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 5 and 15 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 5 and 15 recites the limitation "Pa/s". This limitation is unclear and confusing because the uniots for viscosity are Pa
∙
s.
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) 1-4, 7, 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danov (EP 3594458), hereinafter referred to as Danov.
Re claim 1, Danov teaches a latent heat storage module comprising:
a first container (e.g. 2) and a second container (e.g. 4) structured to contain a slurry (e.g. description, “a phase change sludge 42”);
the slurry comprising a first component configured to retain its liquid phase during operation of the latent heat storage module, and a second component which is a phase change material suspended in the first component (see description, “In other words, a phase change sludge is a mixture of a carrier liquid, for example water, and a phase change material”);
a device configured to transport the slurry from the first container to the second container (e.g. claims, “characterized in that the device (1) comprises at least one pump, by means of which the phase change sludge (42) from the first tank (2) via the pressure tank (3) to the second tank (4) and / or from the second container (4) via the pressure container (3) to the first container (2)”); and
a heat exchanger (3; see description, “the pressure vessel is designed as a tube bundle heat exchanger”) in contact with the device configured to pass heat to or from the slurry.
Re claim 2, Danov teaches the module of claim 1, wherein the second component is a solid-solid phase change material (e.g. see description, “Method according to one of claims 11 to 13, in which a mixture of substances with potassium nitrate or lithium nitrate is used as the phase change sludge”; the examiner notes that potassium nitrate is a solid-solid PCM).
Re claim 3, Danov teaches the module of claim 1, wherein the phase change material has a phase transition temperature within an operating temperature range of the latent heat storage module (inherent basic function of the operation of a PCM).
Re claim 4, Danov teaches the module of claim 1, wherein the first component is not a phase change material within an operating temperature range of the latent heat storage module (inherent basic function of a carrier liquid; see description, “comprises a carrier liquid, for example water, and a phase change material”).
Re claim 7, Danov teaches the module of claim 1, wherein the first component is water (see description, “comprises a carrier liquid, for example water, and a phase change material”).
Re claim 17, Danov teaches a latent heat storage module comprising:
a first container (e.g. 2) and a second container (e.g. 4) structured to contain a slurry (e.g. description, “a phase change sludge 42”);
the slurry comprising
the slurry comprising a first component configured to retain its liquid phase during operation of the latent heat storage module, and a second component which is a phase change material suspended in the first component (see description, “In other words, a phase change sludge is a mixture of a carrier liquid, for example water, and a phase change material”);
a heat exchanger (3; see description, “the pressure vessel is designed as a tube bundle heat exchanger”) in contact with the slurry configured to pass heat to or from the slurry
Re claim 19, Danov teaches the module of claim 17, wherein the second component is a solid-solid phase change material (e.g. see description, “Method according to one of claims 11 to 13, in which a mixture of substances with potassium nitrate or lithium nitrate is used as the phase change sludge”; the examiner notes that potassium nitrate is a solid-solid PCM).
Re claim 20, Danov teaches the module of claim 17, wherein the phase change material has a phase transition temperature within an operating temperature range of the latent heat storage module (inherent basic function of the operation of a PCM).
Claim(s) 9-10, 13-14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarksean (US Pat No. 7,096,929), hereinafter referred to as Clarksean.
Re claim 9, Clarksean teaches a latent heat storage system comprising:
a cooling apparatus (112);
a latent heat storage module (104) in fluid communication with the cooling apparatus comprising:
a mixture (e.g. C3-lns 35-40, “the PCM slurry 106”) comprising a first component configured to retains its liquid phase during operation of the latent heat storage module and a second component which is a phase change material suspended in the first component (e.g. C3-lns 35-40, “The PCM slurry comprises a mixture of water, emulsifier, and paraffin, that absorbs peak A/C loads”);
a device (108) configured to mechanically move the mixture from a first area of the module to a second area of the module; and
a heat exchanger (102), in contact with the device, configured to pass heat to the mixture or extract heat from the mixture while the mixture is in transit between the first area and the second area
Re claim 10, Clarksean teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the mixture is a slurry (e.g. C3-lns 35-40, “the PCM slurry 106”).
Re claim 13, Clarksean teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the phase change material has a phase transition temperature within an operating temperature range of the latent heat storage module (inherent basic function of the operation of a PCM).
Re claim 14, Clarksean teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the first component is not a phase change material within an operating temperature range of the latent heat storage module (inherent basic function of a carrier liquid).
Re claim 16, Clarksean teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the cooling apparatus is a heat pump (C4-lns 5-10, “the air conditioning unit 202 may be used to re-solidify the PCM 204 during a non-peak or less load demand period”).
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) 5-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danov, in view of Official Notice.
Re claim 5, Danov teaches the module of claim 1. Danov doesn’t teach the limitation of the slurry is a viscous gel having a viscosity of about 0.5-20 Pa/s. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a viscous gel having a viscosity of about 0.5-20 Pa/s as a PCM slurry, for the purpose optimizing the thermal energy storage capacity, 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 Danov and integrated the slurry is a viscous gel having a viscosity of about 0.5-20 Pa/s, for the purpose optimizing the thermal energy storage capacity.
Re claim 6, Danov teaches the module of claim 1. Danov teaches the limitation of the device being a pump. Danov doesn’t teach the limitation of the pump is a positive displacement pump. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a positive displacement pump, for the purpose optimizing the flow rate, 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 Danov and integrated the pump is a positive displacement pump, for the purpose optimizing the flow rate.
Re claim 8, Danov teaches the module of claim 1. Danov doesn’t teach the limitation of wherein the second component is an organometallic compound. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using an organometallic compound for a PCM slurry, for the purpose targeted phase transition profiles, 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 Danov and integrated wherein the second component is an organometallic compound, for the purpose targeted phase transition profiles.
Claim(s) 11-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danov, in view of Official Notice.
Re claim 11, Clarksean teaches the module of claim 1. Clarksean teaches the limitation of the device being a pump. Clarksean doesn’t teach the limitation of the pump is a screw pump. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a screw pump, for the purpose optimizing the flow rate, 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 Clarksean and integrated the pump a screw pump, for the purpose optimizing the flow rate.
Re claim 12, Clarksean teaches the module of claim 1. Clarksean doesn’t teach the limitation of wherein the second component is a solid-solid phase change material. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a solid-solid phase change material, for the purpose of maintaining physical integrity of the PCM, 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 Clarksean and integrated wherein the second component is a solid-solid phase change material, for the purpose of maintaining physical integrity of the PCM.
Re claim 15, Clarksean teaches the module of claim 1. Clarksean doesn’t teach the limitation of the slurry is a viscous gel having a viscosity of about 0.5-20 Pa/s. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that using a viscous gel having a viscosity of about 0.5-20 Pa/s as a PCM slurry, for the purpose optimizing the thermal energy storage capacity, 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 Clarksean and integrated the slurry is a viscous gel having a viscosity of about 0.5-20 Pa/s, for the purpose optimizing the thermal energy storage capacity.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danov, in view of Wetzel et al. (US 20180283726), hereinafter referred to as Wetzel.
Re claim 18, Danov teaches the module of claim 17. Danov doesn’t teach the limitation of wherein the module comprises a pivoting component structured to pivot the module with a pivot angle of about 180 degrees.
However, Wetzel teaches a latent heat storage module comprising a pivoting component (1701 and 1703) structured to pivot the module with a pivot angle of about 180 degrees (e.g. ¶ 4, “a multi-section PCM container rotatingly supported about a center long axis of the multi-section PCM container”).
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 Danov and integrated wherein the module comprises a pivoting component structured to pivot the module with a pivot angle of about 180 degrees, as taught by Wtzel, in order to improve efficiency and flexibility of thermal energy storage and recovery.
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 10/10/2026
Prosecution Insights