details.
Chu teach wherein the surface has a thickness in a range of 1 to 2000 micrometer (para 17) to coat a surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include material details as taught by Chu in the Ast et al., as modified, invention in order to advantageously allow for advantageous coating depending on material flow properties during coating processes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GB 2571096 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763