Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response to the amendment of 9/29/2025.
The restriction requirement of claims 1-22 is withdrawn since the claims are generic. The restriction of claim 23 remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 101860135 B1) in view of McCaughan (US 2007/0266722).
Cho discloses a system for heating and cooling, the system comprising: a structural foundation member 10 extending into a borehole 11; a heat exchange loop (including pipe 12) within the foundation member and interconnected with a heat pump 40 for providing heating or cooling to a destination by heat exchange with ground surrounding the foundation member. Cho does not disclose the system heats and cools a building. McCaughan teaches an inground system for heating and cooling a building [0034]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the system of Cho to provide heating and cooling to a building as taught by McCaughan, and the structural foundation member would form a part of a foundation of the building. Regarding claim 2, the system of Cho further comprising a phase change material (water) within the structural foundation member to absorb heat from of reject heat to fluid in the heat exchange loop (in pipe 12). Regarding claim 3, the phase change material has a melting point corresponding to a simulated annual maximum ground temperature (this applies when the phase change material is frozen and melts as the ground temperature rises). Regarding claim 4, the phase change material is contained in a space surrounding pipe 12 of the heat exchange loop (the inside space of the borehole 11. Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not disclose the phase change material being within a pipe surrounding the pipe 12, however, this modification would have been a matter of design choice since the prior art device will still carry out its intended tasks, because phase change material is already surrounding the pipe 12. Regarding claim 6, the phase change material is contained in a pipe spaced apart from the heat exchange loop (a pipe on the right side of pump 13, in which the pipe is the inlet to the pump). Regarding claim 7, since the phase change material flows through the entirety of the pipe 12, the phase change material is interposed between hot and cold legs of the heat exchange loop since the loop will become hot or cold depending on the ground temperature (for example, when the ground temperature is cold, both the right side and left side of the pipe 12 will be cold and the right and left sides are legs of the pipe). Regarding claim 8, the structural foundation member being a piling would have been a matter of design choice, since the prior art device will still function properly with the arrangement. Regarding claim 9, the structural foundation member being a caisson would also have been a matter of design since the structural foundation member of the prior art is underwater. Claims 10 and 11 would have been matters of design choice regarding the structure of the structural foundation member, and regarding claim 12, the addition of an additive to increase thermal conductivity would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since the pipe 12 is heated by the ground temperature. Claim 13 would have involved a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a system and their placements, which are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the prior art teaches a system comprising the recited structural limitations. Regarding claim 14, since the heat exchange loop is in the structured foundation member 10 and the member 10 is within the hole 11, the heat exchange loop is within the hole. Regarding claim 15, since phase change material is in the loop, the phase change material is in the hole. Regarding claim 16, the phase change material has a melting point corresponding to a simulated annual maximum ground temperature (this applies when the phase change material is frozen and melts as the ground temperature rises). Regarding claims 17-20, the recited methods would have involved steps involved before installation of the prior art system, which would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure the ground conditions can support the proper functions of the system. Regarding claim 21, pouring concrete would have been a matter of design choice. Regarding claim 22, the addition of an additive to increase thermal conductivity would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made since the pipe 12 is heated by the ground temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but, respectively, they are not persuasive. McCaughan teaches a heating and cooling system for cooling a building as stated above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the building would be above ground, and since the heating and cooling system is a part of the building, the system is also a part of a foundation of the building because it is attached to the bottom of the building (the building being above the ground and therefore above the system).
Since the election filed on 3/19/2025 was made with traverse, non-elected claim 23 must be cancelled by the Applicant if/when this case goes to allowance.
Conclusion
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 Davis Hwu whose telephone number is (571)272-4904.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner or 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 on 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.
/DAVIS D HWU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763