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.
Claims 1 and 3-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “low” in claims 1, 10 and 15-16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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 emissivity level of the material is rendered indefinite as it is unknown what threshold is considered to be "low".
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1), hereinafter referred to as Kraft and Hagel, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Kraft discloses a latent heat battery, comprising:
multiple walls (shown in figure 4, containing the insulation (24)), including an inner wall (inner wall of the housing (16)) and an outer wall (outer wall of the housing (16));
thermal insulation (24) between the inner wall and the outer wall (shown in figure 4);
within the inner wall, a volume occupied by a phase-change material (10); and
a thermal connection between the PCM and a heat load external to the latent heat battery (shown in figure 4). Kraft fails to disclose one or more surfaces of the multiple walls adjacent to the thermal insulation and not in contact with the PCM are coated with a low-emissivity material.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device with a vacuum gap between an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches one or more surfaces of the multiple walls adjacent to the thermal insulation (“The housing advantageously has at least one thermal insulation unit as a sheathing” ¶35, wherein the walls of the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside wall of the inner housing (8) contain the vacuum insulation (9)) and not in contact with the PCM are coated with a low-emissivity material (“a relatively favorable material is provided for the vacuum insulation unit or the housing. Losses resulting from heat radiation can be reduced by up to about 50% for example by an advantageous low-emission coating or surface layer with an advantageous material, such as preferably copper and/or e.g. silver, aluminum, zinc, etc. In principle, it is advantageous to use low-emission materials for the vacuum insulation unit” ¶47 and “Secondly, all surfaces which emit heat or come into contact with the vacuum should have the smallest possible emittance, in order to keep radiation losses as small as possible. To this end, such surfaces are preferably likewise electropolished and/or advantageously coated” ¶50). It is noted that the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside of the inner housing (8) form a gap that comprises a vacuum (9) for insulation purposes. Further, Hagel teaches that it is old and well known to situate a coating on the housing (9) in order to reduce emissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the housing of Kraft with one or more surfaces of the multiple walls adjacent to the thermal insulation and not in contact with the PCM are coated with a low-emissivity material, as taught by Hagel, the motivation being to “reduce emissions into the vacuum” (¶50), thereby reducing heat loss from the thermal storage device.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Kraft further teaches the insulation comprises vacuum (“The insulation can include, for example, pyrogenic silicon dioxide as thermal insulation. Other materials such as mineral wool, calcium silicate, ceramic fibers (for example, calcium magnesium silicates), mica, or even vacuum insulation can also be advantageously used” ¶30).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Kraft further teaches the inner wall comprises a ceramic material (“the housing 16 can be formed in particular from a fiber-reinforced ceramic material, for example silicon carbide”, ¶21).
Regarding Claim 5, a modified Kraft further teaches one or more of the multiple walls are composed of stainless steel (“a ceramic as a functional layer on a metallic substrate, for example, and/or graphite or graphite as a functional layer and/or surface-treated metals, for example, boronized stainless steel, and/or temperature-treated stainless steel and/or composite materials such as fiber-reinforced ceramics having a ceramic fiber” ¶ 22).
Regarding Claim 6, a modified Kraft further teaches the PCM is a eutectic aluminum silicon (AlSi) alloy (“The phase change material can advantageously comprise a metallic alloy or semi-metallic alloy having one or more of the components aluminum, silicon, copper, magnesium, boron, zinc, in particular an AlSi alloy, preferably AlSi12. Favorable alloys are eutectic alloys and intermetallic compounds, for example various silicides, in which the phase change takes place with the absorption or emission of latent heat ” ¶49).
Regarding Claim 7, although Kraft discloses the inner wall (inner wall of the housing (16)) defines an inner chamber (shown in figure 4, being the chamber confined by the inner wall of the housing), and the outer wall (outer wall of the housing (16)) defines an outer chamber (shown in figure 4, being the chamber confined by the outer wall of the housing and the inner wall of the housing), Kraft fails to disclose the latent heat battery is cylindrical.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device with a vacuum gap between an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches the latent heat battery is cylindrical (“an outer housing 3 with a cylindrical casing 4 and a base element 5” ¶73).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a polygonal latent heat battery with a cylindrical latent heat battery; further the prior art to Hagel teaches a cylindrical latent heat battery is known for storing latent heat energy. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Kraft with having a cylindrical latent heat battery, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Hagel there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Kraft by having a cylindrical latent heat battery in order to conform to a predetermined deployment area or to eliminate corners on the interior of the heat storage device.
Regarding Claim 8, a modified Kraft further teaches: a resistance heater that melts the latent heat material (“the heat introduction unit can have at least one heating device. In particular, the heating device can includes an electrical resistance heater or inductive heater”, ¶51).
Regarding Claim 9, Kraft discloses a housing (16) comprising multiple walls (shown in figure 4, being the inner wall and the outer wall);
a core volume (14) located within an inner wall, wherein the core volume is at least partially occupied by a phase change material (10); and
a thermal connection (shown in figure 4) between the phase change material (10) and a thermal load (56).
Kraft fails to disclose the latent heat battery is cylindrical and comprises multiple concentric walls.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device with a vacuum gap between an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches the latent heat battery is cylindrical (“an outer housing 3 with a cylindrical casing 4 and a base element 5” ¶73) and comprises multiple concentric walls (shown in figure 1, wherein the walls for the cylindrical casing (4) and the inner housing (8) are concentric).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a polygonal latent heat battery with parallel walls with a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls; further the prior art to Hagel teaches a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls is known for storing latent heat energy. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Kraft with having a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Hagel there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Kraft by having a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls in order to conform to a predetermined deployment area or to eliminate corners on the interior of the heat storage device.
Regarding Claim 10, although Kraft discloses a vacuum between the inner wall and an outer wall (Kraft states, “The insulation can include, for example, pyrogenic silicon dioxide as thermal insulation. Other materials such as mineral wool, calcium silicate, ceramic fibers (for example, calcium magnesium silicates), mica, or even vacuum insulation can also be advantageously used” ¶30), Kraft fails to disclose a low-emissivity coating on a surface of the inner wall not in contact with the PCM.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches a vacuum (9) between the inner wall (8) and an outer (4) wall (shown in figure 1, “The housing advantageously has at least one thermal insulation unit as a sheathing” ¶35, wherein the walls of the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside wall of the inner housing (8) contain the vacuum insulation (9)) and a low-emissivity coating on a surface of the inner wall not in contact with the PCM (“a relatively favorable material is provided for the vacuum insulation unit or the housing. Losses resulting from heat radiation can be reduced by up to about 50% for example by an advantageous low-emission coating or surface layer with an advantageous material, such as preferably copper and/or e.g. silver, aluminum, zinc, etc. In principle, it is advantageous to use low-emission materials for the vacuum insulation unit” ¶47 and “Secondly, all surfaces which emit heat or come into contact with the vacuum should have the smallest possible emittance, in order to keep radiation losses as small as possible. To this end, such surfaces are preferably likewise electropolished and/or advantageously coated” ¶50). It is noted Hagel teaches that it is old and well known to situate a coating on the housing (9) in order to reduce emissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the housing of Kraft with a low-emissivity coating on a surface of the inner wall not in contact with the PCM, as taught by Hagel, the motivation being to “reduce emissions into the vacuum” (¶50), thereby reducing heat loss from the thermal storage device.
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Kraft further teaches one or more of the inner wall and the outer wall are composed of a ceramic material (“the housing 16 can be formed in particular from a fiber-reinforced ceramic material, for example silicon carbide”, ¶21).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Kraft further teaches one or more of the inner wall and the outer wall are composed of stainless steel (“a ceramic as a functional layer on a metallic substrate, for example, and/or graphite or graphite as a functional layer and/or surface-treated metals, for example, boronized stainless steel, and/or temperature-treated stainless steel and/or composite materials such as fiber-reinforced ceramics having a ceramic fiber” ¶ 22).
Regarding Claim 14, a modified Kraft further teaches the thermal load comprises one or more of:
a heat distributor (“The use of thermal energy stores based on metallic phase change materials is known from the literature. These are predominantly located in the field of application of solar thermal power plants. Further applications are in the field of storage furnaces for building heating, in the field of conventional steam power plants (coal-fired power plant, nuclear power plant), for use in catalytic converters in vehicles having internal combustion engines, for use in thermoelectric generators in vehicles having internal combustion engines, and in the field of heat reclamation in steel production”, ¶2).
A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed, regarding “a thermoelectric generator; a heat engine; a heat distributor; a water heater; a food-preparation device; a drying device; and an absorption heat pump”, does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. Please see Section 2114 of the MPEP entitled Functional Language.
Regarding Claim 15, Kraft discloses teaches a method of using a latent heat battery (100), the method comprising:
storing a phase-change material (“The phase change material can advantageously comprise a metallic alloy or semi-metallic alloy having one or more of the components aluminum, silicon, copper, magnesium, boron, zinc, in particular an AlSi alloy, preferably AlSi12. Favorable alloys are eutectic alloys and intermetallic compounds, for example various silicides, in which the phase change takes place with the absorption or emission of latent heat ” ¶49) within a void defined by an inner wall (inner wall of the housing (16)) of the LHB (shown in figure 1); and
alternately charging and discharging the LHB (“During the charging of a heat store based on metallic phase change materials, the temperature in the storage material first rises and then, when the melting temperature is reached, the storage material melts. During the heating of the storage material, the storage material present in the solid phase expands, and during the melting process, it expands over the phase change. During the discharge, these processes take place in the opposite sequence” ¶11), wherein:
charging the LHB comprises heating the PCM to a melting temperature of the PCM (see ¶11); and
discharging the LHB comprises extracting latent heat from the PCM as the PCM freezes (see ¶11); wherein
the one or more surfaces of the multi-wall container are surfaces that are not in contact with the PCM (shown in figure 4).
Kraft fails to disclose coating one or more surfaces of a multi-wall container with a low-emissivity coating.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device with a vacuum gap between an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches coating one or more surfaces of a multi-wall container (“The housing advantageously has at least one thermal insulation unit as a sheathing” ¶35, wherein the walls of the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside wall of the inner housing (8) contain the vacuum insulation (9)) with a low-emissivity coating (“a relatively favorable material is provided for the vacuum insulation unit or the housing. Losses resulting from heat radiation can be reduced by up to about 50% for example by an advantageous low-emission coating or surface layer with an advantageous material, such as preferably copper and/or e.g. silver, aluminum, zinc, etc. In principle, it is advantageous to use low-emission materials for the vacuum insulation unit” ¶47 and “Secondly, all surfaces which emit heat or come into contact with the vacuum should have the smallest possible emittance, in order to keep radiation losses as small as possible. To this end, such surfaces are preferably likewise electropolished and/or advantageously coated” ¶50). It is noted that the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside of the inner housing (8) form a gap that comprises a vacuum (9) for insulation purposes. Further, Hagel teaches that it is old and well known to situate a coating on the housing (9) in order to reduce emissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the housing of Kraft with coating one or more surfaces of a multi-wall container with a low-emissivity coating, as taught by Hagel, the motivation being to “reduce emissions into the vacuum” (¶50), thereby reducing heat loss from the thermal storage device.
Regarding Claim 16, a modified Kraft further teaches the low-emissivity coating comprises silver (see ¶47 of Hagel).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Kraft further teaches the PCM comprises a eutectic aluminum silicon alloy (“The phase change material can advantageously comprise a metallic alloy or semi-metallic alloy having one or more of the components aluminum, silicon, copper, magnesium, boron, zinc, in particular an AlSi alloy, preferably AlSi12. Favorable alloys are eutectic alloys and intermetallic compounds, for example various silicides, in which the phase change takes place with the absorption or emission of latent heat ” ¶49 of Kraft).
Regarding Claim 18, a modified Kraft further teaches heating the PCM comprises powering a resistance heater located within the void (“the heat introduction unit can have at least one heating device. In particular, the heating device can includes an electrical resistance heater or inductive heater”, ¶51 of Kraft).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1), as applied in Claims 1-12 and 14-18 above and in further view of GB’883 (GB1596883A), hereinafter referred to as GB’883.
Regarding Claim 21, Kraft fails to disclose extracting latent heat from the PCM comprises receiving heat via a heat pipe in contact with the PCM.
GB’883, also drawn to thermal energy storage, teaches extracting latent heat from the PCM (“This invention relates to a latent heat storage apparatus containing as the storage medium a change phase material”) comprises receiving heat via a heat pipe (9) in contact with the PCM (shown in figure 2). GB’883 further states, “Auxiliary devices (e.g. electrically driven pumps) are therefore unnecessary when heat pipes are used” Pg 3 ll. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Kraft with extracting latent heat from the PCM comprises receiving heat via a heat pipe in contact with the PCM, as taught by GB’883, the motivation being to eliminate the requirement for auxiliary component such as pumps, thereby minimizing costs and required maintenance.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1) as applied in Claims 1-12, and 14-18 above and in further view of Ehret (USP 4200783A), hereinafter referred to as Ehret.
Regarding Claim 22, Kraft fails to disclose said charging of the LHB uses electricity from one or more renewable sources.
Ehret, also drawn to a thermal storage system, teaches charging of the LHB uses electricity from one or more renewable sources (“Electrical conductors 19 electrically connect the electrical resistance heating elements through the junction box 18 to an electrical generating device such as the solar cell units 20 which are located exteriorly of the house 11 and which receive and convert solar energy into electrical energy” col. 2 ll. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Kraft with charging of the LHB uses electricity from one or more renewable sources, as taught by Ehret, the motivation being to convert solar energy to hot water or domestic heating purposes, therefore minimizing power costs or dependency on a power grid.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1) as applied in Claims 1-12, and 14-18 above and in further view of Telkes (USP 2808494A), hereinafter referred to as Telkes.
Regarding Claim 23, Kraft fails to disclose said charging of the LHB uses electricity from one or more non-renewable sources.
Telkes, also drawn to a thermal storage system, teaches charging of the LHB uses electricity from one or more non-renewable sources (“Assuming that the system has been installed and that the heating season is at hand, switch 29 is closed. There- after, due to the operation of time switch 22, electrical energy will be available for heating the heat storage material during those periods when "off peak" electricity rates apply” col. 4 ll. 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Kraft with charging of the LHB uses electricity from one or more non-renewable sources, as taught by Ehret, the motivation being to maintain a desired level of heat storage by utilizing consistent and readily available energy, therefore maximizing the output for the heat storage system.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraft et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0140947A1) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1) as applied in Claims 1-12, and 14-18 above and in further view of Vesin et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0228815A1), hereinafter referred to as Vesin.
Regarding Claim 24, Kraft fails to disclose occupying a portion of the void not occupied by the PCM with an inert gas.
Vesin, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches occupying a portion of the void not occupied by the PCM with an inert gas (“A gas cloud may be formed at the free wall of the porous matrix, for example a cloud of an inert gas in the case where the PCM material is sensitive to oxidation in the operating conditions of the storage system” (¶105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Kraft with occupying a portion of the void not occupied by the PCM with an inert gas, as taught by Vesin, the motivation being to protect the PCM from oxidation and therefore mitigate against reduced thermal conduction, altered chemical structure or structural damage due to possible changes in expansion and contraction of the phase change material.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg (USP 4531511A) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1), hereinafter referred to as Hochberg and Hagel, respectively.
Regarding Claim 9, Hochberg discloses a latent heat battery, comprising:
a housing (12) comprising multiple walls (shown in figure 4, wherein the cabinet has an inner wall and an outer wall);
a core volume (13) located within an inner wall, wherein the core volume is at least partially occupied by a phase change material (“the interior chamber of the invention is filled with a heat storage material that has a high heat storage capacity, such as a eutectic salt hydrate or water” col. 11 ll. 11-14); and
a thermal connection (15) between the phase change material and a thermal load (shown in figure 4).
Hochberg fails to disclose the latent heat battery is cylindrical and comprises multiple concentric walls.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device, teaches the latent heat battery is cylindrical (“an outer housing 3 with a cylindrical casing 4 and a base element 5” ¶73) and comprises multiple concentric walls (shown in figure 1, wherein the walls for the cylindrical casing (4) and the inner housing (8) are concentric).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting a polygonal latent heat battery with parallel walls with a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls; further the prior art to Hagel teaches a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls is known for storing latent heat energy. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Kraft with having a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Hagel there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Kraft by having a cylindrical latent heat battery with multiple concentric walls in order to conform to a predetermined deployment area or to eliminate corners on the interior of the heat exchange device.
Regarding Claim 13, a modified Hochberg further teaches an aperture in a top surface of the latent heat battery (shown in figure 4 of Hochberg being the opening containing the cover (10)), wherein the aperture comprises a transparent heat mirror (see col. 10 ll. 25-40, wherein Hochberg contemplates a heat mirror for the “vacuum window”, Hochberg further states, “For windows, coatings are available such as Low E Glass, developed by Airco Temescal, Berkeley, Calif. Low E Glass reduces the emittance of the glass but permits transmission of visible light. Also, Southwall Corporation, Palo Alto, Calif., manufactures a film known as Heat Mirror which is placed in the space between two pieces of insulating glass” (col. 8 ll. 27-34) and “The use of the vacuum wall for the cabinet and the vacuum window for the light transmitting cover, provides a superior form of insulation that does not limit the size of the actual solar radiant energy collector” col. 12 ll. 58-62).
Claims 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodall (USP 4316048A) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1), hereinafter referred to as Woodall and Hagel, respectively.
Regarding Claim 15, Woodall discloses a method of using a latent heat battery (shown in figure 4), the method comprising:
storing a phase-change material (23) within a void defined by an inner wall (inner wall of the storage tank (30)) of the LHB (shown in figure 1); and
alternately charging and discharging the LHB, wherein:
charging the LHB comprises heating the PCM to a melting temperature of the PCM; and discharging the LHB comprises extracting latent heat from the PCM as the PCM freezes (“Such a material will melt at a constant temperature during the absorption of energy and will freeze at the same constant temperature during the emission of energy” col. 2 ll. 27-31); wherein
the one or more surfaces of the multi-wall container are surfaces that are not in contact with the PCM (“the material of the container 4 will probably be of a refractory type such as boron nitride or aluminum oxide and may, in turn, be further surrounded by a reflective evacuated chamber, not shown” col. 5 ll. 29-33).
Woodall fails to disclose coating one or more surfaces of a multi-wall container with a low-emissivity coating.
Hagel, also drawn to a thermal storage device with a vacuum gap between an inner chamber and an outer chamber, teaches coating one or more surfaces of a multi-wall container (“The housing advantageously has at least one thermal insulation unit as a sheathing” ¶35, wherein the walls of the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside wall of the inner housing (8) contain the vacuum insulation (9)) with a low-emissivity coating (“a relatively favorable material is provided for the vacuum insulation unit or the housing. Losses resulting from heat radiation can be reduced by up to about 50% for example by an advantageous low-emission coating or surface layer with an advantageous material, such as preferably copper and/or e.g. silver, aluminum, zinc, etc. In principle, it is advantageous to use low-emission materials for the vacuum insulation unit” ¶47 and “Secondly, all surfaces which emit heat or come into contact with the vacuum should have the smallest possible emittance, in order to keep radiation losses as small as possible. To this end, such surfaces are preferably likewise electropolished and/or advantageously coated” ¶50). It is noted that the cylindrical casing (4) and the outside of the inner housing (8) form a gap that comprises a vacuum (9) for insulation purposes. Further, Hagel teaches that it is old and well known to situate a coating on the housing (9) in order to reduce emissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the housing of Woodall with coating one or more surfaces of a multi-wall container with a low-emissivity coating, as taught by Hagel, the motivation being to “reduce emissions into the vacuum” (¶50), thereby reducing heat loss from the thermal storage device.
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Woodall further teaches heating the PCM (23) comprises focusing (21) solar radiation on the PCM through a window (shown in figure 4, wherein the member (25) covers the absorber (22) and forms the window).
Regarding Claim 20, a modified Woodall further teaches window comprises a heat mirror (25).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodall (USP 4316048A) in view of Hagel et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0241120A1), as applied in Claims 15 and 19-20 above and in further view of Bliesner (WO2011105989A2), hereinafter referred to as Bliesner.
Regarding Claim 21, Woodall fails to disclose extracting latent heat from the PCM comprises receiving heat via a heat pipe in contact with the PCM.
Bliesner, also drawn to thermal energy storage, teaches extracting latent heat from the PCM (1) comprises receiving heat via a heat pipe (21) in contact with the PCM (shown in figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Woodall with extracting latent heat from the PCM comprises receiving heat via a heat pipe in contact with the PCM, as taught by Bliesner, the motivation being to implement a passive and constant means to extract heat from the thermal storage for processes such as electricity production, thereby eliminating the need for flow driving components such as pumps, fans etc.., that require regular maintenance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
