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 § 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 2 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 2. The term “about” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. The claimed ratio between the width and height of the ice brick is rendered indefinite because one of ordinary skill cannot be reasonably certain of the demarcation between values that do fall within “about 2” versus values that do not.
Regarding claim 8. The term “generally” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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. The plate shape of the capsules is rendered indefinite because there is no reasonably certain demarcation between “plate shaped”, “generally plate shaped”, and “not plate shaped” to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,090,207 A (herein “Gilbertson”).
Regarding claim 1. Gilbertson discloses a thermal energy storage system (Figs. 15-17), comprising:
an ice brick (150, 10A) having at least one inlet (at the end near 10-1) and at least one outlet (at the end near 10-N) for a heat transfer fluid; and
a plurality of capsules (11) having a phase change medium therein (water/ice), wherein the plurality of capsules is arranged inside the ice brick (shown in Figs. 16 and 17),
wherein an average length of an actual flow path of the heat transfer fluid from a front end of the ice brick to a back end of the ice brick is larger than a length of the ice brick (Fig. 17 – the distance of all paths but one between the inlet and outlet through capsules 11 is longer than the length of 10A, so the average path length must be larger than the length of the ice brick), and
wherein the ice brick is shaped as a tube with a rectangular cross section (Figs. 15 and 16 – 150/10A has rectangular cross section) having a ratio of the length of the ice brick to the width of the ice brick is in a range of 4 to 50 (Table I – one example includes SM 506 having a length to width ratio of 5.33).
Regarding claim 3. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, wherein a flow path of said heat transfer fluid through said ice brick is arranged as a meandering path (Figs. 16 and 17 – many paths from the inlet to the outlet meander about the spacings between capsules).
Regarding claim 4. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, wherein at least one surface of the capsules comprises protrusions (Figs. 6-8) adapted to increase turbulence of the flow of the heat transfer fluid though the ice brick.
Regarding claim 6. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 4, wherein the protrusions are evenly distributed on the surface (shown in Fig. 6 – protrusions 130 are evenly distributed).
Regarding claim 7. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, further comprising spacers (Figs. 7 and 9A – 129) between the capsules.
Regarding claim 8. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, wherein the capsules are plate shaped (Figs. 6-9A); and
the capsules comprise ridges such that the capsules are arranged to provide a space as a flow channel for the heat transfer fluid in between the capsules (ridges shown in Fig. 6 at 129 and in Fig. 17 between adjacent capsules).
Regarding claim 9. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, wherein the capsules have a concave shape of their broad sides (Fig. 17 – capsules shown having concavities).
Regarding claim 10. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, wherein a plurality of ice bricks is arranged in a modular arrangement comprising ice bricks that are laid next to one another (Fig. 13 – tanks 10A and 10B next to one another – col. 21, ll. 42-43).
Regarding claim 13. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of ice bricks is interconnected for fluid communication of the heat transfer fluid flowing through said ice bricks via the at least one inlet and at least one outlet (Fig. 13 shows interconnection between 10A and 10B).
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbertson alone and/or in view of US 2015/0027662 A1 (herein “Schmitz”).
Regarding claim 2. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the rectangular cross section has a ratio of the length of the ice brick to the width of the ice brick in a range from 12 to 20. However, Gilbertson does disclose a number of different storage tank options (Table I) having different length to width ratios and other properties that change with the different sizes of storage tanks.
Schmitz discloses a thermal energy storage system and discloses optimizing dimensions of the system, including length and width, in an attempt to achieve an improved heat storage heat exchanger ([0159]).
Since the claimed dimensions are recognized by Gilbertson and/or Schmitz as result-effective, it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges thereof. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Therefore, it would have been routine and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the filing of the claimed invention, to experiment with the length and width ratio of the thermal energy storage system in an attempt to improve properties such as heat storage capacity and heat transfer rate as desired.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbertson in view of US 2017/0045304 A1 (herein “Booska”).
Regarding claim 5. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 4, but does not disclose that the protrusions are oval shaped.
Booska discloses capsules containing phase change material including various protrusions and shapes (Figs. 2, 4, 13). Booska also states that numerous shapes and designs may be utilized to provide the capsules with increased and/or enhanced surface area, including any well-known shapes such as an ovoid ([0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsules of Gilbertson by experimenting with various shapes, including oval, as taught by Booska in an attempt to improve the heat transfer characteristics of the system.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbertson in view of US 6,343,485 B1 (herein “Duerr”).
Regarding claim 11. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 10, but does not disclose insulation panels designed to be attached over one or more ice bricks according to the modular arrangement of bricks, wherein the insulation panels surround an outer surface of the modular arrangement but not non-external surfaces of the modular arrangement.
Duerr discloses a thermal energy storage system (Figs. 21 and 22) comprising a plurality of ice bricks (Fig. 22 – 60-65), each comprising a plurality of PCM capsules, and insulation panels (91 and 93) (col. 2, ll. 29-32) attached over the ice bricks, wherein the insulation panels surround the outer surface but not non-external surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the storage system of Gilbertson with the insulation teachings of Duerr in order to minimize thermal losses in the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbertson in view of US 4,442,826 A (herein “Pleasants”).
Regarding claim 12. Gilbertson discloses the thermal energy storage system of claim 10, but does not disclose that the plurality of ice bricks is comprised in a structural arrangement of a building, the structural arrangement selected from one or more of a group consisting of: a wall; a floor; and a roof.
Pleasants discloses a thermal energy storage system wherein heat storage containers are structurally arranged in the walls of a building (Figs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy storage system of Gilbertson with the teachings of Pleasants to increase usable space within a building by moving at least portions of the heat storage containers into unused wall space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jon T. Schermerhorn Jr. whose telephone number is (571)270-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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.
/JON T. SCHERMERHORN JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763