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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of Species C (Figures 3A-3B) in the reply filed on 12/1/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant notes that Species C should be defined as “cylindrical inner housing and cylindrical outer housing” instead of the previous identification of “conical outer housing” in the restriction requirement dated 9/30/2025. The applicant is correct, and Species C will be referred to as being drawn to a “cylindrical inner housing and cylindrical outer housing”
Claims 4-10, 15, 16, and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/1/2025.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 12/1/2025 are as follows:
Claims 1-20 are pending;
Claims 4-10, 15, 16, and 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration;
Claims 1-3, 11-14, and 17 are being examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Double Pipe Geothermal Heat Exchanger”, or something similarly descriptive.
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 limitations invoke 112(f).
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 1, 3, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagase (US4512156).
Re Claim 1. Nagase teaches a heat exchanger (Figure 1), comprising: an outer housing (1) defining an outer chamber (space inside between 1 and 2); an inner housing (2) disposed in the outer chamber, the inner housing defining an inner chamber (space inside 2), the inner chamber in fluid communication with the outer chamber via at least one opening (bottom of 2) at least partially defined by the inner housing; a first connector (10) in fluid communication with the outer chamber; and a second connector (12) in fluid communication with the inner chamber; wherein at least one of: the outer housing exhibits a generally conical shape (bottom portion of 1 comprises conical portion 3) or a truncated generally conical shape (Figure 1; Column 2 lines 6-46); or the heat exchanger further comprises at least one helical structure disposed in the outer chamber, the at least one helical structure extending at least substantially between the outer housing and the inner housing, a pitch of at least a portion of the at least one helical structure varies along at least a portion of a length of the outer housing (This italicized limitation is recited in the alternative and thus not required of the claim if the other alternative is taught by the prior art).
Re Claim 17. Nagase teaches a system, comprising: at least one heat exchanger (Figure 1), wherein the at least one heat exchanger includes: an outer housing (1) defining an outer chamber (space inside between 1 and 2); an inner housing (2) disposed in the outer chamber, the inner housing defining an inner chamber (space inside 2), the inner chamber in fluid communication with the outer chamber via at least one opening (bottom of 2) at least partially defined by the inner housing; a first connector (10) in fluid communication with the outer chamber; and a second connector (12) in fluid communication with the inner chamber; wherein at least one of: the outer housing exhibits a generally conical shape (bottom portion of 1 comprises conical portion 3) or a truncated generally conical shape (Figure 1; Column 2 lines 6-46); or the heat exchanger further comprises at least one helical structure disposed in the outer chamber, the at least one helical structure extending at least substantially between the outer housing and the inner housing, a pitch of at least a portion of the at least one helical structure varies along at least a portion of a length of the outer housing (This italicized limitation is recited in the alternative and thus not required of the claim if the other alternative is taught by the prior art); a pump (9); and at least one pipe (Figure 1 illustrates various piping interconnecting all the elements) fluidly connecting the at least one heat exchanger and the pump together; wherein the pump is configured to flow a fluid through the at least one pipe and the at least one heat exchanger (Figure 1; Column 2 lines 6-46).
Re Claim 3. Nagase teaches the inner housing exhibits a shape that generally corresponds to a shape of the outer housing (Figure 1; Column 2 lines 6-46; Pipe 1 generally corresponds to pipe 2).
Re Claim 13. Nagase teaches an insulating coating (4) disposed on at least a portion of the outer housing (Figure 1; Column 2 lines 11-14).
Re Claim 14. Nagase teaches an insulating material (5) disposed on at least a portion of the inner housing (Figure 1; Column 2 lines 11-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US4512156).
Re Claim 2. Nagase teaches the outer housing can be placed at various depths (Column 2lines 17-23) but fails to specifically teach a length of the outer housing measured from a top region of the outer housing to a bottom region of the outer housing is about 1 m to about 2 m. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a height of 1m to 2m in order to achieve a given heat transfer design, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a height of 1m to 2m, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV, A).
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US4512156) in view of Clancy (US2554661).
Re Claim 11. Nagase teaches the outer housing (Figure 1) but fails to specifically teach the outer housing includes one or more fins extending from at least one outer surface of the outer housing.
However, Clancy teaches an outer housing (20) includes one or more fins (25) extending from at least one outer surface of the outer housing (Figures 1-12; Column 3 line 63 to Column 4 line 6). Clancy teaches the benefit of the fins is to increase the heat transfer effectiveness between the outer housing and surrounding soil (Column 2 lines 10-43 and Column 3 lines 13-19). When Clancy is combined with Nagase, the resulting combination would be the fins of Clancy placed at the lower portion of pipe 1 of Nagase that is not covered by insulation material 4, thereby providing increased heat exchange at the desired depth in Nagase.
Therefore, in view of Clancy's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add fins to the outer housing of Nagase in order to increase the heat transfer effectiveness between the outer housing and surrounding soil (Clancy Column 2 lines 10-43 and Column 3 lines 13-19).
Re Claim 12. Nagase teaches the outer housing (Figure 1) but fails to specifically teach the outer housing includes one or more barbs formed in at least one outer surface of the outer housing.
However, Clancy teaches the outer housing (20) includes one or more barbs (25) formed in at least one outer surface of the outer housing. (Column 2 lines 10-43 and Column 3 lines 13-19; Column 4 lines 2-5 recites “Arms 25 are so constructed that they normally project upward and radially outward from pipe 20 in such a manner as to form a barb-like structure”. Thus, the arms 25 are interpreted as being barbs). When Clancy is combined with Nagase, the resulting combination would be the barbs of Clancy placed at the lower portion of pipe 1 of Nagase that is not covered by insulation material 4, thereby providing increased heat exchange at the desired depth in Nagase.
Therefore, in view of Clancy's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add barbs to the outer housing of Nagase in order to increase the heat transfer effectiveness between the outer housing and surrounding soil (Clancy Column 2 lines 10-43 and Column 3 lines 13-19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for other relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS C 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