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 .
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.
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 11-23 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.
Regarding claim 11:
The limitation “slips” in line 11 is unclear. It’s unclear what is required structurally by this limitation. The specification fails to shed any light on what structure is required by this limitation and it is not a term recognized be one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, a review of the prior art provides no explanation of what structure is covered by this limitation For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that this limitation requires ports or perforations in the lateral tubing assembly.
Claims 12-20 and 22 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 11.
Regarding claim 21:
The limitation “slips” in line 12 is unclear. It’s unclear what is required structurally by this limitation. The specification fails to shed any light on what structure is required by this limitation and it is not a term recognized be one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, a review of the prior art provides no explanation of what structure is covered by this limitation For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that this limitation requires ports or perforations in the lateral tubing assembly.
Claim 23 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Furthermore, the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the plant is configured so that heat extraction is performed through direct contact between the at working fluid and the rock formation in the plurality of lateral heat absorbing branches, and wherein an upper part of the main wellbore is cased off by a surface casing to prevent inflow of external formation water into the return annulus” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 11; and
the prior art of record does not teach “wherein the plant is configured so that heat extraction is performed through direct contact between the working fluid and the formation in the plurality of lateral heat absorbing branches” as within the context of the claimed invention as disclosed and within the context of the other limitations present in claim 21.
Therefore, the prior art of record cannot anticipate Applicant' s claimed invention by a single reference nor render Applicant' s claimed invention obvious by the combination of more than one reference.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the claims:
The applicant has amended the claims in an attempt to overcome the previous claim rejections however the office is not persuaded. The applicant has amended the term from “open hole rockslips” to “slips” in an effort to overcome the previous rejection however this does not clarify what the structure of the “slips” is and the term is not well known in the prior art. Further, the applicant does not provide any arguments as to what the structure is and does not point to examples of this structure in the prior art. For these reasons, the above rejections are maintained.
Regarding the claim objections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims are persuasive and for this reason the previous objections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WESLEY HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to 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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights