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 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.
Claim 12 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned what structural component is defined by the cylinder. Is the cylinder a structural component onto which the heater is wound or is the cylinder a shape formed by the winding of the heater? For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder” will be interpreted as – to be wound on a lateral surface and forming a cylindrical shape--.
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 1-3, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datas et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0256119A1) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0081882A1), hereinafter referred to as Datas and Lin, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Datas discloses a latent heat storage unit (shown in figure 2) comprising:
a ceramic part (“The vessel is made of any of the following refractory materials: Si3N4, SiC, SiO2, saphire, steatite, cordierite, mullite, boron carbide, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, alumina, spinel, zirconia, ceramic matrix composites, fiber reinforced composites, graphite, B4C, TiB2, tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, niobium, rhenium, WSi2, TiSi2, MoSi2, TaSi2, WC, W--Re, W--ThO.sub.2, W--Mo, AKS-W, W--Ni--Cu, W--Ni--Fe--Co or W--Mo--Ni--Fe”, ¶15) made of a body and having a closed space formed therein (shown in figure 2); and
a phase change material (1) provided in the closed space (shown in figure 2) and containing boron (“the phase change material is metallurgical-grade silicon, ferrosilicon, steel, copper, iron, aluminum, manganese, nickel, chromium, boron. B4C, Si3N4 or Al2O3”, ¶12), wherein a melting point of the phase change material is 1100°C or higher (Boron has a melting temperature is greater than 1100°C, refer to the conclusion section for a detailed explanation, wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection). Although Datas discloses the vessel may be fabricated from “boron nitride” or “aluminum nitride”, Datas fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride.
Lin, also drawn to a ceramic material, teaches a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride (“The polycrystalline cubic boron nitride can include particles of cubic boron nitride, titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or any other borides, carbides, nitrides, carbonitrides, of any stoichiometry, and blends, composites, reactants or alloys thereof” ¶52. Lin further states, “Such constructions can be intentionally engineered or designed to provide a desired mix of chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical and/or thermal properties within the material microstructure, and can make the constructions better equipped to handle a particular end use application. In order to assist in delivering such desired properties and performance in a predictable and controllable manner”, see abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Datas with a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride, as taught by Lin, the motivation being that polycrystalline bodies of aluminum nitride and boron nitride are known to be “ultra hard” and tailorable to produce composites “engineered or designed to provide a desired mix of chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical and/or thermal properties within the material microstructure”.
Regarding Claim 2, Datas further discloses the metal part contains 99% or more boron by mass (see ¶12, “boron”).
Regarding Claim 3, Datas further discloses a volume of the closed space (11) is larger (shown in figure 2) than a volume of the phase change material (shown in figure 2 being the space above the phase change material (1)).
Regarding Claim 8, Datas further discloses a heater (15) configured to heat the phase change material (“a water-cooled copper coil (15) surrounds the walls of the thermally insulating cover (4). When an alternating current is passed through this coil, it generates an electromagnetic field that generates the so-called eddy currents within the phase change material, which in turn heat up the phase change material (1) by Joule effect until melting”, ¶64).
Regarding Claim 10, although Datas discloses a heater (15) outside of the ceramic part in the embodiment of figure 2, Datas fails to disclose the heater contains either tungsten or molybdenum or both. However, in the embodiment of figure 6, Datas teaches a heater (26) contains either tungsten or molybdenum or both (“the electric means for heating the phase change material comprise resistive heaters arranged at least partially surrounding outer walls of the vessel. In various embodiments the resistive heaters are made of any of the following materials: tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, graphite”, ¶18).
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 copper coil heater on the outside of the container with a resistive heater on the inside of the container; further the prior art to Datas teaches a resistive heater on the inside of the container is known for heating a stored material and is also a known equivalent to a copper coil heater on the outside of the container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas in figure 2 with a resistive heater for heating a stored substance, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the energy storage system; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Datas there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Datas in figure 2 with resistive heater in order to provide “a very high efficiency of the melting process”, ¶18.
Regarding Claim 11, although Datas discloses a heater (15) outside of the ceramic part in the embodiment of figure 2, Datas fails to disclose the heater contains graphite. However, in the embodiment of figure 6, Datas teaches a heater (26) contains graphite (“the electric means for heating the phase change material comprise resistive heaters arranged at least partially surrounding outer walls of the vessel. In various embodiments the resistive heaters are made of any of the following materials: tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, graphite”, ¶18).
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 copper coil heater on the outside of the container with a resistive heater on the inside of the container; further the prior art to Datas teaches a resistive heater on the inside of the container is known for heating a stored material and is also a known equivalent to a copper coil heater on the outside of the container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas in figure 2 with a resistive heater for heating a stored substance, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the energy storage system; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Datas there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Datas in figure 2 with resistive heater in order to provide “a very high efficiency of the melting process”, ¶18.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datas et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0256119A1) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0081882A1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 8 and 10-11 above and in further view of Robertson et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0086892A1), hereinafter referred to as Robertson.
Regarding Claim 9, although Datas discloses a heater outside of the ceramic part in figure 2 and a heater contacting the outside of the ceramic part in figure 6, Datas fails to disclose the heater is provided in the ceramic part.
Robertson, also drawn to an energy storage system, teaches a heater is provided in a wall part (“the thermal storage system chamber 102 may include a heating zone in which the heating elements, such as in the form of heat exchanger tubes (e.g., for a molten salt heating system) or electrical resistance heaters, are positioned in or along the walls and configured to add thermal energy to the graphite thermal storage block via radiative heating or conduction heating”, underline for emphasis, ¶74).
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 heater on the outside of a wall with a heater in a wall; further the prior art to Robertson teaches a resistance heater either contacting a wall or in a wall with both options being known for heating a stored material and known equivalents. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas with a resistive heater being situated in a wall, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the energy storage system; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Robertson there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified Datas with resistive heaters in a wall in order to provide heating to the stored material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datas et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0256119A1) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0081882A1) as applied in Claims 1-3, 8 and 10-11 above in further view of Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) and Tanaka (USP 4979923A), hereinafter referred to as Kraft and Tanaka, respectively.
Regarding Claim 12, although Datas discloses a heater (26), Datas fails to disclose a heater disposed inside the ceramic part or in a groove formed in an outer peripheral surface of the ceramic part, wherein the ceramic part and the phase change material each have a cylindrical shape, and the heater forms a substantially cylindrical shape by alternating clockwise winding and counterclockwise winding to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder when viewed in a direction parallel to a long axis of the phase change material.
Kraft, also drawn to a ceramic heat storage device, teaches a heater (34) disposed inside (shown in figure 4) the ceramic part (“Other possible housing materials are ceramics, for example, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, boron nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, boron carbide” ¶22).
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 heater being disposed on the outside or inside surface of a ceramic part with a heater being disposed in the ceramic part; further the prior art to Kraft teaches disposing a heater in the ceramic part is known for transferring heat to the inside of the ceramic part. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas with having a heater disposed in the ceramic part, 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 Kraft there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Datas by having a heater being disposed in the ceramic part in order to protect the heater from materials on the interior or outside of the ceramic part or to minimize thermal resistance.
[AltContent: textbox (Counter Clockwise Winding)]
[AltContent: textbox (Clockwise Winding)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
505
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanaka Figure 3
Tanaka, also drawn to a latent heat storage device with a heater, teaches a part (8a) and the phase change material (9) each have a cylindrical shape (shown in figure 3), and the heater (5) forms a substantially cylindrical shape (shown in figure 3) by alternating clockwise winding (shown in annotated figure 3) and counterclockwise winding (shown in annotated figure 3) to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder (shown in figure 3, wherein the heater comprises “Counter Clockwise Winding” legs and “Clockwise Winding” legs forming a cylindrical shape and being disposed on an adjacent cylinder) when viewed in a direction parallel to a long axis of the phase change material (shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Datas with the part and the phase change material each have a cylindrical shape, and the heater forms a substantially cylindrical shape by alternating clockwise winding and counterclockwise winding to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder when viewed in a direction parallel to a long axis of the phase change material, as taught by Tanaka, the motivation being that such a heater provides heat “dissipated so as to be transferred uniformly to the latent heat storage section 8, and all portions of the electric heater 5 are held at an equal temperature at all times” (col. 4 ll. 22-25).
Further, Datas discloses the claimed invention except for the ceramic part and the phase change material each have a cylindrical shape, and the heater forms a substantially cylindrical shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the ceramic part, phase change material and the heater forming a substantially cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Lin et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0081882A1) and in further view of Rass et al. (Translation of DE19937730C1), hereinafter referred to as Rass.
Regarding Claim 13, Kraft discloses a latent heat storage unit (see ¶6) comprising:
a ceramic part (16, “housing materials are ceramics, for example, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, boron nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, boron carbide, and the like” ¶22) made of a body and having a closed space formed therein (shown in figure 4); and
a phase change material (10) provided in the closed space (shown in figure 4) and containing boron (“The phase change material can advantageously comprise a metallic alloy or semi-metallic alloy having one or more of the components aluminum, silicon, copper, magnesium, boron, zinc, in particular an AlSi alloy”, ¶49), wherein a melting point of the phase change material is 1100°C or higher (Boron has a melting temperature is greater than 1100°C, refer to the conclusion section for a detailed explanation, wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection). Kraft fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride.
Although Kraft discloses the housing may be fabricated from “aluminum…boron”, Kraft fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride.
Lin, also drawn to a ceramic material, teaches a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride (“The polycrystalline cubic boron nitride can include particles of cubic boron nitride, titanium nitride, zirconium nitride, tungsten carbide, silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, or any other borides, carbides, nitrides, carbonitrides, of any stoichiometry, and blends, composites, reactants or alloys thereof” ¶52. Lin further states, “Such constructions can be intentionally engineered or designed to provide a desired mix of chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical and/or thermal properties within the material microstructure, and can make the constructions better equipped to handle a particular end use application. In order to assist in delivering such desired properties and performance in a predictable and controllable manner”, see abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Kraft with a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride, as taught by Lin, the motivation being that polycrystalline bodies of aluminum nitride and boron nitride are known to be “ultra hard” and tailorable to produce composites “engineered or designed to provide a desired mix of chemical, physical, mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical and/or thermal properties within the material microstructure”.
Kraft fails to disclose the ceramic part includes a container having a cylindrical shape with an open end and a lid configured to close the open end, and the container and the lid have threads configured to engage with each other.
Rass, also drawn to a ceramic latent heat storage device, teaches the ceramic part (12) includes a container having a cylindrical shape with an open end (shown in figure 1 and 5) and a lid (42) configured to close the open end (shown in figure 5), and the container and the lid have threads (86, 84) configured to engage with each other (shown in figure 5).
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 ceramic part of Kraft a container having a cylindrical shape with an open end and a lid configured to close the open end, and the container and the lid have threads configured to engage with each other, as taught by Rass, the motivation being that a “Such a screw connection increases mechanical strength, while the tightness is ensured by the soldering. This is necessary, for example, if there is high internal pressure in the storage space because the storage medium has a high vapor pressure” ¶33.
Alternatively, Kraft discloses the claimed invention except for a container having a cylindrical shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the container having a cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claims 1-3, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datas et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0256119A1) in view of Han et al. (Translation of CN105908041A), hereinafter referred to as Datas and Han, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Datas discloses a latent heat storage unit (shown in figure 2) comprising:
a ceramic part (“The vessel is made of any of the following refractory materials: Si3N4, SiC, SiO2, saphire, steatite, cordierite, mullite, boron carbide, boron nitride, aluminum nitride, alumina, spinel, zirconia, ceramic matrix composites, fiber reinforced composites, graphite, B4C, TiB2, tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, niobium, rhenium, WSi2, TiSi2, MoSi2, TaSi2, WC, W--Re, W--ThO.sub.2, W--Mo, AKS-W, W--Ni--Cu, W--Ni--Fe--Co or W--Mo--Ni--Fe”, ¶15) made of a body and having a closed space formed therein (shown in figure 2); and
a phase change material (1) provided in the closed space (shown in figure 2) and containing boron (“the phase change material is metallurgical-grade silicon, ferrosilicon, steel, copper, iron, aluminum, manganese, nickel, chromium, boron. B4C, Si3N4 or Al2O3”, ¶12), wherein a melting point of the phase change material is 1100°C or higher (Boron has a melting temperature is greater than 1100°C, refer to the conclusion section for a detailed explanation, wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection). Although Datas discloses the vessel may be fabricated from “boron nitride, aluminum nitride”, Datas fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride.
Han, also drawn to a ceramic material, teaches a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride (“This embodiment provides a high-toughness polycrystalline composition specifically comprises the mass percent is 55% of granularity is 5 to 10 μ m of cubic boron nitride particles, the mass percentage is 20%, the granularity is 50nm of diamond particles, the mass percent is 2% of carbon nanometre tube and graphene quality percentage is 1%, the mass percent of 10% granularity is 2 microns of aluminium nitride, mass percentage of 12% of titanium powder with granularity of 3 microns” (underline for emphasis). Han further states, “cubic boron nitride, diamond and other materials in hard material because of its good heat resistance, strong chemical inert and has high hardness, good thermal conductivity” and “a polycrystalline composite material by the high toughness”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Datas with a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride, as taught by Han, the motivation being that polycrystalline bodies of aluminum nitride and boron nitride are known to be chemically inert, contain high hardness and comprise good thermal conductivity.
Regarding Claim 2, Datas further discloses the metal part contains 99% or more boron by mass (see ¶12, “boron”).
Regarding Claim 3, Datas further discloses a volume of the closed space (11) is larger (shown in figure 2) than a volume of the phase change material (shown in figure 2 being the space above the phase change material (1)).
Regarding Claim 8, Datas further discloses a heater (15) configured to heat the phase change material (“a water-cooled copper coil (15) surrounds the walls of the thermally insulating cover (4). When an alternating current is passed through this coil, it generates an electromagnetic field that generates the so-called eddy currents within the phase change material, which in turn heat up the phase change material (1) by Joule effect until melting”, ¶64).
Regarding Claim 10, although Datas discloses a heater (15) outside of the ceramic part in the embodiment of figure 2, Datas fails to disclose the heater contains either tungsten or molybdenum or both. However, in the embodiment of figure 6, Datas teaches a heater (26) contains either tungsten or molybdenum or both (“the electric means for heating the phase change material comprise resistive heaters arranged at least partially surrounding outer walls of the vessel. In various embodiments the resistive heaters are made of any of the following materials: tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, graphite”, ¶18).
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 copper coil heater on the outside of the container with a resistive heater on the inside of the container; further the prior art to Datas teaches a resistive heater on the inside of the container is known for heating a stored material and is also a known equivalent to a copper coil heater on the outside of the container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas in figure 2 with a resistive heater for heating a stored substance, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the energy storage system; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Datas there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Datas in figure 2 with resistive heater in order to provide “a very high efficiency of the melting process”, ¶18.
Regarding Claim 11, although Datas discloses a heater (15) outside of the ceramic part in the embodiment of figure 2, Datas fails to disclose the heater contains graphite. However, in the embodiment of figure 6, Datas teaches a heater (26) contains graphite (“the electric means for heating the phase change material comprise resistive heaters arranged at least partially surrounding outer walls of the vessel. In various embodiments the resistive heaters are made of any of the following materials: tungsten, tantalum, molybdenum, graphite”, ¶18).
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 copper coil heater on the outside of the container with a resistive heater on the inside of the container; further the prior art to Datas teaches a resistive heater on the inside of the container is known for heating a stored material and is also a known equivalent to a copper coil heater on the outside of the container. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas in figure 2 with a resistive heater for heating a stored substance, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the energy storage system; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Datas there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Datas in figure 2 with resistive heater in order to provide “a very high efficiency of the melting process”, ¶18.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datas et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0256119A1) in view of Han et al. (Translation of CN105908041A) as applied in Claims 1-6,8 and 10-11 above and in further view of Robertson et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0086892A1), hereinafter referred to as Robertson.
Regarding Claim 9, although Datas discloses a heater outside of the ceramic part in figure 2 and a heater contacting the outside of the ceramic part in figure 6, Datas fails to disclose the heater is provided in the ceramic part.
Robertson, also drawn to an energy storage system, teaches a heater is provided in a wall part (“the thermal storage system chamber 102 may include a heating zone in which the heating elements, such as in the form of heat exchanger tubes (e.g., for a molten salt heating system) or electrical resistance heaters, are positioned in or along the walls and configured to add thermal energy to the graphite thermal storage block via radiative heating or conduction heating”, underline for emphasis, ¶74).
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 heater on the outside of a wall with a heater in a wall; further the prior art to Robertson teaches a resistance heater either contacting a wall or in a wall with both options being known for heating a stored material and known equivalents. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas with a resistive heater being situated in a wall, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the energy storage system; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Robertson there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified Datas with resistive heaters in a wall in order to provide heating to the stored material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datas et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0256119A1) in view of Han et al. (Translation of CN105908041A) as applied in Claims 1-3, 8 and 10-11 above in further view of Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) and Tanaka (USP 4979923A), hereinafter referred to as Kraft and Tanaka, respectively.
Regarding Claim 12, although Datas discloses a heater (26), Datas fails to disclose a heater disposed inside the ceramic part or in a groove formed in an outer peripheral surface of the ceramic part, wherein the ceramic part and the phase change material each have a cylindrical shape, and the heater forms a substantially cylindrical shape by alternating clockwise winding and counterclockwise winding to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder when viewed in a direction parallel to a long axis of the phase change material.
Kraft, also drawn to a ceramic heat storage device, teaches a heater (34) disposed inside (shown in figure 4) the ceramic part (“Other possible housing materials are ceramics, for example, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, boron nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, boron carbide” ¶22).
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 heater being disposed on the outside or inside wall of a ceramic part with a heater disposed in the ceramic part; further the prior art to Kraft teaches disposing a heater in the ceramic part is known for transferring heat to the inside of the ceramic part. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Datas with having a heater disposed in the ceramic part, 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 Kraft there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Datas by having a heater disposed in the ceramic part in order to protect the heater from materials on the interior or exterior of the ceramic part or to minimize thermal resistance.
[AltContent: textbox (Counter Clockwise Winding)]
[AltContent: textbox (Clockwise Winding)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
505
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanaka Figure 3
Tanaka, also drawn to a latent heat storage device with a heater, teaches a part (8a) and the phase change material (9) each have a cylindrical shape (shown in figure 3), and the heater (5) forms a substantially cylindrical shape (shown in figure 3) by alternating clockwise winding (shown in annotated figure 3) and counterclockwise winding (shown in annotated figure 3) to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder (shown in figure 3, wherein the heater comprises “Counter Clockwise Winding” legs and “Clockwise Winding” legs forming a cylindrical shape and being disposed on an adjacent cylinder) when viewed in a direction parallel to a long axis of the phase change material (shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Datas with the part and the phase change material each have a cylindrical shape, and the heater forms a substantially cylindrical shape by alternating clockwise winding and counterclockwise winding to be wound on a lateral surface of a cylinder when viewed in a direction parallel to a long axis of the phase change material, as taught by Tanaka, the motivation being that such a heater provides heat “dissipated so as to be transferred uniformly to the latent heat storage section 8, and all portions of the electric heater 5 are held at an equal temperature at all times” (col. 4 ll. 22-25).
Further, Datas discloses the claimed invention except for the ceramic part and the phase change material each have a cylindrical shape, and the heater forms a substantially cylindrical shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the ceramic part, phase change material and the heater forming a substantially cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Han et al. (Translation of CN105908041A) and in further view of Rass et al. (Translation of DE19937730C1).
Regarding Claim 13, Kraft discloses a latent heat storage unit (see ¶6) comprising:
a ceramic part (16, “housing materials are ceramics, for example, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, boron nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, boron carbide, and the like” ¶22) made of a body and having a closed space formed therein (shown in figure 4); and
a phase change material (10) provided in the closed space (shown in figure 4) and containing boron (“The phase change material can advantageously comprise a metallic alloy or semi-metallic alloy having one or more of the components aluminum, silicon, copper, magnesium, boron, zinc, in particular an AlSi alloy”, ¶49), wherein a melting point of the phase change material is 1100°C or higher (Boron has a melting temperature is greater than 1100°C, refer to the conclusion section for a detailed explanation, wherein references are cited but not relied upon regarding the instant rejection). Kraft fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride.
Although Kraft discloses the housing may be fabricated from “aluminum…boron”, Kraft fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride.
Han, also drawn to a ceramic material, teaches a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride (“This embodiment provides a high-toughness polycrystalline composition specifically comprises the mass percent is 55% of granularity is 5 to 10 μ m of cubic boron nitride particles, the mass percentage is 20%, the granularity is 50nm of diamond particles, the mass percent is 2% of carbon nanometre tube and graphene quality percentage is 1%, the mass percent of 10% granularity is 2 microns of aluminium nitride, mass percentage of 12% of titanium powder with granularity of 3 microns” (underline for emphasis). Han further states, “cubic boron nitride, diamond and other materials in hard material because of its good heat resistance, strong chemical inert and has high hardness, good thermal conductivity” and “a polycrystalline composite material by the high toughness”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Datas with a ceramic body being a polycrystalline body and a composite of aluminum nitride and boron nitride, as taught by Han, the motivation being that polycrystalline bodies of aluminum nitride and boron nitride are known to be chemically inert, contain high hardness and comprise good thermal conductivity.
Kraft fails to disclose the ceramic part includes a container having a cylindrical shape with an open end and a lid configured to close the open end, and the container and the lid have threads configured to engage with each other.
Rass, also drawn to a ceramic latent heat storage device, teaches the ceramic part (12) includes a container having a cylindrical shape with an open end (shown in figure 1 and 5) and a lid (42) configured to close the open end (shown in figure 5), and the container and the lid have threads (86, 84) configured to engage with each other (shown in figure 5).
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 ceramic part of Kraft a container having a cylindrical shape with an open end and a lid configured to close the open end, and the container and the lid have threads configured to engage with each other, as taught by Rass, the motivation being that a “Such a screw connection increases mechanical strength, while the tightness is ensured by the soldering. This is necessary, for example, if there is high internal pressure in the storage space because the storage medium has a high vapor pressure” ¶33.
Alternatively, Kraft discloses the claimed invention except for a container having a cylindrical shape. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have the container having a cylindrical shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Engineering Toolbox, “Solids - Melting and Boiling Temperatures” discloses the melting temperature of Boron.
PNG
media_image2.png
110
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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