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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 09/27/2024 and claim amendment filed 04/29/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/14/2025 was filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, thus has been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 09/27/2025 appears to be acceptable.
Claim Objections
Following claim(s) 6 and 13 are objected to since these claims are in terms of the assumed advantages of the invention and do not claim any of the technical features.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 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.
The claimed subject matter in claims 4 and 11 is in contradiction with the overall disclosure , the expression “pΔSo” is the volumetric entropy difference between phases which may be determined from the Clausius Clapeyron relation" is ambiguous. For this reason, the metes and bounds of claims 4 and 11 cannot be ascertained and the claim appears to be indefinite.
The subject-matter in claims 5 and 12 appears to be equivocal , since it is in contradiction with the overall disclosure of the application and, in particular, with the formula in claims 4 and 11. The formula does not express a direct nor an inverse proportionality since the change in stress is also dependent on the current material stress. For this reason, the metes and bounds of claims 5 and 12 cannot be ascertained and the claim appears to be indefinite.
The corresponding dependent claims if any as they inherent the defects of claim 4, 5, 11 and 12 are also rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/023687 A1, U.S Publication number US 2022/0357083 A1 to O’TOOLE et al. (OTOOLE) has been used for citation purposes only.
Re: claim 1:
OTOOLE discloses:
A method for implementing a thermodynamic cycle (See Fig.2) for an elastocaloric material, the method comprising:
increasing a stress applied on the elastocaloric material, until the stress reaches a desired stress value or the elastocaloric material transitions from austenite to martensite form (See Fig. 2: step 1-3);
decreasing a temperature of the elastocaloric material from high to low value, and decreasing the stress of the elastocaloric material to maintain a constant volume fraction of corresponding martensite form during temperature decrease (See Fig. 2: step 3-4 and 6-1: SMA temperature is increased using heat removed from points 3-4, load increases but remained below phase activation);
decreasing the stress of the elastocaloric material, until the stress reaches a minimum stress value or the elastocaloric material transitions from martensite to austenite form (See Fig. 2: step 4-6); and
increasing the temperature of the elastocaloric material from low to high value and increasing the stress of the elastocaloric material to maintain a constant volume fraction of corresponding martensite form during temperature increase (step 6 -> 1, in particular see the note for this step that specifies that load is increased but below phase activation, i.e. maintaining the martensite volume fraction, it also implies an analogous load reduction in step 3 -> 4).
Regarding claim 10: OTOOLE discloses all the limitations of system of claim 10.
Re: claim 2:
OTOOLE discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1 wherein increasing the stress of the elastocaloric material to the desired stress value forms an isothermal heat rejection process, and decreasing the stress forms an isothermal heat absorption process (See Fig.2: ¶0050-¶000054: in step 2-3 rejects latent heat isothermally until fully martensitic, and isothermal latent heat absorption until fully austenitic as noted in step 5-6 in figure 2).
Re: claims 5:
OTOOLE discloses:
The method as claimed claim 4 wherein the change in stress is directly proportional to the change in temperature and entropy difference, and inversely proportional to the material stiffness and material transformation strain (See Fig.2: claim 1, ¶0047-¶0051).
Re: claim 7:
OTOOLE discloses:
The method of claim 1,further comprising controlling stress, via a hydraulic system with a pressure regulator, for maintaining constant martensite volume during polytropic temperature increase and decrease processes (See Fig.2: claim 5, ¶0089-¶0090, and throughout the disclosure).
Re: claim 8:
OTOOLE discloses:
The method of claim 1,further comprising implementing a thermodynamic cycle using a heat pump system (See Fig.2: abstract and throughout the disclosure).
Re: claim 9:
OTOOLE discloses:
The method of claim 1,further comprising implementing a thermodynamic cycle using a refrigeration system (See Fig.2: ¶0069).
Re: claim 12:
OTOOLE discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 10, OTOOLE discloses all the limitations of claim 10, and wherein the change in stress is directly proportional to the change in temperature and entropy difference, and inversely proportional to the material stiffness and material transformation strain (See Fig.2: claim 1, ¶0047-¶0051).
Re: claim 13:
OTOOLE discloses:
The system as claimed in claim 10, OTOOLE discloses all the limitations of claim 10, and wherein the maintaining of constant martensite volume reduces the overall work input of the thermodynamic cycle, and increases the COP (See Fig.2: ¶0071: this type of flow regime over the core allows for maximum heat recovery which allows for a greater COP, an oscillating working fluid with fixed volume in order to create a physical incarnation of the ideal Ts diagram cycle is provided).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-4, 6, 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
October 22, 2025