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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Currently, no claim limitations invoke 112(f).
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 3, 5, 11, 13, 14 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 3 line 3 recites a limitation in parenthesis “(or period)”, wherein it is unclear if the limitation in parenthesis is being positively recited.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, 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).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “polymer materials”, and the claim also recites “such as polyethylene, in particular high density polyethylene” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 5, 11, and 13 recite “preferably”, wherein it is unclear if the limitations that follow the “preferably” are being positively recited. Since the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained, the claim is indefinite.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gaiser (US2013/0209322A1).
Re Claim 1. Gaiser teaches a phase changing material module (1) for a heat exchanger apparatus, wherein the module comprises (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 54-61):
a first plate shell (3) and a second plate shell (4), both shells having an undulated wave surface (5, 6) with a smooth, periodic oscillation, and wherein both said plates have a rectangular peripheral edge portion (14, 15) (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 54-61);
wherein said first and second plate shells are joined together (at 16) along their peripheral edges to form an internal volume (7) which is filled with a phase changing material (18) (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 54-61).
Re Claim 2. Gaiser teaches the first plate shell is an upper plate shell and the second plate shell is a lower plate shell (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 54-61).
Re Claim 3. Gaiser teaches the undulated wave surface is a substantially sinusoidal form with the same amplitude and wave length (or period) and wherein sinusoidal form of the first and second plate shells are relatively phase shifted by a predetermined distance of up to a distance of half the wave length (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 54-61; The two waves are angled relative to one another and thus are considered phase shifted at certain spots).
Re Claim 4. Gaiser teaches the first and second plate shells are provided with peripheral edges and the shells are joined together each other along said edges (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 54-61).
Re Claim 6. Gaiser teaches the first and second plate shells are welded together (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 15, 26 teach welding the contact edges of the plates).
Claims 7, 8, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soukhojak (US2009/0250189A1).
Re Claim 7. Soukhojak teaches an apparatus (80) for temperature regulation in a building (Paragraph 15 teaches use for a building), comprising an inlet section (91) receiving an airflow in a first direction, and an outlet section (92) with a heat exchange section (middle of 83) therebetween, wherein: said inlet section has an inlet channel (at 91), which is provided with a side-opening towards the heat exchange section, and said heat exchange section comprising a plurality of generally plate-shaped phase change material (PCM) modules (25) mounted in a stacked formation forming a series of air channels (24) between said PCM modules extending from the inlet section to the outlet section, and wherein the air channels are formed between the PCM modules and so that the airflow is gradually redirected from the inlet section and into the air channels of the heat exchange section, whereby the airflow is subjected to the temperature of the PCM modules before exiting the heat exchange section into the outlet section, wherein the plate-shaped phase change material (PCM) modules are provided in parallel in the stacked formation and wherein the PCM modules are provided with undulated wave surface with a smooth, periodic oscillation such that the air channels are being formed as serpentine-shaped air flow channels of essentially even width are formed between said PCM modules (Figures 3A, 9; Figure 9 specifically illustrates the apparatus with a plurality of stacked modules, Figure 3A illustrates a smooth serpentine air flow channel; Paragraphs 60, 64-69, 75-77, 87-92).
Re Claim 8. Soukhojak teaches the PCM modules in the stacked formation of the heat exchange section are modules each comprising: a first plate shell and a second plate shell, both shells having an undulated wave surface with a smooth, periodic oscillation, and wherein both said plates have a rectangular peripheral edge portion; wherein said first and second plate shells are joined together along their peripheral edges to form an internal volume which is filled with a phase changing material (Figures 3A, 9; Paragraphs 60, 64-69, 75-77, 87-92).
Re Claim 9. Soukhojak teaches the serpentine-shaped air channels formed between the stacked PCM modules are sinusoidal air flow channels of essentially even width are formed between said PCM modules (Figures 3A, 9; Paragraphs 60, 64-69, 75-77, 87-92).
Re Claim 14. Soukhojak teaches an air flow generator, such as an air blower, is provided for controlling an airflow into the inlet channel (Paragraph 96 teaches the use of a fan or blower).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaiser (US2013/0209322A1) in view of Hatfield (US2022/0205727A1).
Re Claim 5. Gaiser teaches the plate shells are made of metal (Paragraph 60) and thus fails to specifically teach the plate shells are made of a polymer material, such as polyethylene, in particular high density polyethylene (HDPE).
However, Hatfield teaches a phase change material cell (17) comprises plate shells that are made of a polymer material, such as polyethylene, in particular high density polyethylene (HDPE) (Paragraph 39).
Therefore, in view of Hatfield's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the plate shells of Gaiser from polymer materials instead of metal in order to reduce manufacturing costs and to also provide increased corrosion resistance. HPDE may be selected for the plates because its corrosion resistance, low density, chemical compatibility with the PCM, and ability to be thermally formed and sealed can facilitate fabrication of a lightweight, durable PCM heat exchanger while reducing manufacturing complexity and cost relative to metal plates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the plate shells of Gaiser from polymer materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukhojak (US2009/0250189A1) in view of Mori (US2010/0051234A1).
Re Claim 10-13. Soukhojak teaches an inlet and outlet (Figure 9) but fails to specifically teach the inlet channel has a wedge-shaped inlet channel having a wide opening at an air inlet and a gradually narrowing cross-section downstream thereof, wherein the inlet channel has an inclination angle β, preferably β being between 3° and 25°; the outlet section is wedge-shaped with an outlet channel at the wide end of said wedge-shaped outlet section, said outlet section preferably having an inclination angle β, and preferably β being between 3° and 25°; and wherein the air channels between the PCM modules are substantially parallel and providing an airflow in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first airflow direction of the inlet.
However, Mori teaches it is known to configure a heat exchanger such that the inlet channel has a wedge-shaped inlet channel having a wide opening at an air inlet and a gradually narrowing cross-section downstream thereof, wherein the inlet channel has an inclination angle β, preferably β being between 3° and 25°; the outlet section is wedge-shaped with an outlet channel at the wide end of said wedge-shaped outlet section, said outlet section preferably having an inclination angle β, and preferably β being between 3° and 25°; and wherein the air channels between the PCM modules are substantially parallel and providing an airflow in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first airflow direction of the inlet.
Therefore, in view of Mori's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the inlet and outlet channels as wedges in order to more uniformly and efficiently route the airflow to the air channels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have an inclination angle β between 3° and 25°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). Therefore, in view of Mori's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the air channels between the PCM modules are substantially parallel and providing an airflow in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first airflow direction of the inlet in order to provide more uniform distribution of airflow through the modules, thereby improving the heat exchange efficiency of the apparatus.
Claims 15-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukhojak (US2009/0250189A1).
Re Claim 15. Soukhojak teaches the air flow generator (Paragraph 96) but fails to specifically teach the location of the air flow generator is upstream of the air inlet section. However, it would have been obvious to try various locations for the air flow generator within the assembly in order to determine the optimal air flow characteristics.
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In this instance, the predictable solutions are locating the fan upstream, within, or downstream of the apparatus. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. optimal heat flow characteristics, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Soukhojak, by trying to locate the air flow generator upstream the air inlet section, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the air flow generator upstream of the air inlet section, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Re Claim 16. Soukhojak teaches the air flow generator (Paragraph 96) but fails to specifically teach the air flow generator is provided downstream the outlet section for providing an airflow into the inlet channel. However, it would have been obvious to try various locations for the air flow generator within the assembly in order to determine the optimal air flow characteristics.
Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In this instance, the predictable solutions are locating the fan upstream, within, or downstream of the apparatus. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. optimal heat flow characteristics, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Soukhojak, by trying to locate the air flow generator downstream the outlet section, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to locate the air flow generator downstream the outlet section, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Re Claim 17. Soukhojak teaches the air flow generator but fails to specifically teach the air flow generator is capable of reversing the airflow through the heat exchanger. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the well-known use of reversible fans for controlling airflow through apparatuses. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be able to implement a reversible fan in Soukhojak in order to direct air to or from the thermal storage system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the air flow generator reversible, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, A).
Re Claim 21. Soukhojak teaches various phase change materials (Paragraphs 72, 102-104) but does not specifically outline the phase change material of the PCM modules is adapted for phase change at 10°-25° Celsius. However, the examiner takes Official Notice of various PCM that operate at a phase change of 10°-25° Celsius and that selection of any known phase change material is an obvious engineering design choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select the phase change material of the PCM modules to be adapted for phase change at 10°-25° Celsius, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukhojak (US2009/0250189A1) in view of Higgins (US4309987).
Re Claim 18. Soukhojak teaches the apparatus is accommodated in a box-shaped housing (83; Figure 9) but fails to specifically teach the plurality of plate-shaped phase change material (PCM) modules are mounted in an inclined stacked formation with a shape of a parallelogram.
However, Higgins teaches a heat exchanger configuration in which the plurality of plate-shaped modules (12) are mounted in an inclined stacked formation with a shape of a parallelogram (Figures 4 and 6; Column 3 lines 25-68; Column 4 lines 1-17). Higgins teaches the benefit of the inclined stack is “the fluid flow rate through the unit 10 is substantially improved, without undue complications in fabrication” (Higgins Column 4 lines 5-8).
Therefore, in view of Higgins's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the plurality of plate-shaped phase change material (PCM) modules of Soukhojak in an inclined stacked formation with a shape of a parallelogram in order to improve the fluid flow rate through the modules.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soukhojak (US2009/0250189A1) in view of Schlote (US4471834).
Re Claim 19. Soukhojak teaches the apparatus (Figure 9) but fails to specifically teach the plate-shaped phase change material (PCM) modules are provided with circumferential rims and are accommodated in a rack, where the side of the inlet section and the side of the outlet section are provided with rail supports for receiving the rims of the PCM modules.
However, Schlote teaches the plate-shaped phase change material (PCM) modules (58) are provided with circumferential rims (edge of 58) and are accommodated in a rack (wall with 56), where the side of the inlet section and the side of the outlet section are provided with rail supports (56) for receiving the rims of the PCM modules (Figures 5-10).
Therefore, in view of Schlote's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the modules of Soukhojak in racks in order to allow for fast assembly while providing structural support to each module.
Re Claim 20. Soukhojak as modified by Schlote teach wherein the housing is provided with side covers (Soukhojak 83; Schlote 48, 50, 52, 54) that retain the plate-shaped PCM modules in said rack and provides an airtight seal between the plate-shaped PCM modules (Soukhojak Figures 3A, 9; Paragraphs 60, 64-69, 75-77, 87-92; Schlote Figures 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the side covers air tight against the modules in order to prevent bypassing of the modules which would reduce the effectiveness of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS RUBY whose telephone number is (571)270-5760. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/TRAVIS RUBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
