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 § 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 1-6, 8-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0199753 Muren in view of NPL “Electrodialysis, a mature technology with a multitude of new applications” by Strathmann (hereinafter Strathmann).
Regarding claim 1, Muren discloses A method of caloric cooling comprising: providing a first material in a solid state; combining the first material with a second material, wherein the second material provides an electrochemical field to the first material to reduce the melting point of the first material (salt mixed in water -paragraphs 19, 48, and 66; see stage 109 in figure 1A paragraph 56 “variety of mixing tanks/in-line mixers may be used or ice tank 113-a and combiner 113 that combines storage material with freeze point suppressant (salt))….”;; allowing the first material to melt, wherein the first material extracts heat from a cold reservoir upon melting (paragraph 78, stage 108-b ice melts while cooling condenser of heat engine 107-b; see further paragraph 136 and 59); separating the first material from the second material by a separation technique (see stage 103 of figure 1A, separation of freeze point suppressant and storage material, types of separation techniques can include ion exchange, see paragraph 58 and 62; see separator 127); and allowing the first material to precipitate, wherein the first material releases heat to a hot reservoir during precipitation (see paragraph 55, stage 102, heat pump cooling storage material, see paragraph 70 stage 102-a and 112-a where storage material removed and frozen; further see 102-g ice harvester 129).. Muren does not explicitly disclose that the separation technique is using a voltage applied to a combination of the first material and the second material. This is disclosed by Strathmann who provides that electrodialysis is a well known desalination (separating salt from a liquid) technique. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize electrodialysis as the separation technique used in Muren as electrodialysis is well known to be a high efficiency desalination process with low energy consumption and is easily scalable for different quantities. This is further Applying a known technique (separation of salt from liquid using electrodialysis) to a known device (heat storage of Muren that separates salt form liquids) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Muren further discloses the utilization of ion exchange which is representative broadly of electrodialysis. The examiner further goes on Official notice that Faradaic deionization is also a known separation technique for removal of salts from liquid (see similar motivation with respect to Muren and Strathmann for applying known separation desalination techniques).
Regarding claim 2, Muren discloses wherein the first material has a melting point at or above an ambient temperature (Water, see paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 3, Muren discloses wherein the second material comprises an ion concentration to provide the electrochemical field (salts, see paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 8, Muren discloses A system comprising: a mixing chamber to combine a first material in a solid state with a second material wherein the second material provides an electrochemical field to the first material to reduce the melting point of the first material (salt mixed in water -paragraphs 19, 48, and 66; see stage 109 in figure 1A paragraph 56 “variety of mixing tanks/in-line mixers may be used or ice tank 113-a and combiner 113 that combines storage material with freeze point suppressant (salt))….”; a melting chamber allowing the first material to melt, wherein the melting chamber is coupled to a cold reservoir and wherein the first material extracts heat from the cold reservoir upon melting (paragraph 78, stage 108-b ice melts while cooling condenser of heat engine 107-b; see further paragraph 136 and 59); a separating chamber to separate the first material from the second material via a separation technique (see stage 103 of figure 1A, separation of freeze point suppressant and storage material, types of separation techniques can include ion exchange, see paragraph 58 and 62; see separator 127): and a precipitation chamber allowing the first material to precipitate, wherein the first material releases heat to a hot reservoir coupled to the precipitation chamber during precipitation (see paragraph 55, stage 102, heat pump cooling storage material, see paragraph 70 stage 102-a and 112-a where storage material removed and frozen; further see 102-g ice harvester 129).
Muren does not explicitly disclose that the separation technique is using a voltage applied to a combination of the first material and the second material. This is disclosed by Strathmann who provides that electrodialysis is a well-known desalination (separating salt from a liquid) technique. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize electrodialysis as the separation technique used in Muren as electrodialysis is well known to be a high efficiency desalination process with low energy consumption and is easily scalable for different quantities. This is further Applying a known technique (separation of salt from liquid using electrodialysis) to a known device (heat storage of Muren that separates salt form liquids) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Muren further discloses the utilization of ion exchange which is representative broadly of electrodialysis. The examiner further goes on Official notice that Faradaic deionization is also a known separation technique for removal of salts from liquid (see similar motivation with respect to Muren and Strathmann for applying known separation desalination techniques).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20, Muren as modified by Strathmann discloses the parent claim limitations above. Strathmann further discloses wherein the separation technique comprises electrodialysis or Faradaic deionization (electrodialysis, see rejection of claim 1 and 8 above) and further wherein the electrodialysis comprises separating the first material from the second material by applying the voltage across electrode compartments (see pages figures 2-3 or 22 for example). Strathmann does not explicitly disclose comprising iodide triiodide redox couples however the examiner goes on Official notice that iodide triiodide redox couples are a well known cathode-anode electrochemical electrode system and it would have been a simple substitution well known to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to substitute one well known electrode material to another.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Muren discloses the limitations of their parent claims above. Muren does not explicitly disclose wherein the second material comprises at least one of sodium iodide, potassium iodide, magnesium nitrate, magnesium chloride, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate. potassium chloride, sodium thiosulfate, lithium bromide, lithium iodide, lithium chloride, lithium carbonate, water, or ethanol. The examiner goes on official notice that Magnesium chloride, potassium chloride are both well known salts that lower freezing temperature. It would have been obvious to substitute one salt for another within the process of Muren depending on cost and availability of said salts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize well known salts that lower freezing temperature in the process of Muren who provide using slats to lower freezing temperature as a simple substitution of one known element for another. Further it would be obvious through routine experimentation of the different salts to discover the most efficient exothermic dissolution and freezing point depression effects and compare it to costs and availability of each salt.
Claims 7, 14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muren and Strathmann as applied to claims above, and further in view of US Patent number 4,258,696 Gopal.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Muren discloses the parent claim limitations above. Muren does not explicitly disclose wherein the first material comprises at least one of ethylene carbonate, magnesium nitrate hexahydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate, sodium thiosulfate hexahydrate, sodium acetate trihydrate, nickel nitrate hexahydrate, iron nitrate hexahydrate, Iron chloride hexahydrate, or cadmium nitrate tetrahydrate. This is disclosed by Gopal who provides a passive thermal energy storage material that utilizes Ethylene Carbonate (see table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize Ethylene carbonate as the first material as Ethylene Carbonate is provided in a similar use within Gopal as a low melting solid that also has a distinct advantage of being non-corrosive. This is merely a simple substitution of one known material for another to serve the same purpose of energy storage by freezing and precipitating.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections and motivations with respect to claims 4 and 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights