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 Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because they contain extraneous language. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for distributing and/or converting energy” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites a “device for distributing and/or converting energy”. This language is indefinite because the use of the language “and/or” implies that both functions can occur simultaneously. In as much as claim 9 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the written description states that this “conversion” is via an electrical generator, and the “distributing” is direct, i.e., into a pool, a greenhouse, rec-center, etc. These functions could not occur at the same time; thus the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Publication Number WO 2020/197511 A1 (Longauer et al.).
As concerns claim 1, Longauer et al. discloses a drilling layout provided in a subsoil for a geothermal installation comprising a heat exchange unit comprising: [[-]] a central well 4 extending from [[the]] a surface of the subsoil; [[-]] a flank well 2 extending from the surface of the subsoil and comprising an inclined lateral portion; and [[-]] at least two separate drains 3 connecting said central well and said inclined lateral portion of said flank well, wherein said central well, said flank well and each of said drains are set out in [[the]] one same vertical plane (figure 1), a central intersection 6 between said drains and said central well and a lateral intersection 5 between said drains 3 and said inclined lateral portion 2 being separated from one another and [[the]] said drains opening inclined by an angle less than 45° with respect to [[the]] said inclined lateral portion (see the Abstract, discussing a gradient angle of 1 to 20 degrees, also see the illustration of figure 1).
As concerns claim 2, Longauer et al. discloses the drilling layout according to claim 1, wherein said central well 4 is vertical (figure 1).
As concerns claim 3, Longauer et al. discloses the drilling layout according to claim 1, wherein said central well comprises an upper vertical portion located above said drains, said upper vertical portion having a diameter greater than a diameter of each of said drains (this is not explicit in the disclosure, but appears to have this configuration, as the upper portion of the central well 4 appears to be cased, so the borehole would have a different diameter, see figure 1).
As concerns claim 4, Longauer et al. discloses the drilling layout according to claim 1, wherein said drains are drilled in a plutonic rock, or in a metamorphic rock (the claimed rock types are encompassed in the term “hot dry rocks”, see the Abstract).
As concerns claim 9, Longauer et al. discloses a geothermal installation comprising: a drilling layout according to claim 1; a system for pumping heat-transfer fluid to be heated into either the central well of said drilling layout or the flank well of said drilling layout (exchanging and pumping station 1, see 20:24); a system for recovering heat-transfer fluid heated from the other of the central well and the flank well; and a device for distributing and/or converting energy from the heated transfer fluid (Id.).
As concerns claim 10, Longauer et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a drilling layout in a subsoil comprising: drilling a flank well 2 comprising an inclined lateral portion from a surface of the subsoil; drilling a central well 4 from the subsoil surface; drilling at least two separate drains 3 connecting the central well and the inclined lateral portion of the flank well, wherein the central well, the flank well and each drain are drilled in one same vertical plane (figure 1), a central intersection 6 between the drains 3 and the central well 4 and a lateral intersection 5 between the drains 3 and the inclined lateral portion 2 are separated from one another and the drains opening inclined by an angle less than 450 with respect to the inclined lateral portion (as illustrated, see figure 1).
As concerns claim 13, Longauer et al. discloses the drilling layout according to claim 1, wherein said drains are drilled in granite (this is encompassed by the terminology “hot dry rock”, see at least the Abstract).
As concerns claim 14, Longauer et al. discloses the drilling layout according to claim 1, wherein said drains are drilled in gneiss (Id.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longauer et al., alone.
As concerns claims 6-8 and 15, Longauer et al. discloses the claimed configurations (see figure 1) but lacks to expressly disclose the claimed ranges for the angles and the distances, nevertheless it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the claimed distances and angles, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11-12 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as the claimed steps are not disclosed, taught or suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0245550 A1 (Sonju et al.) is drawn to a geothermal power plant for exploiting geothermal energy by circulating water or another fluid through a non-porous geological formation at a substantial depth below the earth surface, comprising multiple heat absorbing/production holes penetrating the said formation, with a total length of several kilometers and spaced more than 50 m apart. The production holes are connected to the surface by one single combined supply and return hole in which upward and downward flow is separated by a pipe comprising an insulating material and a seal. At the given positions of the common supply and return hole manifold zone designs connect the hole to the multiple production holes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G. SAYRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7045. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30-6:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at 571-272-5405. 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.
JAMES G. SAYRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3672
/JAMES G SAYRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights