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 Species A (Figure 1) in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as filed in the submission dated 9/8/2026 are as follows:
Claims 1-51, 60, and 61 are cancelled by the applicant;
Claims 71-72 are newly added;
Claims 52-59 and 62-72 are pending and are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of India on 11/25/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202121054521 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/23/2024. These drawings are objected to.
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-12C still contain faint and hazy lines. The features of the figures and numerical reference characters are both hard to decipher, thereby rendering them unsatisfactory for reproduction (See 37 CFR 1.84(l) which states: “(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning”);
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 67-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 67-69 recite limitations already recited in amended claim 64. Thus, since the limitations were already recited in the parent claim, dependent claims 67-69 fail to further limit the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 52, 54-59, 62, 64, 66-69, 71, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuragi (US5024553, as previously cited).
Re Claim 52. Katsuragi teaches a geothermal apparatus (Figure 2) having a longitudinal axis (vertical in figure 2), the geothermal apparatus comprising (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68):
a heat exchanging fluid inlet (16) that is configured to receive heat exchanging fluid into the geothermal apparatus (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68);
a heat exchanging fluid outlet (15 or 11d) that is configured to conduct the heat exchanging fluid from the geothermal apparatus (Figures 1-3, 6; Column 3 lines 17-68); and
a plurality of heat exchangers (11 or 11c) fluidly positioned between the heat exchanging fluid inlet and the heat exchanging fluid outlet (Figures 1-3, 6; Column 3 lines 17-68);
a groundwater pump (9) that is configured to pump the groundwater by the plurality of heat exchangers (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68); and
a covering (Figures 1-2 illustrates a cover over the well 1), wherein the plurality of heat exchangers and the groundwater pump are received within the covering (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68);
wherein the geothermal apparatus is configured to be received within a borehole (1), and wherein the plurality of heat exchangers are configured to exchange heat between the heat exchanging fluid and groundwater in the borehole (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 64. Katsuragi teaches a geothermal apparatus (Figure 2) having a longitudinal axis (vertical in figure 2), the geothermal apparatus comprising (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68):
a heat exchangers unit (5) comprising a plurality of heat exchangers (11 or 11c), a groundwater pump (9) that is configured to pump the groundwater by the plurality of heat exchangers (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68); and a covering (Figures 1-2 illustrates a cover over the well 1), wherein the plurality of heat exchangers and the groundwater pump are received within the covering (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68); wherein the geothermal apparatus is configured to be received within a borehole (1), and wherein the plurality of heat exchangers are configured to exchange heat between a heat exchanging fluid flowing through the heat exchangers unit and groundwater in the borehole (Figures 1-3, 6; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 54 &66. Katsuragi teaches the plurality of heat exchangers are configured to cooperate to provide a thermal capacity determined by a system requirement (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68; The heat exchangers will have a given designed thermal capacity).
Re Claim 55. Katsuragi teaches a groundwater pump (9) that is configured to pump the groundwater by the plurality of heat exchangers (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 56. Katsuragi teaches an inlet pipe (10) that is configured to communicate the groundwater between the groundwater pump and the plurality of heat exchangers, wherein the inlet pipe is received within the covering (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68; Pipe 10 is within the interior of the covering).
Re Claim 57. Katsuragi teaches the groundwater pump is spaced from the plurality of heat exchangers along the longitudinal axis (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 58. Katsuragi teaches in a use configuration, the geothermal apparatus has a top end (top of 1), and wherein the plurality of heat exchangers are positioned between the groundwater pump and the top end along the longitudinal axis (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 59. Katsuragi teaches the geothermal apparatus is configured to be submerged within the groundwater in the borehole (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 62. Katsuragi teaches a first conduit (16) having: a first end (top of 16 within 1 in Figure 6) that defines the heat exchanging fluid inlet; and a second end (portion of 16 connected to 20a) in fluid communication with the plurality of heat exchangers; and a second conduit (11d) having: a first end (bottom of 11d) in fluid communication with the plurality of heat exchangers (11c); and a second end (top of 11d) that defines the heat exchanging fluid outlet (11d leads to the outlet of the geothermal apparatus, and thus defines the heat exchanging fluid outlet), wherein the second end of the first conduit is spaced from the first end of the second conduit along the longitudinal axis (Figures 4, 6; Column 5 lines 8-50).
Re Claim 67 Katsuragi teaches a covering (Figures 1-2 illustrates a cover over the well 1), wherein the plurality of heat exchangers are received within the covering (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 68, & 69. Katsuragi teaches a groundwater pump (9) that is configured to pump the groundwater across the plurality of heat exchangers, wherein the groundwater pump is received within the covering (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68).
Re Claim 71. Katsuragi teaches the covering surrounds the groundwater pump and the plurality of heat exchangers (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68; The well wall and the cover form the covering, wherein the pump and heat exchanger are contained within the covering).
Re Claim 72. Katsuragi teaches the covering surrounds the plurality of heat exchangers at a first position along the longitudinal axis, wherein the covering surrounds the groundwater pump at a second position along the longitudinal axis that is different from the first position, wherein, the covering has a first radial dimension perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at each of the first and second positions (Figures 1-3; Column 3 lines 17-68; The well wall and the cover form the covering, wherein the pump and heat exchanger are contained within the covering).
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.
Claims 53 & 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuragi (US5024553, as previously cited) in view of Gordon (US2018/0209694A1, as previously cited).
Re Claim 53 & 65. Katsuragi teaches the plurality of heat exchangers (11) but fails to specifically teach the plurality of heat exchangers are provided in a stacked arrangement.
However, Gordon teaches the plurality of heat exchangers (206, 208) are provided in a stacked arrangement (Figure 2; Paragraphs 73-74).
Therefore, in view of Gordon's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a stacked arrangement of the heat exchangers in Katsuragi in order to provide a modular system to achieve a desired thermal exchange capacity, thereby providing an adaptable system that potentially saves in manufacturing and assembly costs (Gordon Paragraph 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a stacked arrangement of the heat exchangers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a stacked arrangement of the heat exchangers, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI, C).
Claims 63 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuragi (US5024553, as previously cited) in view of Viernickel (US8434554B2, as previously cited).
Re Claim 63 & 70. Katsuragi teaches the geothermal apparatus (see above) but fails to specifically teach a filtration unit configured to filter the groundwater at the geothermal apparatus.
However, Viernickel teaches a filtration unit (“filter section) configured to filter the groundwater at the geothermal apparatus (Figure 3; Column 6 lines 7-18).
Therefore, in view of Viernickel's teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a filtration unit to Katsuragi in order to filter out suspended matter and pollutants, thereby preventing clogging of the system and damage to the pump (Viernickel Column 6 lines 7-18). Additionally, the use of filters is well-known and understood in the art, and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the reply that Katsuragi fails to teach a covering that receives the heat exchanger and groundwater pump. Katsuragi illustrates a cover over the well, wherein the groundwater pump and heat exchangers are within the well. Thus, Katsuragi teaches a covering that receives the heat exchanger and groundwater pump. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the reply that Katsuragi fails to teach the inlet pipe is received within the covering. Katsuragi illustrates the inlet pipe 10 within the interior of the covering, and thus reads on the claimed limitation. Therefore, the applicants’ argument is not persuasive.
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 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
