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 1-7 and 21- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanguy et al. (Translation of FR2996292A1) in view of Moilala et al. (WO2006095055A1), hereinafter referred to as Tanguy and Moilala, respectfully.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
185
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Second Air Stream)][AltContent: textbox (First Air Stream)]Tanguy Figure 3
Regarding Claim 1, Tanguy discloses a method comprising:
contacting a thermochemical material (10) with a first air stream (shown in annotated figure 3, emanating from the air outlet (18) of the building (2)) resulting in a dehumidified and heated first air stream (“The invention is therefore remarkable in that it takes advantage of the moisture of the stale airflow leaving the building to generate heat via an exothermic hydration reaction, which heat is then used to heat the flow of heat. fresh air using the first exchanger”);
directing the dehumidified and heated first air stream to interact with a second air stream (60, shown in annotated figure 3); and
releasing a heated second air stream (60) into an indoor space (2);
and heating the TCM (shown in figure 7, wherein the reactor (10) is regenerated by heated flow (80) that leaves heat exchanger (8) at 65°); wherein:
the first air stream comes from the indoor space (shown in annotated figure 3), the directing causes the second air stream to be heated resulting in the heated second air stream (shown in figure 3, wherein the second stream is heated to 30°) and
the heating results in a cooled air stream (shown in figure 7, wherein heating the reactor (10) results in the temperature of the stream decreasing in temperature). Although Tanguy discloses high humidity air leaving the building (“One of the peculiarities of the invention therefore lies in the exploitation of the high humidity rate of the exhaust air flow leaving this building, this flow being in fact usually much wetter than the outside air because of the humidity in humid rooms such as the kitchen, toilets, or any other bathroom such as the bathroom…Preferably, there is provided means for distributing, in a controlled manner, the flow of stale air between a first pathway to said reactor”), Tanguy fails to disclose the first air stream has a relative humidity greater than 30%.
Moilala, also drawn to thermal storage utilizing salt hydrates, teaches the first air stream has a relative humidity greater than 30 % (“A condition for indoor air of good quality is that the total air amount is replaced from once to three times an hour. The target temperature for pleasant indoor air in residential buildings is 25°C, the relative humidity being 55%”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanguy fails to explicitly disclose the first air stream has a relative humidity greater than 30%. Tanguy does, however, disclose having a high humidity for thermal energy storage and heating a building, wherein Moilala teaches that humidity over 30% is known to produce a pleasant environment for a building. Therefore, the relative humidity % is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a higher % of relative humidity mold and mildew may grow and musty odors are present, while a low % causes dry chapped skin, static electricity and respiratory irritation, other parameters remaining constant. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the building of Tanguy has a % relative humidity, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the first air stream to have a relative humidity greater than 30%. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 2, Tanguy further discloses the contacting comprises: receiving the first air stream (shown in annotated figure 3); and
removing a humidity from the first air stream resulting in the dehumidified and heated first air stream (“The invention is therefore remarkable in that it takes advantage of the moisture of the stale airflow leaving the building to generate heat via an exothermic hydration reaction, which heat is then used to heat the flow of heat”); wherein:
the removing results in the humidity being absorbed by the TCM (see annotation above), and the contacting is performed in a TCM bed (interior of the reactor (10) containing “a reactive material such as that a salt… it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2, in particular for so-called chemisorption reactions”).
Regarding Claim 3, Tanguy further discloses the directing comprises:
receiving the dehumidified and heated first air stream and the second air stream (shown in figure 3, being the heat exchanger (4) that receives both fluids streams); and transferring a heat from the dehumidified and heated first air stream (shown in figure 3, the first stream emanating from the thermochemical reactor (10)) to the second air stream (60); wherein:
the transferring results in the dehumidified and heated first air stream becoming an exhausted first air stream (shown in figure 3), and the transferring results in the second air stream (60) becoming the heated second air stream (shown in figure 3, wherein the air flow (60) is heated from -5°C to 30°C).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanguy further discloses the directing is performed in a heat exchanger (4, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Tanguy further discloses the second air stream (60) enters the heat exchanger (4) from an external ambient (“a fresh air flow 60 coming from outside”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanguy further discloses the TCM comprises a salt hydrate (“a reactive material such as that a salt… it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2, in particular for so-called chemisorption reactions”).
Regarding Claim 7, Tanguy further discloses the salt hydrate comprises at least one of magnesium chloride (MgCl2), strontium bromide (SrBr2) (“a reactive material such as that a salt… it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2, in particular for so-called chemisorption reactions”).
Regarding Claim 21, Tanguy discloses a device comprising:
a thermochemical material (10) configured to contact with a first air stream (shown in annotated figure 3, emanating from the air outlet (18) of the building (2));
a heat exchanger (4) configured to direct a dehumidified and heated first air stream to interact with a second air stream (60, shown in annotated figure 3); wherein:
the first air stream is configured to come from an indoor space (shown in annotated figure 3, emanating from the air outlet (18) of the building (2)),
the second air stream is configured to enter the heat exchanger (4) from an external ambient (17, see intended use analysis below),
the TCM (10) is configured to either dehumidify and heat the first air stream (shown in figure 3, wherein the second stream is heated to 30°) resulting in a dehumidified and heated first air stream (shown in figure 3) and
the heat exchanger (4) is configured to direct the dehumidified and heated first air stream to heat the second air stream resulting in the heated second air stream (shown in figure 3).
Although Tanguy discloses high humidity air leaving the building (“One of the peculiarities of the invention therefore lies in the exploitation of the high humidity rate of the exhaust air flow leaving this building, this flow being in fact usually much wetter than the outside air because of the humidity in humid rooms such as the kitchen, toilets, or any other bathroom such as the bathroom…Preferably, there is provided means for distributing, in a controlled manner, the flow of stale air between a first pathway to said reactor”), Tanguy fails to disclose the first air stream has a relative humidity greater than 30%.
Moilala, also drawn to thermal storage utilizing salt hydrates, teaches the first air stream has a relative humidity greater than 30 % (“A condition for indoor air of good quality is that the total air amount is replaced from once to three times an hour. The target temperature for pleasant indoor air in residential buildings is 25°C, the relative humidity being 55%”).
Regarding Claim 21, Tanguy fails to explicitly disclose the first air stream has a relative humidity greater than 30%. Tanguy does, however, disclose having a high humidity for thermal energy storage and heating a building, wherein Moilala teaches that humidity over 30% is known to produce a pleasant environment for a building. Therefore, the relative humidity % is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that a higher % of relative humidity mold and mildew may grow and musty odors are present, while a low % causes dry chapped skin, static electricity and respiratory irritation, other parameters remaining constant. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the building of Tanguy has a % relative humidity, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the first air stream to have a relative humidity greater than 30%. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding limitations “from an external ambient” recited in Claim 21, which are directed to a medium source, 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 22, Tanguy further discloses the TCM comprises a salt hydrate (“in which a reactive material such as that a salt is provided to undergo an exothermic hydration reaction or an endothermic dehydration reaction, depending on the desired mode of operation…it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2”).
Regarding Claim 23, Tanguy further discloses the salt hydrate comprises at least one of magnesium chloride (MgCl2), strontium bromide (SrBr2) (“in which a reactive material such as that a salt is provided to undergo an exothermic hydration reaction or an endothermic dehydration reaction, depending on the desired mode of operation…it is noted that salt may be of any nature deemed appropriate by those skilled in the art. By way of examples, it may act as SrBr2, MgSO4, KA1 (SO4) 2 or MgCl2”).
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.
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