DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 7/31/2025 has been entered. Amended Claims 15, 19, 30 and 32 have been noted. The amendment has overcome the claim objections previously set forth - those claim objections have been withdrawn accordingly. Claims 15-16, 19-25, 28, 30, 32 and 45-52 are currently pending while Claims 45-52 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15-16, 19-25, 28, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metz (US 4,361,135) in view of Siemienczuk Tomasz et al. (EP 3358271 A1) (hereinafter “Tomasz”) (see attached original document for reference) and Lee et al. (KR 101338264 B1) (hereinafter “Lee”) (see attached original document and translation for reference).
Regarding Claim 15, Metz teaches of a heat management system (Fig. 1) comprising:
an underground fluid tank (16) configured as a heat storage reservoir (see at least Col. 2 lines 52-68 and Fig. 1);
a source of fluid (source of fluid from element (12) and/or the source of cold water entering the system as is shown via the flow arrowing entering the piping on the right-hand side of Fig. 1) having temperatures which differs from a ground temperature around the reservoir (as is evident from the ground temperature creating heat exchange through element (19) via temperature differential) (see at least Col. 3 lines 3-56 and Fig. 1); and
a fluid and heat transport network interconnecting said heat storage reservoir and said source of fluid (the fluid and heat transport network comprising the series of pipes shown in Fig. 1 that extend to and from tank (16) in addition to the “circulating pumps and valving” that are a part of the network but have been “omitted” from Fig. 1 for “simplicity”) (see at least Col. 3 lines 13-18 and Fig. 1).
Metz fails to explicitly teach that the fluid tank includes a high surface area tube external to the tank and winding along an outer shell of the tank, wherein the high surface area tube is connected to an inlet of said tank (Note that in light of the specification, a “high surface area tube” is being interpreted as a tube with a spiral shape.).
Tomasz discloses a relatable heating system (Fig. 1) that comprises a fluid tank (1) that includes a high surface area tube (5), with a spiral shape (see at least [0009] and Figs. 1, 5), external to the tank (1) that winds along an outer shell of the tank (as is shown in Fig. 1), wherein the high surface area tube is connected to an inlet (8) of said tank (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0009] and Fig. 1). Tomasz teaches that such arrangement, inter alia, facilitates “intensified heat exchange” (see at least [0007]-[0009] and Figs. 1, 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system taught by Metz by configuring the existing fluid tank to include a high surface area tube external to the tank that winds along an outer shell of the tank, wherein the high surface area tube is connected to an inlet of said existing tank, based on the teachings of Tomasz. Doing so would have intensified heat exchange occurring at the tank.
Furthermore, Metz (and Tomasz) fails to explicitly teach of a controller that is configured to control flow in said fluid and heat transport network to achieve a desired water temperature.
Lee discloses a relatable heating system (Fig. 3) that comprises an underground fluid tank (160) that is fed by a source of fluid (“water”) via a fluid and heat transport network (the fluid and heat transport network comprising the piping extending to and from tank (160) as shown in Fig. 3) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3). Lee teaches of a controller (150) that is configured to control all aspects of the system including flow in said fluid and heat transport network to achieve a desired water temperature (e.g., “15 °C”) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3). Lee teaches that such a controller enables easy control over the system such that a desired temperature can be reached as desired and such that “geothermal heat-cooling efficiency can be optimized” (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the system taught by Metz by implementing a controller into the system that is configured to control all aspects of the system including flow in said existing fluid and heat transport network to achieve a desired water temperature as is taught by Lee. Doing so would have provided means for easily controlling the system such that a desired temperature could be reached as desired and such that geothermal heat-cooling efficiency could be optimized. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16, Metz also teaches of an aboveground fluid and heat reservoir (14) (see at least Col. 2 lines 35-56 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19: Metz also teaches that said fluid and heat transport network includes a valve controlling fluid flow (“valving”) (see at least Col. 2 lines 35-56, Col. 3 lines 13-18 and Fig. 1 of Metz) and Lee, in the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee, also teaches that said controller (150) is configured to control a valve (“temperature control valve”) to selectively direct heat flows along said heat transport network (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3 of Lee). Thus, the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed (see the rejection for Claim 15 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Metz also teaches that said source of fluid includes at least one of a cold external fluid source (the source of cold water entering the system as is shown via the flow arrowing entering the piping on the right-hand side of Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 2 lines 35-68 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Metz also teaches that said source of fluid includes multiple sources of fluid at different temperatures (at least the relatively warmer source of fluid from element (12) and the source of cold water entering the system as is shown via the flow arrowing entering the piping on the right-hand side of Fig. 1) (see at least Col. 2 lines 35-68 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee also teaches that said controller that would be used in the combined apparatus controls heat flows between multiple sources of fluid and between each of said multiple sources of fluid and said reservoir (160) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3 of Lee and the rejection for Claim 15 above). Thus, the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee also teaches that said controller that would be used in the combined apparatus is configured to manage flow of the heat in the system to maintain the reservoir (160) at a preset target temperature (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3 of Lee and the rejection for Claim 15 above). Thus, the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 24, Lee also teaches that said target temperature is as close as possible to a preset target value for a specific application (such as right on the value) which uses water from said reservoir (e.g., “15 °C”) (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3 of Lee and the rejection for Claim 15 above). Thus, the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 25: Note that the limitation “wherein the specific application includes irrigation of a crop” constitutes an intended use of the claimed system that a prior art system must be merely capable of doing to fulfill. In the instant case, Lee, in the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee, teaches that the temperature may be “15 °C” which is possible to irrigate a crop with by virtue of (at least) “15 °C” being above freezing yet below boiling (see at least the bottom half of pg. 4 - the top half of pg. 5 and Fig. 3 of Lee and the rejection for Claim 15 above). Thus, the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Regarding Claim 28, Metz also teaches that fluid in said underground fluid tank (16) is at a first temperature (see at least Col. 2 lines 35-56 and Fig. 1) in addition to a second tank (14) used for storing another fluid (“water”) at a different temperature that is further from a geothermal equilibrium than said first temperature (a relatively warmer temperature - see at least Col. 2 lines 35-56 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 30, Metz also teaches that said heat transport network includes a network of interconnecting pipes (pipes comprising at least (20), (25), (30), (31), (23) as shown in Fig. 1) in addition to valves (“circulating pumps and valving” that are a part of the network but have been “omitted” from Fig. 1 for “simplicity”) (see at least Col. 3 lines 13-18 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 32, Tomasz also teaches that the high surface area tube (5) that would be used in the combined system has at least one characteristic of having a spiral shape (as is shown in Figs. 1, 5) (see at least [0009] and Figs. 1, 5), being directed along the shell of said tank (as is shown in Fig. 1) and encircling the tank (as is shown in Fig. 1) (see at least [0009], Figs. 1, 5 and the rejection for Claim 15 above). Thus, the combination of Metz, Tomasz and Lee would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 7/31/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
It is recommended that Applicant further amend Claim 15 to include additional structural elements and/or features (such as, for example, the elements and relative arrangement of those elements shown in at least Fig. 3 of the instant application) to endeavor to overcome the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mackler et al. (US 2015/0113987 A1) and Hoellenriegel et al. (US 8,096,293 B2) are considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8523. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/23/2025
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762