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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse in the reply filed on 11/22/2024:
Geothermal Species G1 (Figure 1),
Flow Vector Species F1 (Figure 2),
Flow Ray Valve Species R1 (Figure 5), and
Loop Link Assembly Species L1 (Figure 20)
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 1/16/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-3 and 6 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 4, 5, and 7-15 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Based on the Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed 9/12/2023, this application has a priority date of 12/19/2011.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to because:
Page 7 Line 22 recites “A pair of O-rings 112 fit in grooves 113”, however “112” and “113” are not labeled in Figure 5.
Page 8 lines 17-26 recite “In another embodiment the upper torbulus 80 has a centrally located through hole 120 that receives a cylindrical magnet 122”, wherein hole “120” and magnet “122” are not labeled in the drawings;
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The applicant incorrectly asserts that they will delay drawing changes until the case is allowed. 37 C.F.R. 1.85 clearly states “objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (§ 1.135(c) )” (see MPEP 608.02(p)). Failure to submit replacement drawings may result in abandonment of the application (see MPEP 608.02(a)(I)).
The applicant has repeatedly failed to make the required drawing changes. The applicant must submit corrected drawings in the next communication in order to be considered responsive. Any further submittals that do not contain drawing corrections or other substantive corrective action will be considered non-responsive.
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 limitation invokes 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 9 recite “the second check valve being configured to receive a high and low pressure gas”, which is not described in the original disclosure. Accordingly, the limitation is new matter.
Claim 15 recites “the flow vector assembly does not include a reversing valve”, which is not described in the original disclosure. Accordingly, the limitation is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4, 5, and 7-15 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.
The term “high pressure” and “low pressure” in claims 4 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high pressure” and “low pressure” 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. It is unclear what pressure values are required in order to be considered high and low pressures.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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 4, 5, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiessel (US5937665, as previously cited).
Re Claim 4. Kiessel teaches a flow vector assembly for a heat pump system, the flow vector assembly (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; System comprises a reversing valve 54 to allow operation in both a heating and cooling mode, thus the assembly is for a heat pump system. The system comprises the reversing valve 54 and the flow vector assembly, which is all the other conduits and components outside of the reversing valve) comprising:
a first t-section (90) configured to receive a flow of liquid refrigerant (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17);
a solenoid valve (56) configured to receive the flow of the liquid refrigerant and one of allow the liquid refrigerant to pass therethrough or stop the flow of liquid refrigerant (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17);
a first check valve (62) configured to promote the flow of liquid refrigerant to the solenoid valve (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17);
a second check valve (60) configured to receive gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17);
the second check valve being configured to receive a high and low pressure gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17; The second check valve is capable of receiving different pressured gases. The claim makes no assertion as to what quantifiable pressures are considered high and low. As such, any variance in pressure at the second check valve can be considered a high and low pressure gas);
a second t-section (92) configured to flow the gas out of the flow vector assembly (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17),
wherein the solenoid valve is configured to operatively connect to a thermostat (30) and open in response to a cooling mode being activated (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; System comprises a reversing valve 54 to allow operation in both a heating and cooling mode; The presence of process limitations (i.e. modes of operation and control steps) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113).
Re Claim 5. Kiessel teaches when the solenoid valve is open the flow of the liquid refrigerant exits the flow vector assembly via the solenoid valve and when the solenoid valve is closed the flow of liquid refrigerant exits the flow vector assembly via the first t-section (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17).
Re Claim 7. Kiessel teaches the gas is a superheated gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17; It is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus, wherein the material (i.e. superheated gas) or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Specifically, MPEP 2115 states that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parteThibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Re Claim 8. Kiessel teaches the superheated gas is a superheated refrigerant gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17; It is noted that the claims are directed towards an apparatus, wherein the material (i.e. superheated refrigerant gas) or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Specifically, MPEP 2115 states that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parteThibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963))).
Re Claim 9. Kiessel teaches a flow vector assembly for a heat pump system (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; System comprises a reversing valve 54 to allow operation in both a heating and cooling mode, thus the assembly is for a heat pump system), the flow vector assembly comprising:
a first t-section (90) configured to receive a liquid refrigerant, the first t-section having a main line, a first branch line extending from the main line, and a second branch line extending from the main line (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17; The t-section would have three lines);
a solenoid valve (56) in fluid communication with the first branch line (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17);
a first check valve (62) in fluid communication with the second branch line (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17);
a second check valve (60) configured to receive a gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17); and
the second check valve being configured to receive a high and low pressure gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17; The second check valve is capable of receiving different pressured gases. The claim makes no assertion as to what quantifiable pressures are considered high and low. As such, any variance in pressure at the second check valve can be considered a high and low pressure gas);
a second t-section (92) in fluid communication with the second check valve (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17),
wherein when the flow vector assembly is operating in a cooling mode the solenoid valve is open, and when the flow vector assembly is operating in a heating mode the solenoid valve is closed Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; System comprises a reversing valve 54 to allow operation in both a heating and cooling mode; The presence of process limitations (i.e. modes of operation and control steps) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113).
Re Claim 10. Kiessel teaches the flow vector assembly is configured so that when the solenoid valve is open liquid flowing into the first t-section exits the flow vector assembly via the solenoid valve (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17).
Re Claim 11. Kiessel teaches when the flow vector assembly is operating in a cooling mode, the first t-section receives a flow of liquid refrigerant which passes through the first branch line and to the open solenoid valve and out of the flow vector assembly and the second check valve receives a gas which exits the flow vector assembly through the second t-section and wherein when the flow vector assembly is operating in a heating mode, the second t-section receives a gas which exits the flow vector assembly through the second t-section and liquid refrigerant passes through the first check valve and to the first t-section via the second branch line and out of the flow vector assembly via the main line (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; System comprises a reversing valve 54 to allow operation in both a heating and cooling mode; The presence of process limitations (i.e. modes of operation and control steps) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113.).
Re Claim 12. Kiessel teaches a heat pump system comprising: the flow vector assembly of claim 9 (as outlined above); a heat pump (12 is an air conditioner and 54 is a reversing valve, thus the system is a heat pump); a first conduit (conduit connected to 62) operatively connected to the heat pump and the first t-section to flow a liquid refrigerant; and a second conduit (conduit between 92 and the compressor 18) operatively connected to the heat pump and the second t-section to flow a gas (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-17).
Re Claim 13. Kiessel teaches when the heat pump system operates in a cooling mode the solenoid valve is open, the first t-section receives a flow of liquid refrigerant from the heat pump via the first conduit which passes through the first branch line and to the open solenoid valve and out of the flow vector assembly to a cooling coil which causes the liquid refrigerant to convert to a gas received at the second check valve which exits the flow vector assembly through the second t-section and through the second conduit to the heat pump and wherein when the heat pump system operates in a heating mode the solenoid valve is closed, the second t-section receives a gas from the heat pump via the second conduit which exits the flow vector assembly to a heating coil where the gas converts to a liquid refrigerant which passes through the first check valve and to the first t-section via the second branch line and out of the flow vector assembly through the first conduit to the heat pump (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; System comprises a reversing valve 54 to allow operation in both a heating and cooling mode; The presence of process limitations (i.e. modes of operation and control steps) on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. See MPEP 2113.).
Re Claim 14. Kiessel teaches a ground loop (50); a flow station (82a,b); a conduit (80a-81i) configured to flow a fluid from the ground loop to the flow station ;a conduct (66 or 68) extending between the flow station to the heat pump (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55).
Re Claim 15. Kiessel teaches the flow vector assembly does not include a reversing valve (Figures 1-2; Column 3 lines 52-Column 4 line 8, Column 5 lines 1-55; Applicant sets forth that the flow vector assembly is a sub-assembly of the heat pump system (as seen in applicants Figures 1-2). Thus, the heat pump system of Kiessel comprises the reversing valve 54 and the flow vector assembly, wherein the flow vector assembly of Kiessel is all the other conduits and components outside of the reversing valve. Thus, the flow vector assembly of Kiessel does not contain a reversing valve).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated on page 5 of the reply that “Applicant respectfully requests Examiner call Applicant's Representative (David M. Breiner, Reg. No. 61,336) at 515-242-2411 to discuss the rejections and potential claim amendments to place the application in condition for allowance.”. Requests for interviews should be made by the Applicant prior to submitting official responses to office actions so as to allow for any corrective actions to be incorporated into the filed response. Interviews after submitting official responses are of limited benefit since the applicant has not had time to review any response to arguments or any potential new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the request for interview is not granted.
Applicant states on page 5 of the reply that “Since such defects have no bearing on the patentability of the claims (as presently drafted) Applicant will provide replacement drawings when a notice of allowance is issued”. The applicant incorrectly asserts that they will delay drawing changes until the case is allowed. 37 C.F.R. 1.85 clearly states “objections to the drawings in a utility or plant application will not be held in abeyance, and a request to hold objections to the drawings in abeyance will not be considered a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action (§ 1.135(c))” (see MPEP 608.02(p)). Failure to submit replacement drawings may result in abandonment of the application (see MPEP 608.02(a)(I)).
Applicant states on page 5 that Claim 15 is supported by the original disclosure. However, there is no disclosure in the applicants’ specification that recites the limitations from the claim. The applicant points to Figure 2 as allegedly showing support for the limitation of “the flow vector assembly does not contain a reversing valve”. However, Figure 2 does illustrate a valve 54 and a reversing function for directing the fluid to either the cooling coil or the heating coil. Thus, from Figure 2, it is not entirely clear that it does not contain a reversing valve. Since the applicants’ written description fails to specifically state that the flow vector assembly does not include a reversing valve, the illustration of Figure 2 is not sufficient for support for the limitation. Accordingly, the limitation of claim 15 is new matter.
Applicant argues on page 6 of the reply that Kiessel fails to teach “the second check valve being configured to receive a high and low pressure gas”. The second check valve of Kiessel is capable of receiving different pressured gases. The claim makes no assertion as to what quantifiable pressures are considered high and low. As such, any variance in pressure at the second check valve can be considered a high and low pressure gas. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights