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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, Figs. 2-6 and claims 1-9, 11-13 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 14-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026.
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 4 and 20 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.
The term “relatively hot” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how hot relatively hot is defining.
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “a heat sink” in claim 20 is used by the claim to mean “a battery or can heating system,” while the accepted meaning is “a passive heat exchanger that absorbs and dissipates heat away from a hot component.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mantegazza et al. (US Patent No.: 5,228,504 hereinafter “Mantegazza”).
With respect to claim 1, Mantegazza discloses a thermal energy storage system (Fig. 3), comprising: an insulated housing defining an internal volume (Col. 3, lines 25-26 and Fig. 3, insulated housing P has an internal volume), a heat storing material contained in said internal volume (Fig. 3, material G, Col. 2, lines 40-65 and Col. 3, lines 20-30), a first conduit arrangement configured to carry a first working fluid (Fig. 3, first conduit A), the first conduit arrangement extending across said internal volume such that thermal energy is transferrable between the first working fluid and the heat storing material (Col. 3, lines 7-31), and a second conduit arrangement configured to carry a second working fluid (Fig. 3, second conduit B), the second conduit arrangement extending across said internal volume such that thermal energy is transferrable between the heat storing material and the second working fluid (Col. 3, lines 7-31), wherein the first working fluid and the second working fluid are fluidly separated from each other inside the housing (Fig. 3, conduits A and B separate the working fluids within each conduit), wherein the first conduit arrangement and the second conduit arrangement are in contact with each other so that thermal energy is transferrable between the first working fluid and the second working fluid (Fig. 3, conduits A and B are in contact with each other via fins H).
With respect to claim 2, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1 as discussed above. Mantegazza also discloses wherein the first conduit arrangement is immersed in the heat storing material to enable thermal energy to be transferred between the first working fluid and the heat storing material (Fig. 3, conduits A and B are both immersed in heat storing material G), and wherein the second conduit arrangement is immersed in the heat storing material to enable thermal energy to be transferred between the heat storing material and the second working fluid (Fig. 3, conduits A and B are both immersed in heat storing material G).
With respect to claim 3, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1 as discussed above. Mantegazza also discloses wherein the heat storing material is a phase change material (Col. 3, lines 26-27 water or ice is a phase change material and Col. 2).
With respect to claim 4, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 3 as discussed above. Mantegazza also discloses wherein the first conduit arrangement is configured to guide a relatively hot working fluid from a first fluid inlet to a first fluid outlet, to cause phase change material in said internal volume to change from solid state to liquid state (Col. 1, lines 17-39 and Fig. 3).
It is noted that the phrases “to cause phase change material in said internal volume to change from solid state to liquid state” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim.
With respect to claim 5, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 3 as discussed above. Mantegazza also discloses wherein the second conduit arrangement is configured to guide a relatively cold working fluid from a second fluid inlet to a second fluid outlet, to cause phase change material in said internal volume to change from liquid state to solid state (Col. 1, lines 17-39 and Fig. 3).
It is noted that the phrases “to cause phase change material in said internal volume to change from solid state to liquid state” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim.
With respect to claim 12, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1 as discussed above. Mantegazza also discloses wherein at least one of the first and second conduit arrangements are provided with fins for increased heat transfer area (Col. 1, lines 66-68 and Fig. 3 fins H).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantegazza et al. (US Patent No.: 5,228,504 hereinafter “Mantegazza”) in view of Roland (US Patent No.: 5,944,089).
With respect to claims 6-7, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1 as discussed above. Mantegazza does not disclose wherein the first conduit arrangement comprises a first plurality of passages forming a first meshed structure (as per claim 6) wherein the second conduit arrangement comprises a second plurality of passages forming a second meshed structure (as per claim 7).
Roland teaches a thermal energy storage system with multiple first and second conduits (Fig. 2, multiple first conduits 103 and multiple second conduits 106). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the single conduits of Mantegazza with multiple conduits as taught by Roland to increase the surface area and heat transfer and to increase the speed and simplify the procedure to charge and discharge the thermal reservoir (Col. 4, lines 30-32).
With respect to claim 8, Mantegazza and Roland teach the thermal energy storage system of claim 7 as discussed above. Roland also teaches wherein the first plurality of passages at least partly overlaps the second plurality of passages (Fig. 3, passages in 106 are overlapped by passages in 103).
With respect to claim 9, Mantegazza and Roland teach the thermal energy storage system of claim 7 as discussed above. Roland also teaches wherein said first plurality of passages are interlaced with said second plurality of passages, such that said first plurality of passages alternatingly and repeatedly extend on mutually opposite sides of the second meshed structure (Fig. 3, passages in 106 are between passages 103 or on opposite sides of 103).
With respect to claim 11, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1 as discussed above. Mantegazza also discloses wherein said first conduit arrangement and said second conduit arrangement form a conduit arrangement pair (Fig. 3, pair of conduits A and B).
Mantegazza does not disclose wherein the thermal energy storage comprises a plurality of such conduit arrangement pairs extending in parallel with one another.
Roland teaches a thermal energy storage system with multiple first and second conduit pairs (Fig. 2, multiple first conduits 103 and multiple second conduits 106). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the single conduits of Mantegazza with multiple conduits as taught by Roland to increase the surface area and heat transfer and to increase the speed and simplify the procedure to charge and discharge the thermal reservoir (Col. 4, lines 30-32).
With respect to claim 18, Mantegazza and Roland teach the thermal energy storage system of claim 9 as discussed above. Roland also teaches wherein said interlaced first and second plurality of passages overlap each other at locations where the passages cross above/below each other, forming points of contact between the first conduit arrangement and the second conduit arrangement (Fig. 3, passages in 106 are between passages 103 and form a location where the passages are above/below each other).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantegazza et al. (US Patent No.: 5,228,504 hereinafter “Mantegazza”) in view of Vesin et al. (US Publication No.: 2023/0221081 hereinafter “Vesin”).
With respect to claim 13, Mantegazza discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1 as discussed above. Mantegazza does not disclose further comprising metal foam soaked in said heat storing material.
Vesin teaches a metal foam on the conduits that is within a heat storing material (Para 0138). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the conduits of Mantegazza with a metal foam that is soaked in a heat storing material as taught by Vesin to have better heat transfer with a durable material (Para 0138).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantegazza et al. (US Patent No.: 5,228,504 hereinafter “Mantegazza”) in view of Becker (US Patent No.: 9,989,271).
With respect to claim 19, Mantegazza discloses a thermal energy system of claim 1 as described above but does not disclose it within a vehicle.
Becker teaches a thermal storage system within a vehicle (Col. 5, lines 13-18). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Mantegazza to be within a vehicle as taught by Becker since it is known in the industry to cool passenger compartments (Col. 5, lines 13-18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantegazza et al. (US Patent No.: 5,228,504 hereinafter “Mantegazza”) in view of Becker (US Patent No.: 9,989,271) and further in view of Chan et al. (US Publication No.: 2019/0273295 hereinafter “Chan”).
With respect to claim 20, Mantegazza and Becker teach the vehicle of claim 19 as discussed above. Mantegazza and Becker do not teach further comprising: a heat source, such as a retarder, battery, internal combustion engine, motor, fuel cell aggregates, wherein the first working fluid is configured to absorb thermal energy from the heat source and is configured to, from the first conduit arrangement, discharge absorbed thermal energy, and a heat sink, such as a battery or cab heating system, wherein the second working fluid, in the second conduit arrangement, is configured to absorb thermal energy and is configured to discharge absorbed thermal energy to the heat sink.
As best understood with the 112 issues the reference Chan teaches a phase change heat storage system for a heat source for battery cells (Para 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the thermal energy system of Mantegazza to be attached to a heat source on a electric vehicle as taught by Chan to have an effective cooling system that will reduce cost and weight to a vehicle (Para 0004).
It is noted that the phrases “is configured to absorb thermal energy from the heat source and is configured to, from the first conduit arrangement, discharge absorbed thermal energy and “is configured to absorb thermal energy and is configured to discharge absorbed thermal energy to the heat sink” are statements of intended use and the structure as disclosed by the combined teachings are capable of performing the function. Further, the teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show "the passages forming the meshed structure or structures extend diagonally with respect to a main flow direction through the internal volume.” The closest prior art of record discloses conduits that are perpendicular, but not diagonal. Although it is well known to provide various conduit size and shapes for different fluid flow, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to incorporate the diagonal conduits as claimed. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE E ROJOHN III whose telephone number is (571)270-5431. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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.
/CLAIRE E ROJOHN III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights