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 .
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.
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(s) 40, 43-46, 53-54, and 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawlings (US 5,339,890) in view of Kim (KR 10-0675257).
In Reference to Claim 40
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
Rawlings discloses:
A system for heat exchange, comprising:
a first tube (42) formed of a flexible material (See Rawlings, Claim 1 w/respect to flexible plastic);
a second tube (60) arranged concentrically within the first tube (42) (See Rawlings, Claim 1 & Column 5, Lines 5-11 & Lines 35-38); and
a manifold (50).
Rawlings discloses the claimed invention except:
an adapter, wherein the first and second tubes are accessible via the adapter and removable through the adapter.
Kim discloses an in ground heat exchanger device. (See Kim, Paragraph [0001]). Kim discloses an adapter with access hatch below the ground surface for tube access. (See Kim, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the adapter of Kim in the device of Rawlings, as both references are directed towards in ground heat exchanger devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manhole hatch and well access would have provided means for inspection and maintenance of the tubes and/or pipe connections improving the lifespan and reducing overall costs. (See Kim, Paragraph [0009]).
In Reference to Claim 43
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein the adapter is a subsurface adapter located at least partially below a ground surface, the first and second tubes are installed below the ground surface, and wherein the first and second tubes are both physically accessible and fluidly accessible from the ground surface. (See Kim, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the adapter of Kim in the device of Rawlings, as both references are directed towards in ground heat exchanger devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manhole hatch and well access would have provided means for inspection and maintenance of the tubes and/or pipe connections improving the lifespan and reducing overall costs. (See Kim, Paragraph [0009]).
In Reference to Claim 44
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein a width of the first tube (42) is between 2-3 times as wide as a width of the second tube (60), or wherein the first tube (42) has a diameter from 6-8 inches and the inner tube (42) has a diameter from 2-4 inches. (See Rawlings, Column 6, Lines 24-39).
In Reference to Claim 45
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Further comprising: lateral piping (22,24,26,28). (See Rawlings, Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 9).
In Reference to Claim 46
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein the adapter (50) provides a subsurface fluid connection between the first tube (42) and the lateral piping (22,24,26,28) and between the second tube (60) and the lateral piping (22,24,26,28). (See Rawlings, Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 9 & Column 4, Lines 48-54 & See Kim, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the adapter of Kim in the device of Rawlings, as both references are directed towards in ground heat exchanger devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manhole hatch and well access would have provided means for inspection and maintenance of the tubes and/or pipe connections improving the lifespan and reducing overall costs. (See Kim, Paragraph [0009]).
The Examiner notes that manifold (50) of the Rawlings-Kim combination is included as a part of the adapter device.
In Reference to Claim 53
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein the adapter (50) is connected to the top of the first tube (42) and the top of the second tube (60) to form a water-tight seal to the first (42) and second (60) tubes. (See Rawlings, Column 3, Lines 58-64 & Column 4, Lines 48-54 & See Kim, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the adapter of Kim in the device of Rawlings, as both references are directed towards in ground heat exchanger devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manhole hatch and well access would have provided means for inspection and maintenance of the tubes and/or pipe connections improving the lifespan and reducing overall costs. (See Kim, Paragraph [0009]).
The Examiner notes that manifold (50) of the Rawlings-Kim combination is included as a part of the adapter device.
In Reference to Claim 54
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein the adapter comprises an outer shell, wherein the outer shell has a first fluid port and a second fluid port. (See Kim, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the adapter of Kim in the device of Rawlings, as both references are directed towards in ground heat exchanger devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manhole hatch and well access would have provided means for inspection and maintenance of the tubes and/or pipe connections improving the lifespan and reducing overall costs. (See Kim, Paragraph [0009]).
The Examiner notes that the access pit of Kim includes openings for both inlet and outlet piping. (See Kim, Figure 2).
In Reference to Claim 58
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
A plurality of interconnected ground heat exchangers (36,38,40) according to claim 40. (See Claim 40 rejection above).
In Reference to Claim 59
(See Rawlings, Figures 1-9)
The Rawlings-Kim combination discloses:
Further comprising: a fluid distribution and control unit (20); and a plurality of pipes (22,24,26,28) interconnecting the plurality of ground heat exchangers (36,38,40) with the distribution and control unit (20). (See Rawlings, Column 3, Line 65 – Column 4, Line 9).
The Examiner notes that the pump of Rawlings constitutes a distribution and control unit as it distributes and controls the rate of fluid flow.
Claim(s) 40, 42, 49, 51-52, 55, and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 2012/0090807) in view of Kim (KR 10-0675257).
In Reference to Claim 40
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
Stewart et al. (Stew) discloses:
A system for heat exchange, comprising:
a first tube (302) formed of a flexible material (See Stew, Paragraphs [0111]-[0112] & [0137]-[0138]);
a second tube (304) arranged concentrically within the first tube (302) (See Stew, Paragraphs [0111]-[0112]);
an adapter (400,401), wherein the first (302) and second (304) tubes are accessible via the adapter (400,401). (See Stew, Paragraph [0119]).
The Examiner notes that the outer tube is made of a material (including PVC) which may be coiled and delivered in curved boreholes thus constituting a ‘flexible material’. (See Stew, Paragraph [0138]).
Rawlings discloses the claimed invention except:
The adapter including the function of the first and second tubes are accessible via the adapter and removable through the adapter.
Kim discloses an in ground heat exchanger device. (See Kim, Paragraph [0001]). Kim discloses an adapter with access hatch below the ground surface for tube access. (See Kim, Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to used the adapter of Kim in the device of Rawlings, as both references are directed towards in ground heat exchanger devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the manhole hatch and well access would have provided means for inspection and maintenance of the tubes and/or pipe connections improving the lifespan and reducing overall costs. (See Kim, Paragraph [0009]).
In Reference to Claim 42
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
One or more centralizers or turbulators (318). (See Stew, Paragraph [0112]).
In Reference to Claim 49
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein at least one of the first (302) and second (304) tubes is vertically segmented by a partition (318) to form an upper heat exchanging region and a lower heat exchanging region. (See Stew, Paragraph [0112]).
The Examiner notes that centralizer 318 constitutes a partition separating an upper and lower region of the heat exchanger in the outer tube 302.
In Reference to Claim 51
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
Further comprising:
A control valve (402),
Wherein the control valve (402) has a first setting that restricts fluid flow to the upper region, and a second setting that enables fluid flow in the lower region. (See Stew, Paragraphs [0119]-[0120]).
The Examiner notes that the control valves (402) of Stew control delivery and stoppage of flow to the entire heat exchanger and thus include positions which enable flow to both regions and disable flow to both regions.
In Reference to Claim 52
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
Wherein the flexible material comprises PVC in combination with one or more plies of a material wrap. (See Stew, Paragraphs [0137]-[0138]).
In Reference to Claim 55
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
Where in the adapter (400) comprises: one or more sensor units (404,406,408) located within the adapter (400). (See Stew, Paragraph [0119]).
In Reference to Claim 61
(See Stewart, Figures 1-16)
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
further comprising: an outer casing (308), wherein the adapter (400) is attached to the outer casing (308) and the first (302) and second tubes (304) are concentrically arranged within the outer casing (308). (See Stew, Paragraph [0111]).
Claim(s) 41 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 2012/0090807) in view of Kim (KR 10-0675257) further in view of Broder (US 2015/0068740).
In Reference to Claim 41
The Stew-Kim combination discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the first tube is radially collapsable and expandable.
Broder discloses a coaxial borehole heat exchanger. (See Broder, Abstract). Broder discloses a flexible heat exchanger which is radially collapsable and expandable. (See Broder, Paragraphs [0045]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replace the coaxial heat exchangers of Stew with the coaxial heat exchangers of Broder, as both references are directed towards coaxial ground heat exchanger systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the heat exchanger or Broder would not require a filler layer within the borehole simplifying construction and reducing cost and complexity. (See Broder, Paragraph [0007]).
In Reference to Claim 47
The Stew-Kim combination discloses:
a ground bore hole having an outer wall. (See Stew, Paragraphs [0088]-[0089])
Stew discloses the claimed invention except:
Wherein the first tube is in direct contact with the borehole wall, and wherein the flexible material of the first tube conforms to the borehole wall.
Broder discloses a coaxial borehole heat exchanger. (See Broder, Abstract). Broder discloses a flexible heat exchanger which is radially collapsable and expandable conforming to the outer wall of the borehole. (See Broder, Paragraphs [0045]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replace the coaxial heat exchangers of Stew with the coaxial heat exchangers of Broder, as both references are directed towards coaxial ground heat exchanger systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the heat exchanger or Broder would not require a filler layer within the borehole simplifying construction and reducing cost and complexity. (See Broder, Paragraph [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 50, 56-57, and 60 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest "wherein the partition comprises a ported inflatable packer.". Specifically, while inflatable packers are known in well bore systems for controlling fluid flow and mounting injection piping, the prior art cannot render obvious, without proper hindsight, a partition which forms upper and lower heat exchanging regions between either of a flexible first tube or second tube using an inflatable and ported partition. Additionally, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the adapter comprises: an internal spool assembly connected to a top of the second tube; and an independent sealing mechanism located below the internal spool assembly and connected to a top of the first tube”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 05 March 2026 with respect to claim 49 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Stewart fails to disclose “wherein at least one of the first and second tubes is vertically segmented by a partition to form an upper heat exchanging region and a lower heat exchanging region.”, the Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Stewart fails to disclose “wherein at least one of the first and second tubes is vertically segmented by a partition to form an upper heat exchanging region and a lower heat exchanging region”. Specifically, that the cited “fins” of Stewart do not provide any segmenting or partitioning. However, the Examiner notes that the fins of Stewart clearly extend across the heat exchanging flow path and thus provide a segmentation and partition of the heat exchanging flow path. The claims do not preclude the partition from permeability but instead merely require the partition segment a tube (i.e.-provide an element that denotes an upper heat exchange region from a lower heat exchange region). Additionally, Applicant argues that the “fins” of Stewart are previously relied upon for providing a different component and different feature. The Examiner notes a single feature may be able to perform multiple functions. Further, the Examiner notes that claim 49 does not depend from claim 42 and thus does not require that the “fins” of Stewart serve as both elements and provide both functions simultaneously.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bonner, Johnson, Winn, Guynn, Demko, and Lien show heat exchanger or in ground pipe connection devices within the general state of the art of invention.
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 MATTHEW THOMAS LARGI whose telephone number is (571)270-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 4:00 M-F.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/MATTHEW T LARGI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights