DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 6 is rejoined.
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The amendment appears to be supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 15-20, 22-25, 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “2D perovskite composition” is indefinite since it is unclear what exactly defines a 2D perovskite composition as used by the applicant. The specification does not appear to provide a specific definition. It is unclear what is the broadest reasonable interpretation for this term, especially as there appear to be a host of varied interpretations possible and many materials disclosed with varying properties and therefore it is not clear what features or characteristics are required and which properties are excluded. For present examination, it is presumed to be a composition having at least an inorganic layer, an organic spacer and the general formula: R2 An-1 Bn X3n+1, where R is an organic component, A is a monovalent A-cation, B is a divalent heavy metal, X is a halide ion.
In regard to claim 15, the recitation, “the temperature” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “transferring energy” is indefinite since the recitation appears to reintroduce the same energy previously recited in claim 1 in the step (c) and it is unclear whether this is the same or other energy.
In regard to claim 17, the recitation, “the organic component is a 2D perovskite composition” appears to be wholly redundant to the recitation of claim 1. Further, it is not clear what makes for a 2D perovskite and it appears to be inconsistent to define the organic component to be a perovskite alone without consideration of the inorganic layer. An organic component alone does not appear to be able to be considered a perovskite and therefore the recitation is unclear.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “said PTM can permeate into a free volume of the organic component” is indefinite since it is not clear what action or step must occur to provide this result. It is unclear what provides the ability so that the PTM “can” permeate as recited. For present examination, the only action or step that has to occur for this to be achieved is providing the PTM in direct contact with the composition.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further it is noted that “di-n-alkylammonium salt” is interpreted as an organic chemical having a positively charged nitrogen atom bonded to two n-alkyl groups and two hydrogen atoms, forming a cation having the general formula [(n-CxH2x+1)(n-CyH2y+1)NH2]+ where x and y are # of C atoms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 20, 22-25, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohskopf (US 2022/0316809) in view of Bermudez Garcia (US 2020/0332167). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Rohskopf teaches a method (see whole disclosure) of transferring energy (para. 5) comprising:(a) providing a system (para. 26) including a composition (barocaloric material, para. 22); (b) applying pressure (compression, para. 22) to the composition (barocaloric material), thereby driving a phase transition (phase change, para. 22) of said composition (barocaloric material) and an energy change (para. 20 increase in material temperature) in said composition (barocaloric material); and (c) transferring energy (para. 35, “exposed to a cool heat transfer fluid to absorb heat generated”) from said composition (barocaloric material). Note that Rohskopf teaches that the process may be cycled repeatedly (para. 21) and therefore the phase transition is considered reversible.
Rohskopf teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the composition comprises organic and inorganic components, wherein the organic component comprises an optionally substituted C>4 alkyl chain; and the composition is a 2D perovskite composition comprising a metal halide. However, Rohskopf does suggest using perovskite compositions (para. 22). Additionally, barocaloric materials that contain organic and inorganic components wherein the organic component comprises an optionally substituted C>4 alkyl chain and a 2D perovskite (as understood) are known for providing desirable barocaloric performance as taught by Bermudez Garcia. Bermudez Garcia teaches barocaloric composition comprising organic and inorganic components (para. 18 hybrid organic-inorganic), the composition being a 2D perovskite (as best understood; see para. 18) comprising a transition metal halide (para. 18, see F, Cl, Br, I), wherein the organic component comprises an optionally substituted C>4 alkyl chain (para. 18 chemical formula). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the barocaloric materials of Bermudez-Garcia in the method and system of Rohskopf for the purpose of obtaining the thermal performance and temperature changes of the materials of Bermudez-Garcia.
In regard to claim 2, Rohskopf teaches that the application of pressure (and therefore the phase order-disorder phase transition) is substantially adiabatic (para. 35, see Fig. 2, see that the barocaloric material is not heat exchanged during compression).
In regard to claim 4, Rohskopf teaches that the application of pressure (and therefore the phase order-disorder phase transition) is (i) substantially adiabatic (para. 35, see Fig. 2, see no heat exchange during compression); and (ii) increases a temperature of said composition (para. 38, 35).
In regard to claim 5, Rohskopf teaches that in the step (b), the pressure applied to the composition is less than 500 bar (para. 29 see 1 MPa at least).
In regard to claim 6, Rohskopf teaches increasing a transition temperature (temperature increased by barocaloric effect, para. 21) of said composition (barocaloric material).
In regard to claim 9, Rohskopf teaches that the pressure in the step (b) is applied with a pressure transmitting medium (PTM) comprising a fluid (para. 26).
In regard to claim 11, Rohskopf teaches that the reversible order-disorder phase transition is a first reversible order-disorder phase transition (phase transition during pressurization); and the method further comprises decreasing the pressure (para. 35) applied to the composition (barocaloric material) that reverses the first order-disorder phase transition (para. 21, 35, 38, 39, see repeated cycle including decompression).
In regard to claim 12, Rohskopf teaches that said decreasing the pressure releases less than 500 bar of pressure (para. 30 see 0.01 MPa).
In regard to claim 13, Rohskopf teaches that said second reversible order-disorder phase transition (during decompression and removal of pressure) is substantially adiabatic (para. 35, see Fig. 2, see that the barocaloric material is not heat exchanged during decompression).
In regard to claim 15, 32, Rohskopf teaches that said second reversible order-disorder phase transition (during decompression): (i) is substantially adiabatic (para. 35, see Fig. 2, see that the barocaloric material is not heat exchanged during decompression), and (ii) decreases a temperature (para. 35) of said composition (barocaloric material).
In regard to claim 16, Rohsckopf teaches transferring the energy from a heat source (para. 35, from an environment) to said composition (Barocaloric material).
In regard to claim 17, Bermudez Garcia teaches that the organic component comprises a first C>4 alkyl chain (para. 18, 23) and a second C>4 alkyl chain that is different from the first C>4 alkyl chain (different in a least location, and certainly having more than one chain; further see mixtures - para. 24).
In regard to claim 20, Rohskopf teaches that said PTM permeates into a free volume (interpreted as the fluid is directing contacting the PTM) of said composition (barocaloric material) during the applying of the pressure (during compression, the fluid is in direct contact with the composition para. 26) to said composition (barocaloric material); and the permeated PTM interacts with said composition (barocaloric material) to induce a change in a thermal property (at least due to barocaloric effect, para. 20, 26) of said composition (barocaloric material).
In regard to claim 22, 31, Rohsckopf teaches that the said change in said thermal property is a lowering of a phase transition temperature (para. 20, 26 during decompression).
In regard to claim 23, Rohsckopf teaches that said PTM can permeate into a free volume of the organic component (see that the PTM is in direct contact with the composition).
In regard to claim 24, Rohsckopf teaches that the PTM comprises water (para. 28).
In regard to claim 25, Li teaches said disorder-to-order transition phase transition is a solid-solid phase transition (page 1-2, see solid state phase changes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the present rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant's amendment necessitated any of 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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
November 17, 2025