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 invention I in the reply filed on 02/04/2025 is acknowledged
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 10-12 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 10 recites the limitation "the temperature". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forsthuber (US Pat No. 6,094,933), hereinafter referred to as Forthuber.
Re claim 1, Forthuber teaches a thermal protection module (Fig 2) comprising:
a first heat transfer element (28) having:
a first shell (37) defining a first cavity (34), the first cavity sealed and filled with a first medium (e.g. abstract, “at least one storage space (34) for an ice storage medium”); and
a first fluid passageway (30) extending through the first cavity (see e.g. Fig 2-4), the first fluid passageway having a first tunnel wall (structure of pipe 30) that defines a first tunnel (30; where the refrigerant flows) extending therethrough, the first tunnel fluidly sealed separate from the first cavity (C5-lns 5-10, “Sealing and attachment take place preferably by means of a flexible toothed seal 45 on connecting branch 44 and/or an additional seal by means of O-ring 43 or a sealing agent on the faces of refrigerant pipes 30”; further, the examiner notes that is implicit that no mix happens within the refrigerant and water).
Re claim 2, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 1, further comprising a second heat transfer element (see Fig 2, 28 in the upper middle vs the upper left one) spaced apart from the first heat transfer element to define a gap therebetween (see Fig 2), the second heat transfer element having:
a second shell (37 of the upper middle) defining a second cavity (34 of the upper middle), the second cavity filled with a second medium (e.g. abstract, “at least one storage space (34) for an ice storage medium” of the upper middle); and
a second fluid passageway (30 of the upper middle) extending through the second cavity (see e.g. Fig 2-4), the second fluid passageway having a second tunnel wall (structure of pipe 30) that defines a second tunnel (30; where the refrigerant flows) extending therethrough, the second tunnel fluidly sealed from the second cavity (C5-lns 5-10, “Sealing and attachment take place preferably by means of a flexible toothed seal 45 on connecting branch 44 and/or an additional seal by means of O-ring 43 or a sealing agent on the faces of refrigerant pipes 30”; further, the examiner notes that is implicit that no mix happens within the refrigerant and water).
Re claim 3, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 2, wherein the first medium and the second medium are a phase-change material (the examiner notes that ice is a phase change material).
Re claim 7, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 1, wherein the first tunnel wall of the first fluid passageway has a plurality of fins (33) projecting radially outwardly therefrom into the first cavity (34) of the first shell (e.g. Fig 9).
Re claim 9, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 1, wherein the first medium is a phase-change material (ice is a phase-change material) having a first state in which the first medium is solid (e.g. ice) and a second state in which the first medium is liquid (e.g. water), the first medium tuned to transition from the first state to the second state at a desired temperature (transitional temperature).
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kleen (US Pat No. 2,499,736), hereinafter referred to as Kleen.
Re claim 1, Kleen teaches a thermal protection module (Fig 1-3) comprising:
a first heat transfer element (e.g. 16) having:
a first shell (shell of 16) defining a first cavity (see cavity in Fig 1-3), the first cavity sealed and filled with a first medium (e.g. C3-lns 40-45, “the accumulated cold of the ice in the chamber 16 will hold the temperature of the cargo space”); and
a first fluid passageway (12) extending through the first cavity (see e.g. Fig 1-3), the first fluid passageway having a first tunnel wall (structure of 12) that defines a first tunnel (12) extending therethrough, the first tunnel fluidly sealed separate from the first cavity (C5-lns 1-3, “vaporizable refrigerant In its hermetically closed circuit”).
Re claim 9, Kleen teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 1, wherein the first medium is a phase-change material (ice is a phase-change material) having a first state in which the first medium is solid (e.g. ice) and a second state in which the first medium is liquid (e.g. water), the first medium tuned to transition from the first state to the second state at a desired temperature (transitional temperature).
Re claim 10, Kleen teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 9, wherein the first fluid passageway is a heat pipe (e.g. C2-lns 40-50, “a hermetically closed tube or circuit having a liquefying (condensing) zone or chamber 1 I outside the cargo space, a vaporizing zone or chamber 12 in thermal relation with the cargo space, and an Intermediate connecting section 13”), the heat pipe filled with a fluid (e.g. C5-lns 20-25, “Where the refrigerant is ammonia”) that evaporates at temperature that is lower than the temperature that the first medium transitions from the first state to the second state (the examiner notes that ammonia evaporates at a lower temperature than 320F).
Re claim 11, Kleen teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 10, wherein the heat pipe is entirely sealed (e.g. C2-lns 40-50, “a hermetically closed tube or circuit having a liquefying (condensing) zone or chamber 1 I outside the cargo space, a vaporizing zone or chamber 12 in thermal relation with the cargo space, and an Intermediate connecting section 13”),
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthuber, in view of Toyomatsu (US Pat No. 3,280,586), hereinafter referred to as Toyomatsu.
Re claim 4, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 2. Forthuber does not explicitly teach the limitation of comprising a first manifold that receives a respective first end of each of the first fluid passageway and the second fluid passageway, the first tunnel in fluid communication with the second tunnel through the first manifold.
However, Toyomatsu teaches a thermal protection module comprising a first and second heat transfer element (left 4 and right 4); the thermal protection module comprising a first manifold (manifold next to 12, see Fig 2) that receives a respective first end (top end for left 4 and right 4) of each of a first fluid passageway (8 connected to 10 for left 4) and a second fluid passageway (8 connected to 10 for right 4), a first tunnel (8 for left 4) in fluid communication with a second tunnel (8 for left 4) through the first manifold (see Fig 2).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Forthuber and integrated a first manifold that receives a respective first end of each of the first fluid passageway and the second fluid passageway, the first tunnel in fluid communication with the second tunnel through the first manifold, as taught by Toyomatsu, in order to have a uniform low temperature (see Toyomatsu C1-lns 20).
Re claim 5, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 4. Toyomatsu further teaches the limitation of comprising a second manifold (19) that receives a respective second end (bottom end for left 4 and right 4) of each of the first fluid passageway and the second fluid passageway, the first tunnel in fluid communication with the second tunnel through the second manifold (see Fig 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthuber, in view of Ruffo (DE 2161288), hereinafter referred to as Ruffo.
Re claim 6, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 4. Forthuber does not teach the limitation of wherein the first heat transfer element includes a first end cap and a second end cap opposite the first end cap, the first end cap and the second end cap enclosing the first cavity.
However, Ruffo teaches a thermal protection module comprising a first end cap (3’) and a second end cap (3’’) opposite the first end cap, the first end cap and the second end cap enclosing a first cavity (see Fig 1-3).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Forthuber and integrated wherein the first heat transfer element includes a first end cap and a second end cap opposite the first end cap, the first end cap and the second end cap enclosing the first cavity, as taught by Toyomatsu, in order to have an input for the medium and a vent.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthuber, in view of Movick (US Pat No. 4,171,721), hereinafter referred to as Movick.
Re claim 8, Forthuber teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 4. Forthuber does not teach the limitation of wherein the first fluid passageway includes a second tunnel wall extending coaxially through the first tunnel wall such that the second tunnel wall defines a supply tunnel therethrough and the first tunnel wall defines a return tunnel with the second tunnel wall, the supply tunnel and the return tunnel in fluid communication with each other.
However, Movick teaches a thermal protection module (20) comprising a first fluid passageway (pathway for 54-57) includes a second tunnel wall (34) extending coaxially through a first tunnel wall (53) such that the second tunnel wall defines a supply tunnel therethrough and the first tunnel wall defines a return tunnel with the second tunnel wall, the supply tunnel and the return tunnel in fluid communication with each other (see Fig 1).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Forthuber and integrated wherein the first fluid passageway includes a second tunnel wall extending coaxially through the first tunnel wall such that the second tunnel wall defines a supply tunnel therethrough and the first tunnel wall defines a return tunnel with the second tunnel wall, the supply tunnel and the return tunnel in fluid communication with each other, as taught by Movick, in order to save more installation space.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthuber, in view of Movick (US Pat No. 4,171,721), hereinafter referred to as Movick.
Re claim 12, Kleen teaches the thermal protection module according to claim 10. Kleen does not explicitly teach the limitation of wherein the fluid in the heat pipe is n-butane. However, the examiner takes Official Notice that the fact of using nbutane as a heat pipe fluid, for the purpose of having a low toxicity fluid, falls within the realm of common knowledge as obvious mechanical expedient. Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kleen and integrated wherein the fluid in the heat pipe is n-butane, for the purpose of having a low toxicity fluid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 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, 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/6/2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763