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 .
35 USC 103 rejections
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.
Claims 1-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2008/135100 A1 to PHOENIX METALL GMBH (hereinafter Phoenix) in view of US 2024/0093950 A1 to HOLTEC INTERNATIONAL (hereinafter Holtec).
Regarding independent claim 1; Phoenix discloses a solar energy system (paras [0003], [0017]) comprising: a thermal energy storage system comprising a vessel (1) forming an internal cavity (Fig 2; para [0103]); a partition structure (10, 22) dividing the internal cavity into at least two heat transfer cells (2) (Fig 2; para [0103] ("heat storage blocks 2 are placed at a certain distance, distance s, from each other"); each of the at least two heat transfer cells containing an inventory of a thermal mass composition (heat storage mass) (para [0103]); and a heat exchanger (17) disposed in each of the at least two heat transfer cells (Fig 2; para [0103]). Phoenix does not disclose each heat exchanger comprising a first tube bundle embedded in the thermal mass composition. However, Holtec, directed to a solar energy system (para [0014]), discloses each heat exchanger comprising a first tube bundle (210) embedded in the thermal mass composition (Fig 13; para [0007], [0075]). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the system of Phoenix in accordance with the teachings of Holtec SO as to include each heat exchanger comprising a first tube bundle embedded in the thermal mass composition, since it would optimize heat transfer (see Holtec para [0078]).
Regarding claim 2; Phoenix in view of Holtec discloses the system of Claim 1. Holtec further discloses that the first tube bundles of the heat exchangers are in fluid communication with a first common fluid source (Fig 29; paras [0077], [0095]); and wherein each of the first tube bundles of the heat exchangers can be independently isolated from the common fluid source while allowing the other ones of the heat exchangers to remain in operable fluid communication with the first common fluid source (Fig 29; paras [0073], [0092], [0095]).
Regarding claim 3; Phoenix in view of Holtec discloses the system of Claims 1-2. Holtec further discloses that each of the heat exchangers are independently operable (Fig 29; paras [0073], [0092], [0095]).
Regarding claim 4, because the added heat exchangers are independently operable, Phoenix in view of Holtec meets the limitations “wherein the thermal mass composition inside each heat transfer cell is operable to store heat and isolated from the thermal mass composition of the other heat transfer cells”.
Regarding claims 5-11, Phoenix does not disclose that wherein the vessel comprises an outer shell defining a sidewall, and a bottom closure plate coupled to a bottom end of the shell (claim 5), and wherein each of the at least two heat transfer cells is vertically elongated and formed by vertical cell walls which extend upwards from the bottom closure plate (claim 6). Holtec discloses the vessel 130 having a bottom 138, vertical cell walls 150 extend upwards from the bottom 138. It would have been obvious to provide a bottom plate in Phoenix as taught by Holtec for the purpose of ease of removing the cells if needed. Regarding claims 7-11, Phoenix does not disclose that the heat transfer cells have bottom ends abuttingly, engaged with the bottom closure plate of the vessel (claim 7), fixedly coupled to the bottom plate (claim 8), 90% of height (claim 9), polygonal and hexagonal shapes (claims 10-11). However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). It would have been a “routine optimization” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to provide direct engagement, fixed connection, 90%, and/or specific shapes as claimed in Phoenix for the purpose of ease of assembling/disassembling, and achieving equivalent power output based on the specifically set connections/percentage/shapes.
Regarding claims 12-15, Phoenix does not disclose that wherein each heat exchanger further comprises a second tube bundle embedded in the thermal mass composition in each of the at least two heat transfer cells, the second tube bundles each in fluid communication with a second common fluid source different than the first common fluid source (claim 12); wherein the first common fluid source comprises a first closed flow loop circulating a heated heat transfer fluid which heats the thermal mass composition in each of the at least two heat transfer cells, and the second common fluid source comprises a second closed flow loop circulating a working fluid heated via absorbing heat from the thermal mass composition (claim 13); wherein the first closed flow loop comprises a solar collector which heats the heat transfer fluid via sunlight, the working fluid changes phase in each heat exchanger from a liquid to steam via absorbing heat from the thermal mass composition, and the closed flow loop comprises a turbogenerator of a Rankine power generation system which receives the steam to generate electricity (claim 14); a plurality of radially extending support beams which support each heat exchanger in the at least two heat transfer cells in a vertically suspended manner from the partition structure (claim 15). However, Holtec discloses that the heat exchanger comprises exposed first (150) and second (210) tube bundles configured for embedment in the thermal mass composition (paras [0007], [0077]-[0078], [0106]- [0107]); the first tube bundle (150) configured to receive and circulate a heat transfer fluid heated by a solar collector of the solar energy system to heat the thermal mass composition (paras [0014], [0103], [0106]- [0107]); and the second tube bundle (210) configured to receive and circulate a working fluid which is heated via absorbing heat from the thermal mass composition (Fig 13; paras [0060], [0075]); note Holtec discloses a first closed loop connected with solar towers 104, and second closed loop connected with a Rankine cycle with turbine 102; Holtec also further discloses support frame including elements 136, 164 in figure 2. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the system of Phoenix in accordance with the teachings of Holtec such that the heat exchanger comprises exposed first and second tube bundles configured for embedment in the thermal mass composition; the first tube bundle configured to receive and circulate a heat transfer fluid heated by a solar collector of the solar energy system to heat the thermal mass composition; and the second tube bundle configured to receive and circulate a working fluid which is heated via absorbing heat from the thermal mass composition, since it would optimize heat transfer (see Holtec para [0078]). It would also have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to provide a supporting frame in Phoenix as taught by Holtec for the purpose of supporting the heat exchangers.
Regarding claims 16-17, 19, Phoenix does not disclose wherein a first end of each support beam is coupled to the heat exchanger and an opposite second end of the support beam is coupled to a top end of the cell walls of the at least two heat transfer cells (claim 16), and that wherein each of the at least two heat transfer cells is formed by a self-supporting transportable heat transfer module with a tubular structure formed by a plurality of the cells walls (claim 17); a baseplate coupled to bottom ends of the cells walls of each heat transfer cell, the baseplate configured to rest on a top surface of the bottom closure plate of the vessel (claim 19). However, according to MPEP 2144.05, II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION, A) Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation, note In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). It would have been a “routine optimization” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to mount the heat transfer cells in the specific manner as claimed in Phoenix for the purpose of ease of assembling/disassembling.
Allowable Subject Matter as Reasons for Allowance
Claims 20-22, 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In claim 20, the recitation of “wherein each heat exchanger comprises a stacked top header assembly including a first header defining a heat transfer fluid plenum fluidly coupled to the first tube bundle, and an adjacent second header defining a working fluid outlet plenum fluidly coupled to the second tube bundle, the heat transfer fluid plenum fluidly isolated from the working fluid outlet plenum,” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 1, is neither disclosed by a single prior art reference nor rendered obvious by a combination of prior art references. Thus, claim 20 and its dependent claims are allowable.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Donnell, Johnston, Choi, and Singh disclose solar system comprising thermal storage systems comprising many heat transfer cells.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Examiner Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4861. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday--Thursday from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Laurenzi, can be reached on (571) 270-7878.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HOANG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
HOANG NGUYEN
PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 3746
Hoang Minh Nguyen
3/18/2026