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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “coating is further to minimize” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be -- coating further minimizes --, and will be interpreted accordingly. 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.
Claims 4 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 Claims 4 and 17, the limitation “at least 90% of solar power in the incident solar light” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what the relationship is to what is being reflected and solar power. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “at least 90% of solar power in the incident solar light” will be interpreted as – at least 90% of a wavelength that may contribute to solar power in the incident solar light --.
Regarding Claims 4 and 17, the limitation “the diffuse reflector reflects at least 90% of solar power in the incident solar light” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the diffuse reflector is referring to the white diffuse reflector of the original disclosure (Teflon or PTFE), wherein the specification only defines the solar reflectance material as reflecting 90% of the solar power. Further explanation is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-21 and 2-25 above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (Translation of JPH0262794B2) in view of Livesay et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0042467A1), hereinafter referred to as Matsuda and Livesay, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuda discloses an integrated structure to radiatively cool a load, the integrated structure comprising:
a reflector (22)
to suppress absorption of incident solar light (“the double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”); and
a coating (“The cover 28 is formed of a polyethylene film”) defining an outer surface of the integrated structure (shown in figure 9) to protect (shown in figure 9, “for the purpose of shielding the inside from the outside air to improve the cooling effect”) the reflector (shown in figure 9), wherein a cooling power of the integrated structure radiatively cools the load (“The present invention relates to a radiation cooler, in particular a radiation cooler for cooling an object to be cooled (cooling target) using heat radiation”), which is thermally coupled to the integrated structure (see previous annotation, wherein the cooling implies a thermal connection), to below an ambient temperature (“A curve (a) shows the coolability at night, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 25°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 7°C in about 30 minutes. A curve (b) shows the coolability in the daytime, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 26°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 15°C in about 30 minutes”) while the integrated structure is exposed to the incident (“the double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”) solar light (“because the thermal radiator has high reflectivity in the wavelength range of 8 µm or less and 13 µm or more, and high emissivity in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm, the radiative cooling based on the theory of A. K. Head can be sufficiently performed, and a radiation cooler exerting excellent coolability regardless of night or day can be obtained”). Matsuda fails to disclose the reflector is a diffuse reflector.
Livesay, also drawn to reflectors, teaches a reflector (“The reflector surface includes metal components fabricated from coil steel or aluminum. Coil steel or aluminum is coated in continuous coil equipment with a paint typically containing titanium dioxide light scattering particles, and the coating is subsequently cured is a diffuse reflector”) is a diffuse reflector (“Diffuse reflectance is preferred in situations in which low glare is desired and/or in which it is desired to distribute light evenly over as broad an area as possible. White, diffuse reflectors are often used in room and office lighting to reduce specular glare” ¶8).
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 reflector of Matsuda being a diffuse deflector, as taught by Livesay, the motivation being to reduce specular glare or to allow for selective thermal radiation.
Regarding “to radiatively cool a load”, “to protect the diffuse reflector” and “a cooling power of the integrated structure radiatively cools the load, which is thermally coupled to the integrated structure, to below an ambient temperature while the integrated structure is exposed to the incident solar light” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to functionality of the integrated structure or rather an intended use of said structure, 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Matsuda further discloses the integrated structure generates electromagnetic emissions (“The double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsuda further discloses the integrated structure further comprises a thermally-emissive portion to generate electromagnetic emissions (the thermal radiator (22) emits thermal radiation to a degree for cooling).
Regarding Claim 4, Matsuda further discloses the diffuse reflector reflects at least 90% of solar power in the incident solar light (“having nearly 100% reflectivity in the wavelength range of 8 um or less and 13 µm or more”).
Regarding Claim 5, Matsuda further discloses the coating is further to minimize a heat load on the integrated structure (“a cover 28 is attached to the opening of the cooler by a cover holder 26, for the purpose of shielding the inside from the outside air to improve the cooling effect”).
Regarding Claim 6, Matsuda further discloses the coating comprises a polymeric material (“polyethylene“).
Regarding Claim 7, Matsuda further discloses the coating is transparent to infrared wavelengths (“The cover 28 is formed of a polyethylene film having a thickness of 20 µm so as to be transparent to lights in all wavelength region”).
Regarding Claim 8, Matsuda further discloses a heat exchange interface (30), wherein the load (“The present invention relates to a radiation cooler, in particular a radiation cooler for cooling an object to be cooled (cooling target) using heat radiation”) is thermally coupled to the integrated structure using the heat exchange interface (“on the backside face of the conductive layer 22a formed of an aluminum plate, a plurality of flow paths 30, each made of an aluminum tube having an inner diameter of 10 mm and an outer diameter of 12 mm as a target to be cooled, are welded and fixed”).
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Matsuda further teaches the integrated structure is configured to be thermally coupled to a roof (“Accordingly, the radiation cooler of the present invention is the best for air-cooling of residence or plastic green house or the like”).
Regarding “is configured to be thermally coupled to a roof” recited in Claim 11, which is directed to the intended use of the radiative cooler, 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.
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Matsuda further teaches the load comprises a fluid (“the heat in water running through the flow paths 30 is conducted to the selective radiation layer 22b through the conductive layer 22a, and radiated outward from the selective radiation layer”).
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Matsuda further teaches the fluid is used to lower an operating temperature of a cooling system (“the radiation cooler of the present invention, by providing, for example, a flow passage of water as a cooling target on a backside face of the radiation surface 22, cold water can be easily obtained. By introducing the cold water to a fan coil unit or the like inside a room, sufficient air-cooling can be obtained”).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsuda discloses a radiative cooling method comprising: suppressing, using a reflector (22) of an integrated structure (shown in figure 9), absorption of incident solar light (“the double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”);
protecting (shown in figure 9, “for the purpose of shielding the inside from the outside air to improve the cooling effect”), using a coating defining an outer surface of the integrated structure (“The cover 28 is formed of a polyethylene film”), the reflector; and
radiatively cooling, using the integrated structure (“A curve (a) shows the coolability at night, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 25°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 7°C in about 30 minutes. A curve (b) shows the coolability in the daytime, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 26°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 15°C in about 30 minutes”), a load (30) thermally coupled to the integrated structure (“The present invention relates to a radiation cooler, in particular a radiation cooler for cooling an object to be cooled (cooling target) using heat radiation”) to below an ambient (“A curve (a) shows the coolability at night, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 25°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 7°C in about 30 minutes. A curve (b) shows the coolability in the daytime, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 26°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 15°C in about 30 minutes”) temperature while the integrated structure is exposed to the incident solar light (“regarding the thermal radiation 200 from the atmosphere, which is incident on the thermal radiator 22 from the outside the cooler though the cover 28, most parts thereof are reflected at the thermal radiator 22, and only the thermal radiation in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm, having low light energy, is absorbed at the thermal radiator 22”).
Regarding Claim 15, Matsuda further discloses generating, using the integrated structure, electromagnetic emissions (“The double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”).
Regarding Claim 16, Matsuda further discloses generating, using a thermally-emissive portion of the integrated structure, electromagnetic emissions (the thermal radiator (22) emits thermal radiation to a degree for cooling).
Regarding Claim 17, Matsuda further discloses suppressing absorption of incident solar light comprises reflecting at least 90% of solar power in the incident solar light (“having nearly 100% reflectivity in the wavelength range of 8 um or less and 13 µm or more”).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsuda further discloses minimizing, using the coating, a heat load on the integrated structure (“a cover 28 is attached to the opening of the cooler by a cover holder 26, for the purpose of shielding the inside from the outside air to improve the cooling effect”).
Regarding Claim 19, Matsuda further discloses protecting the diffuse reflector comprises protecting the diffuse reflector using a polymeric material (“polyethylene“).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsuda further discloses protecting the diffuse reflector comprises protecting the diffuse reflector using a material that is transparent to infrared wavelengths (“The cover 28 is formed of a polyethylene film having a thickness of 20 µm so as to be transparent to lights in all wavelength region”).
Regarding Claim 21, Matsuda further discloses thermally coupling the integrated structure to the load (“The present invention relates to a radiation cooler, in particular a radiation cooler for cooling an object to be cooled (cooling target) using heat radiation”) using a heat exchange interface (30).
Regarding Claim 24, Matsuda further discloses thermally coupling the integrated structure to the load comprises thermally coupling the integrated structure to a fluid (“the heat in water running through the flow paths 30 is conducted to the selective radiation layer 22b through the conductive layer 22a, and radiated outward from the selective radiation layer”).
Regarding Claim 25, Matsuda further discloses using the fluid to lower an operating temperature of a cooling system (“the radiation cooler of the present invention, by providing, for example, a flow passage of water as a cooling target on a backside face of the radiation surface 22, cold water can be easily obtained. By introducing the cold water to a fan coil unit or the like inside a room, sufficient air-cooling can be obtained”).
Claims 9-10, 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (Translation of JPH0262794B2) in view of Livesay et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0042467A1) as applied in Claims 1-8, 11-21 and 2-25 above and in further view of Fayet et al. (WO2007141431A2), hereinafter referred to as Fayet.
Regarding Claim 9, Matsuda fails to disclose the heat exchange interface comprises thermal storage.
Fayet, also drawn to a radiative cooler, teaches a heat exchange interface (2-3) comprises thermal storage (2, “Consecutively this allows to reserve a greater part of the heat absorption materialized by the melting of the latent heat storage (2) at the supply of the cold source of the heat exchanger (3)… During the time of evacuation of heat by infrared radiation on the space and the atmosphere and convection transmission with the ambient air, corresponding to the nocturnal or covered periods, the supply of the hot source of the heat exchanger (3 ) is ensured by the release of heat materialized by the solidification at constant temperature, of the latent heat storage composite layer (2)”).
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 exchange interface of Matsuda with thermal storage, as taught by Fayet, the motivation being to create a reserve of potential cooling for utilization when the capability of the radiative cooler is not sufficient or to maintain a desired temperature of the radiative cooler device.
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Matsuda further teaches the thermal storage comprises a phase change material (“The latter (4) is rapidly cooled by IR radiation on the space through the ‘atmospheric window [8 μm-13 μm]’ to a temperature slightly lower than the phase change temperature of the MCP contained in the storage layer. latent heat (2). When this temperature is reached, the MCP solidifies at a constant temperature. At the same time, part of the cold induced by IR radiation on the space also supplies, via the latent heat storage layer (2) of low thermal resistance, the cold source of the heat exchanger (3)” of Fayet).
Regarding Claim 22, although Matsuda discloses thermally coupling the integrated structure to the heat exchange interface (shown in figure 9), Matsuda fails to disclose thermally coupling the integrated structure to the heat exchange interface using a phase-change material.
Fayet, also drawn to a radiative cooler, teaches thermally coupling an integrated structure (5) to the heat exchange interface (3) using a phase-change material “Consecutively this allows to reserve a greater part of the heat absorption materialized by the melting of the latent heat storage (2) at the supply of the cold source of the heat exchanger (3)… During the time of evacuation of heat by infrared radiation on the space and the atmosphere and convection transmission with the ambient air, corresponding to the nocturnal or covered periods, the supply of the hot source of the heat exchanger (3 ) is ensured by the release of heat materialized by the solidification at constant temperature, of the latent heat storage composite layer (2)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Matsuda with thermally coupling the integrated structure to the heat exchange interface using a phase-change material, as taught by Fayet, the motivation being to create a reserve of potential cooling for utilization when the capability of the radiative cooler is not sufficient or to maintain a desired temperature of the radiative cooler device.
Regarding Claim 26, Matsuda discloses a radiative cooling system comprising: an integrated structure comprising:
a reflector (22) to suppress absorption of incident solar light (“the double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”), and a coating (“The cover 28 is formed of a polyethylene film”) defining an outer surface of the integrated structure (shown in figure 9) to protect the reflector (shown in figure 9, “for the purpose of shielding the inside from the outside air to improve the cooling effect”); and
a heat exchanger (30) thermally coupled to the integrated structure (shown in figure 9), wherein the heat exchanger is thermally coupled to a load to cool (“The present invention relates to a radiation cooler, in particular a radiation cooler for cooling an object to be cooled (cooling target) using heat radiation”), using the integrated structure, the load to below an ambient temperature (“A curve (a) shows the coolability at night, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 25°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 7°C in about 30 minutes. A curve (b) shows the coolability in the daytime, and it was confirmed that in the case of the outside air temperature of 26°C, the thermal radiator 22 was cooled to 15°C in about 30 minutes”) while the integrated structure is exposed to the (“the double-layered inorganic material and the single-layered organic material forming the selective radiation layer 22b have high emissivity to light in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm and high transmissivity to light in the other wavelength range”) solar light (“because the thermal radiator has high reflectivity in the wavelength range of 8 µm or less and 13 µm or more, and high emissivity in the wavelength range of 8 to 13 µm, the radiative cooling based on the theory of A. K. Head can be sufficiently performed, and a radiation cooler exerting excellent coolability regardless of night or day can be obtained”). Matsuda fails to disclose a heat exchange interface.
Fayet, also drawn to a radiative cooler, teaches a heat exchange interface (2, “Consecutively this allows to reserve a greater part of the heat absorption materialized by the melting of the latent heat storage (2) at the supply of the cold source of the heat exchanger (3)… During the time of evacuation of heat by infrared radiation on the space and the atmosphere and convection transmission with the ambient air, corresponding to the nocturnal or covered periods, the supply of the hot source of the heat exchanger (3 ) is ensured by the release of heat materialized by the solidification at constant temperature, of the latent heat storage composite layer (2)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Matsuda with a heat exchange interface, as taught by Fayet, the motivation being the motivation being to create a reserve of potential cooling for utilization when the capability of the radiative cooler is not sufficient or to maintain a desired temperature of the radiative cooler device.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (Translation of JPH0262794B2) in view of Livesay et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0042467A1) as applied in Claims 1-8, 11-21 and 2-25 above and in further view of Head (USP 3043112A), hereinafter referred to as Head.
Regarding Claim 23, Matsuda fails to disclose thermally coupling the integrated structure to a roof.
Head, also drawn to a radiative cooler, teaches thermally coupling an integrated structure (shown in figure 3) to a roof (24, “the roof of a single stories house”, col.3 ll. 67)
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 integrated structure of Matsuda being thermally coupling to a roof, as taught by Head, the motivation being to enable the integrated structure to capture a required amount of light for the purpose of automatically providing cooling to the structure.
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