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 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.
– “means for sucking” in claim 16, the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification is the plunger means 35 actuated by actuator 36, and/or pump 53 (e.g., a diaphragm pump), as disclosed at ¶ 0056-0057 and Figure 1, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites that “at least one of the first or second boxes has plunger means therein actuated by the actuator for sucking into said box and then discharging from said box the fluid flowing through the elastomeric material tubes.” The Specification discloses, at ¶[0055] and Figure 1, that only the second box 3 is provided with piston means 35 and a dedicated actuator 36, while the first box 2 is not associated with any independent actuator-driven piston; fluid return to the first box 2 instead occurs by gravity (¶[0056]). The Specification does not appear to provide written description support for an embodiment in which the same actuator that translates a box to stretch/release the tubes (actuator 23 or 33) also actuates the plunger means, as opposed to the dedicated, separate piston actuator 36 shown in Figure 1. Clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-33 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said box" in line 10 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is referring to the first box or the second. Appropriate correction throughout the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the fluid" in line 10 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Should read –the at least one actuator--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the outer diameter" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the internal diameter" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the length" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 22 recites that “the bottom of the first box and the bottom of the second box are constituted of a plate” (singular), which is ambiguous as to whether one shared plate constitutes both bottoms, or whether each bottom is constituted of its own, separate plate. The Specification (¶[0063]; Figs. 2-3) shows two separate plates 20, 30, each constituting a respective bottom. Clarification or correction (e.g., “are each constituted of a plate”) is required.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the outside face" in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the elastomeric material" in line 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said heat exchangers" in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said pumps" in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "a regenerator of temperature" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation "a regenerator of temperature" of claim 16. The limitation should read --the regenerator of temperature--.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the loop” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis because it is unclear if it is refereeing to the first, the second or both first and second loops.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the list” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "a regenerator of temperature" in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation "a regenerator of temperature" of claim 16. The limitation should read --the regenerator of temperature--.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the initial length” and “the stretched conditions” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 18, 24 and 30-33 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claims 16 and 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over an NPL “Performance enhancement of a compressive thermoelastic cooling system using multi-objective optimization and novel designs” by Qian et al. (see a copy in IDS dated 12/01/2025) in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0116152 A1) and further in view of Young (US 3,111,167).
In regard to claim 16, Qian teaches a regenerator of temperature comprising
a plurality of N tubes (19 nitinol tubes per bed, Table 1; fig. 3, section 2, 2.4: Qian discloses a thermoelastic regenerator bed comprising a plurality of N parallel tubes constituting the caloric working material through which a heat transfer fluid flows),
at least one actuator ((Fig. 1(b); section 1, para. 3: Qian discloses a driving mechanism that cyclically actuates loading heads to apply compressive stress to, and then release, the tube bundle to produce the loading/unloading caloric cycle),
a first and a second box, each having a bottom with a plurality N of holes therein, their respective bottoms facing each other (section 1, description accompanying Fig. 3: Qian discloses, at each of the two ends of the tube bundle, a loading head having “multiple HTF flowing channel holes corresponding to each of the nitinol tubes inside”, i.e., a first and a second loading head (box), each having a bottom face with a plurality of N holes (one per tube) feeding fluid into the tube bundle, the two loading heads being positioned at opposite ends of, and facing, the tube bundle),
each hole of the first box being in fluid communication with a hole of the second box by means of one N tube (section 1; 2.4, Fig. 7: Qian discloses that each HTF channel hole in one loading head communicates, via the interior lumen of a corresponding nitinol tube, with the matching hole in the opposite loading head).
at least one of the first or second boxes being translatable by at least one actuator so that the plurality of tubes undergoes successively [loading] and release conditions (Fig. 1(b); § 1, “Bed 1 starts with loading (compression)...”: Qian discloses that its driving mechanism translates at least one loading head relative to the tube bundle so that the bundle is cyclically placed under compressive load and then released).
Qian thus discloses, in substance, every structural element of the claim except that: (i) Qian's tubes are nitinol (a metallic shape memory alloy) rather than elastomeric material; (ii) Qian's tube-to-box joint is not disclosed as a sealed anchoring of the tube end within the box hole; (iii) Qian's actuator loads the tube bundle in compression rather than stretching it in tension; and (iv) Qian does not disclose the claimed means for sucking into and discharging from a box the fluid flowing through the tubes.
Qian teaches nitinol tubes (a metallic shape memory alloy) and Qian's actuator loads the tube bundle in compression rather than stretching it in tension, but does not explicitly teaches an elastomeric material tubes, and at least one of the first or second boxes being translatable by at least one actuator so that the plurality of elastomeric material tubes undergoes successively stretching and release conditions.
However, Liu discloses a mechanocaloric cooler whose cooling element is a hollow natural rubber (elastomeric) tube through whose interior a heat transfer fluid (water) flows (¶ 0196-0200, Fig. 40A), the tube being pre-stretched (e.g., to 80% strain, ¶ 0198) and connected at one end to a servo motor, i.e., a tensile actuator, that cyclically stretches and releases the tube to produce a mechanocaloric (elastocaloric) temperature change (¶ 0028 “a tensile actuator... operable to change the length of the cooling element”; ¶ 0190 “a linear actuator can provide the means for causing length changes”; ¶ 0197-0198). Liu further confirms, at ¶ 0026 and 0036, that rubber is among the art-recognized elastomeric/elastocaloric materials suitable for such fiber- or tube-based mechanocaloric cooling elements. Liu establishes that an elastomeric (natural rubber) tube, of the same general tube geometry as Qian's metallic tubes, is a known, art-recognized alternative caloric/mechanocaloric working element, and that the art-appropriate actuation mode for such an elastomeric tube is tensile stretching and release by a tensile (linear) actuator, rather than compression, consistent with the known stress-strain behavior of natural rubber (see Liu ¶ 0009, 0190).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Liu's elastomeric (rubber) tube, actuated in tension by a linear/tensile actuator, for the nitinol tubes and compressive actuation of Qian's regenerator bed, with a reasonable expectation of success, because the substitution of one known caloric working material (rubber) and its art-appropriate, known actuation mode (tension) for another known caloric working material (NiTi) and its own art-appropriate actuation mode (compression), within an otherwise identical tube-bundle regenerator architecture, is no more than the predictable use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, for the purpose of yielding nothing more than the expected result of inducing the elastocaloric/mechanocaloric effect in the substituted material.
The modified Qian does not explicitly teach sealingly anchoring an elastomeric tube end within a hole of a multi-hole header box of the type taught by Qian.
However, Young discloses that each tube end is sealingly bonded within its respective header-plate hole to prevent leakage at the tube-to-header joint (col. 2, ll. 5-47; col. 3, ll. 25-60). Liu independently corroborates that sealingly anchoring the end(s) of an elastomeric/rubber tube to a rigid structure while permitting actuation is a known technique specifically for elastomeric tubes of the type substituted in Modification above, disclosing that tube ends are sealed using epoxy resin or silicone glue while the tube remains free to be actuated by the connected motor (¶ 0166, 0173, 0197). Young establishes that sealingly bonding/anchoring each tube end within a respective header-plate hole is the art-standard technique for terminating tubes of a tube-and-header heat exchanger assembly while preventing fluid leakage at the tube-to-header joint, and Liu confirms that sealing the end of an elastomeric tube (e.g., with epoxy resin) while leaving it free to be mechanically actuated is a known, compatible technique for elastomeric tubes specifically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sealingly anchor each end of the modified Qian’s elastomeric tubes within a respective hole of the two loading-head boxes, in the manner taught by Young and corroborated by Liu's own elastomeric-tube sealing practice, in order to prevent leakage of the heat transfer fluid at each tube-to-box joint while still permitting the tube to be mechanically stressed.
Qian does not disclose a means for sucking fluid into, and then discharging fluid from, one of its two loading-head boxes through the elastomeric material tubes.
Liu discloses that the same actuation cycle that stretches and releases its elastomeric (rubber) tube also automatically pumps the heat transfer fluid: “the fluid (water) is rejected from the inside of this hollow NR tube by the twist-induced collapse of this tube during the heating part of the cycle and then sucked back into the tube during tube untwist” (¶ 0196); for the purely tensile (non-torsional) embodiment, fluid is analogously displaced into a reservoir during one part of the actuation cycle and drawn back into the tube during the other part (¶ 0197-0200, Fig. 40A). Liu demonstrates that, for an elastomeric tube of the type substituted into the Qian architecture per Modification above, the actuation cycle that produces the caloric effect can itself be harnessed to suck fluid into, and discharge fluid from, a fluid reservoir/box connected to the tube, without need for a separate pumping element, and that this self-pumping action is synchronized with, and driven by, the same actuator that performs the stretching/release of the tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, at one of the two loading-head boxes of the Qian, a fluid-displacement means operating on the principle taught by Liu, i.e., deriving the sucking-and-discharging action directly from the actuator-driven deformation/relaxation of the elastomeric tube bundle and a reservoir-side box, in order to obtain the predictable benefit of a compact, self-pumping regenerator that does not require a separate, independently actuated pump, consistent with Liu's own express teaching of this technique for elastomeric/rubber tubes.
In regard to claim 18, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein Qian, as modified, teaches a plurality of elastomeric material tubes, but does not explicitly teach the plurality of elastomeric material tubes comprises more than N=15 elastomeric material tubes, thereby involving N holes for each bottom. However, Qian's own multi-objective optimization study expressly varies the number of nitinol tubes per bed (Nnitinol) between 15 and 25 as a design variable, and identifies the number of tubes as directly affecting cooling capacity Qc (Table 2; section 3, Table 3, showing Qc varying with Nnitinol from 17 to 22 across the listed Pareto solutions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select more than N=15 tubes in the combined regenerator, motivated by Qian's own express teaching that increasing the number of tubes within the disclosed 15-25 range increases cooling capacity, such that selecting a value above 15 is the routine optimization of a result-effective variable already varied for exactly this purpose in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (mere duplication of parts is an obvious expedient for increasing capacity); MPEP § 2144.05(II).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose elastomeric tubes having outer diameter ranges from 2 mm to 5 mm at a non-stretched state and internal diameter ranges from 1 mm to 3 mm at a non-stretched state.
However, Liu discloses elastomeric (natural rubber) tubes and fibers, of the same general kind substituted into the Qian architecture per claim 16, having parent diameters between 2.0 and 7.0 mm (¶ 0112), and further discloses a hollow NR tube having an inner diameter of 2.0 mm and an outer diameter of 5.0 mm (¶ 0176, 0186), both squarely within or substantially overlapping the claimed ranges.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an elastomeric tube outer diameter of 2-5 mm and internal diameter of 1-3 mm in the combined regenerator, motivated by the fact that Liu already discloses, for elastomeric tubes of the identical general type being substituted into Qian's architecture, specific outer and inner diameter values that fall within the claimed ranges, such that no more than routine selection among art-disclosed dimensions, or routine optimization of a result-effective variable (tube diameter, which affects heat transfer area and mechanical loading), is required to arrive at the claimed ranges, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with those ranges. In re Aller, supra; MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
In regard to claim 21, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein Liu further discloses that “the length of the used mechanocaloric fibers before stretch or twist was inserted was typically ~3 cm” (¶[0114]), i.e., approximately 30 mm, for elastomeric (rubber) fibers/tubes of the same general kind substituted into the Qian architecture per claim 16, a value falling squarely within the claimed 20-50 mm range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a non-stretched elastomeric tube length within the claimed 20-50 mm range, in view of the teachings of Liu, for an elastomeric tube of the identical general type being substituted into Qian's architecture, a specific non-stretched length (~30 mm) falling within the claimed range, such that no more than routine selection of an art-disclosed dimension, or routine optimization of a result-effective variable (tube length, which affects overall device length and the magnitude of stretch achievable), is required to arrive at the claimed range, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with that range. In re Aller, supra; MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
In regard to claim 22, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein the modified Qian discloses the two loading-head boxes and the elastomeric tubes anchored between them, but does not explicitly disclose that each box's bottom is constituted of a (header) plate, nor that the elastomeric tube ends are sealingly anchored in the plate holes.
However, Young discloses that each header plate 13 of a tube-and-header heat exchanger core unit is a sheet-metal stamped plate having a plurality of closely-spaced holes 14, with each tube end inserted through, and bonded/sealed within, a respective hole (col. 2, ll. 5-47; col. 3, ll. 5-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct each bottom of Qian’s two loading-head boxes as a (header) plate having the tube-receiving holes, and to sealingly anchor each end of the substituted elastomeric tubes within a respective plate hole, in the manner taught by Young, motivated by the predictable benefit of using a simple, conventional, low-cost plate structure to both mechanically support the tube bundle and prevent leakage of the heat transfer fluid at each tube-to-box joint, while still permitting the elastomeric tube to be mechanically stressed, an expected benefit of combining known elements (Qian's box/hole architecture and Young's header-plate/sealed-hole structure) according to their established functions.
In regard to claim 23, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose that the outside face of each header-plate bottom is coated with a layer of sealing material.
However, Liu independently discloses sealing the ends of an elastomeric (rubber-tube-adjacent) caloric cooling apparatus with epoxy resin or silicone glue to prevent fluid leakage while permitting actuation of the tube (¶ 0166, 0173, 0197), demonstrating that coating a rigid structural face with a sealing material at an elastomeric-tube termination point was a known, art-recognized technique for elastomeric-tube caloric devices specifically.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the outside face of each header-plate bottom of the Qian/Liu/Young combination with a layer of sealing material, motivated by the well-recognized benefit of preventing fluid leakage at the elastomeric-tube-to-plate joint, a benefit independently confirmed by Liu's own use of sealing materials for elastomeric-tube caloric devices, and particularly motivated here because elastomeric tubes, unlike Qian's rigid nitinol tubes, are subject to greater installation tolerances and therefore benefit from additional sealing assurance — a predictable engineering response to a recognized problem. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
In regard to claims 24 and 25, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein the first box and the second box are each enclosed in an adiabatic chamber [claim 24]; wherein at least one of the first box and the second box comprises a first and a second outputs intended to connect the inside of said box with a fluid loop [claim 25]. Qian discloses that the tube bundle and loading heads of its regenerator bed are housed within an enclosure (“tubes' holders”/outer wall, Fig. 3) to thermally manage the regenerator and limit heat exchange with the ambient environment, and discloses HTF inlet/outlet conduits coupled to the loading heads for circulating the heat transfer fluid through external loops to a heat sink (cooling delivery exchanger) and heat source (heat rejection exchanger) (Fig. 1(a); section 1).
To the extent Qian's enclosure is not explicitly characterized as “adiabatic” in the same terms as claim 24, Liu corroborates that thermally insulating a caloric-effect tube/fiber cooling apparatus from the ambient environment, using a surrounding closed-cell foam insulation, was a known technique for elastomeric-tube coolers of the type substituted into the Qian architecture (¶ 0197).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enclose each of the two loading-head boxes of Qian in an adiabatic (thermally insulated) chamber, in view of the teachings of Liu, motivated by the predictable benefit of minimizing parasitic heat loss/gain to the ambient environment and thereby preserving the regenerator's temperature span, a benefit expressly recognized by both Qian's own enclosure structure and Liu's closed-cell-foam insulation practice for elastomeric tube coolers; and to provide first and second fluid-loop connection outputs at the loading-head boxes, motivated by the predictable need to connect Qian's already-disclosed external HTF circulation loops to the regenerator.
In regard to claim 26, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein the modified Qian teaches an elastomeric tube, based on Liu's general teaching of rubber/elastomeric mechanocaloric materials, and the claim further require the material is a weakly cross-linked elastomer including natural or artificial rubber. However, Liu discloses that its elastomeric working material is specifically vulcanized natural rubber (NR), and discloses the particular cross-linking (vulcanization/curing) chemistry used to prepare it, including a relatively low proportion of sulfur (1.2 parts by weight, relative to 100 parts of natural rubber) as the cross-linking agent, together with an accelerator (1.2 parts) (¶ 0112), which is consistent with the claimed “weakly cross-linked” natural rubber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as the elastomeric tube material substituted into the Qian architecture, the specific weakly cross-linked (low-sulfur-vulcanized) natural rubber composition disclosed by Liu, motivated by the recognized benefit that a weak degree of cross-linking provides sufficient covalent cross-links to ensure elastic (non-permanent) recovery of the tube after each stretching cycle, while keeping the polymer chains long and mobile enough to permit the large, reversible elongations needed to produce a useful elastocaloric temperature change.
In regard to claims 27 and 28, the modified Qian discloses a thermoelastic cooling system comprising first and second heat exchangers (a heat-rejection exchanger and a cooling-delivery exchanger) and associated pumps, with first and second fluid loops passing respectively through said heat exchangers and pumps and provided with fluid junctions in fluid communication with the regenerator bed's loading-head outputs (Fig. 1(a); section 1), and discloses that the circulating heat transfer fluid is water (section 2.4, “HTF water”; Table 1). This is corroborated by Liu's independent disclosure of water as the heat transfer fluid for its elastomeric (rubber)-tube caloric cooler (¶ 0197-0200), confirming that water remains the art-appropriate circulating fluid for the elastomeric-tube regenerator of the Qian/Liu/Young combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct a heat pump incorporating the Qian/Liu/Young regenerator with first and second heat exchangers, pumps, and fluid loops connected to the regenerator's first and second outputs, motivated by Qian's own disclosed heat-pump architecture for circulating heat transfer fluid to and from a tube-bundle regenerator of the same general kind; and to select water as the circulating fluid, motivated by Qian's and Liu's consistent, independent use of water as the heat transfer fluid for caloric-effect tube regenerators.
In regard to claim 29, the modified Qian teaches a method of implementing the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein Qian discloses that its loading heads cyclically direct heat transfer fluid through the tube bundle in alternating directions in coordination with the loading (stress-application)/unloading (release) cycle of the bundle (Fig. 1(b); section 1), and Liu discloses the tension-mode analog of this cycle for an elastomeric tube, in which fluid is directed through the tube under release conditions, the tube is then stretched, fluid is directed back through the stretched tube, and the tube is then released (¶ 0190, 0197-0200). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the modified Qian’s regenerator according to the four-step method of claim 29, motivated by the fact that this four-step sequence is the necessarily resulting mode of operation of the combined apparatus of claim 16 once Qian's loading/unloading-synchronized fluid-direction cycle is combined with Liu's tension-mode actuation of an elastomeric tube, for the same reasons and motivations to combine already set forth above with respect to claim 16.
In regard to claim 30, the modified Qian teaches the method of implementing the regenerator of temperature according to claim 29, wherein the modified Qian does not explicitly disclose the release conditions of the plurality of elastomeric material tubes correspond to an extension ranging from 300% to 400% of the initial length, while the stretched conditions of the plurality of elastomeric material tubes correspond to strain ranging from 500% to 600% of the initial length.
However, Liu discloses cyclic deformation of natural rubber fibers/tubes, of the same general kind substituted into the Qian architecture, to substantial tensile strains, including training cycles to 600% strain (¶ 0112) and the release of up to 600% strain from a non-twisted fiber to produce measured mechanocaloric cooling (¶ 0132), as well as a working tube embodiment cyclically actuated at 80% pre-stretch (¶ 0198); Liu further teaches, at ¶ 0131-0133, that the coefficient of performance (COP) and cooling magnitude of such elastomeric tubes are a function of the applied strain, identifying strain as a recognized result-effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a release-condition extension of 300%-400% and a stretched-condition strain of 500%-600% of the initial length when cyclically actuating the elastomeric tubes of Qian, motivated by Liu's own express teaching that strain is a result-effective variable controlling the magnitude of elastocaloric/mechanocaloric cooling and COP, and that Liu's own disclosed strain values (up to 600%) already bracket the claimed ranges, such that selecting release and stretched conditions within the claimed ranges is the routine optimization of a variable already recognized in the art as controlling the desired result (maximizing cooling and COP), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed ranges. In re Aller, supra; MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
In regard to claim 31, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 22, but does not explicitly disclose that each header-plate hole is of conical shape.
However, Young discloses that hole geometry at the tube-to-header joint can be configured, by means of a curved/conical flange structure (col. 2, ll. 48-65), to form a pocket that accommodates sealing/bonding material and facilitates insertion and bonding of the tube end, i.e., a hollow-cone-shaped hole configuration serving a sealing and assembly function at the header plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure each hole of the modified Qian’s header (loading-head) plates as conical, by means of a hollow cone, in view of Young, because a curved/conical hole geometry facilitates insertion of the tube end and improves the retention of sealing/bonding material at the tube-to-plate joint, a predictable and expected benefit when sealingly anchoring the substituted elastomeric tubes (claim 22) in the manner already motivated above.
In regard to claim 32, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 23, but does not explicitly disclose that the sealing-material layer on the outside face of each bottom is epoxy resin specifically.
However, Liu independently discloses the use of epoxy resin specifically to seal the ends of its elastomeric (rubber/NR-tube-adjacent) caloric cooling apparatus against fluid leakage while permitting actuation of the tube (¶ 0166, 0173: “the epoxy resin 3106 that seals both ends of the PP tube”; “the connection was sealed using epoxy resin”), confirming epoxy resin as an art-recognized, compatible sealing material for elastomeric-tube caloric devices of the type substituted into the Qian architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select epoxy resin as the sealing material for the outside face of each bottom, in view of Liu, for purpose of repeated use of epoxy resin to seal the ends of elastomeric-tube caloric cooling devices against fluid leakage.
In regard to claim 33, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 23, but does not explicitly disclose a sealing-material layer thickness of around 10 mm.
However, sealing-layer thickness at a tube-to-plate joint is a recognized result-effective variable: a thickness too thin risks inadequate sealing and insufficient embedding of the exposed tube-to-plate transition (leading to stress concentration at the joint), while a thickness too great unnecessarily increases dead volume and material cost, considerations applicable to the epoxy-resin sealing already motivated above (claim 32) for the elastomeric tubes substituted into the Qian architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a sealing-material thickness of around 10 mm for the epoxy-resin layer of Qian, motivated by the predictable need to balance adequate sealing/stress-relief at the elastomeric-tube-to-plate joint against unnecessary added dead volume, through nothing more than routine optimization of a result-effective variable (sealant thickness), absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed thickness. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, Liu and Young as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of an NPL “Regenerative cooling using elastocaloric rubber: Analytical model and experiments” by Sebald.
In regard to claim 17, the modified Qian teaches the regenerator of temperature according to claim 16, wherein the modified Qian teaches a means for sucking fluid into, and then discharging fluid from, one of its two loading-head boxes through the elastomeric material tubes (see the rejection of claim 16 above), but does not explicitly teach a discrete piston/plunger element, separate from the tube wall, housed within one of the two loading-head boxes.
However, Sebald discloses a piston mounted at the end of an elastomeric (rubber) tube and fixed to, and actuated by, its own small actuator, for pumping (sucking and discharging) fluid into and out of the tube in synchrony with the tube's stretching (p. 27, “At both ends of the tube, pistons are mounted for pumping fluid into the tube...and fixed onto small actuators”; Fig. 9(a)). Sebald discloses exactly such a discrete piston element, dedicated to, and actuated by, its own actuator, for sucking and discharging fluid synchronously with the stretching of an elastomeric tube of the type already incorporated into the modified Qian.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sebald's discrete piston/actuator mechanism within one of the two loading-head boxes of Qian, as an alternative, predictable design choice to Liu's self-pumping tube-wall mechanism, in order to obtain more direct, independently controllable fluid displacement at the box already serving as the fluid manifold for the tube bundle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights