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 § 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 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 Kaufman et al. (Publication named, “Investigation of Boride Compounds for Very High Temperature Applications”, 1965), hereinafter referred to as Datas and Kaufman, 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 metal part (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 metal part is 1100°C (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). Datas fails to disclose the ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body.
Kaufman, also drawn to high temperature materials, teaches a ceramic part is made of a polycrystalline body (“Measurements of the thermal conductivity and emissivity of TiB2 , ZrB2 , HfB2 and TaB2 on dense polycrystalline samples between 1200° and 2000°K are presented”, (abstract) and “Transition metal diborides offer a number of attractive features as future high-strength, high temperature materials. The combination of high bond strength with low relative masses of TiB2, ZrB2, HfB2, NbB2
and TaB2 leads to a unique series of compounds which offer the possibility of refractoriness, oxidation resistance and high strength to weight ratios”, (Pg. 19 Introduction and Summary).
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 polycrystalline body, as taught by Kaufman, the motivation being that polycrystalline bodies of borides are known to be high-strength, high temperature materials and refractoriness, oxidation resistance and high strength to weight ratios.
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 metal part (shown in figure 2 being the space above the phase change material (1)).
Regarding Claim 4, Datas further discloses the ceramic part contains one or more selected from a group consisting of boron nitride, boron carbide, aluminum nitride, and silicon carbide (“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--ThO2, W--Mo, AKS-W, W--Ni--Cu, W--Ni--Fe--Co or W--Mo--Ni--Fe”, underline for emphasis, ¶15).
Regarding Claim 5, Datas further discloses the ceramic part contains one or more borides (“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--ThO2, W--Mo, AKS-W, W--Ni--Cu, W--Ni--Fe--Co or W--Mo--Ni--Fe”, underline for emphasis, ¶15).
Regarding Claim 6, Datas further discloses the one or more borides are one or more selected from a group consisting of titanium boride (see ¶15 of Datas).
Regarding Claim 7, Datas further discloses the ceramic part contains a material that generates heat when energized (“The vessel is made of any of the following refractory materials:…boron carbide, boron nitride…B4C, TiB2”, ¶15).
Regarding Claim 8, Datas further discloses a heater (15) configured to heat the metal part (“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 Kaufman et al. (Publication named, “Investigation of Boride Compounds for Very High Temperature Applications”, 1965) 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.
Conclusion
Engineering Toolbox, “Solids - Melting and Boiling Temperatures” discloses the melting temperature of Boron.
PNG
media_image1.png
110
790
media_image1.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