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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are 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. Regarding claim 1, The limitation of “ c) a heat pump heat exchange system… e) a fluid-to-ground heat exchange system” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear whether part (d) is missed out by a typo error or part (e) is a typo error of part (d). The part order in the claim are not in alphabetical order.
Furthermore, the limitation of “ iv) an evaporator heat;” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear whether applicant is claiming “an evaporator heat exchanger”.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation of “ the heat pump heat exchange system further comprises an evaporator heat exchanger” renders the scope of the claim indefinite since it is not clear whether “an evaporator heat exchanger” in claim 17 is an additional to “the evaporator heat exchanger”, or “evaporator heat” in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the evaporator heat exchanger" in line 25 and line 29 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether “the evaporator heat exchanger” refer to “evaporator heat”.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 17 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,193,377. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No.US 12,193,377. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between claim 1-16 and 19-20 of the application and claims 1-16 and 15-20 of the patent lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1-16 and 19-20 are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claims 1-16 and 19-20. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See Inr re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-16 and 19-20 are anticipated by claims 1-16 and 19-20 of the patent, they are not patentably distinct from claims 1-16 and 19-20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No.US 11778958B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference between claim 1-20 of the application and claims 1-13 and 15-20 of the patent lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1-13 and 15-20 are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claims 1-20. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See Inr re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-13 and 15-20 of the patent, they are not patentably distinct from claim 1-13 and 15-20.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula (US 2013/0299123A1) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2007/0295477A1) and Halloran et al. (US 11,022,345). Regarding claim 1, Matula discloses (figures 1 and 3-4 and paragraph 94) a greenhouse enclosure environmental control system comprising a multi-source ground-to-air heat transfer system comprising of an enclosure (12) comprising a roof, a floor (greenhouse 12 has a floor and a roof in figure 4), a vegetation (paragraph 94, broccoli, cabbage..etc) configured within the greenhouse; a heat reservoir having a heat reservoir medium (underground, paragraph 63) ; a heat pump heat exchange system comprising a heat pump comprising a condenser (100); a condenser heat exchanger (44); an expansion valve (104, paragraph 105); an evaporator heat exchanger (38); a compressor (34) configured to pump a refrigerant through the heat pump exchange system (paragraph 102); a fluid to ground heat exchange system comprising a ground loop coupled with the heat pump exchange system at 102 and comprising a ground loop conduit (20) extending through the heat reservoir (underground); and a ground loop pump (22,24); a thermal exchange fluid (paragraph 107 describes a primary fluid pumped from the hot well to the cold well) that is configured to be pumped by the ground loop pump (22,24) to flow through the ground loop conduit (20) and back to the heat pump heat exchange system; wherein in a cooling/dehumidification mode, the evaporator heat exchanger (38) produces a flow of cooled and dried air into the enclosure and the compressor heats the thermal exchange fluid flowing to the ground loop conduit, whereby the thermal reservoir medium is heated and the enclosure is cooled and dehumidified (cooling mode described in paragraph 110); and wherein in a heating mode, the evaporator heat exchanger produces a flow of heated air into the enclosure and the condenser cools the thermal exchange fluid flowing to the ground loop conduit, whereby the heat reservoir is cooled and the enclosure is heated. (heating mode describes in paragraph 107, the evaporator 38 now functions as a condenser to reject heat into the enclosure).
Matula does not disclose a reversible valve in a heat pump system. However, Matula discloses (paragraph 109) that the fluid flow and all circuit is reversible in the cooling mode relative to the heating mode. Furthermore, a reversible valve is well known element to be used in a heat pump to facilitate the reversal of the flow. Mueller et al. (US 2007/0295477A1) discloses (figure 4, paragraph 59) a heat pump system that has a reversible valve (28) for a purpose of creating appropriate heating or cooling circuit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Mueller’s teaching in Matula’s system for a purpose of creating appropriate heating or cooling circuit.
Matula does not disclose a hydration conduit that extends under the enclosure having a hydration outlet to dispense a hydration fluid to the heat reservoir medium to increase the heat transfer of the heat reservoir medium.
Halloran et al. (figure 1 and column 3, lines 22-25) teaches using a hydration conduit having a hydration outlet (hoses or soaker or sprinkler buried with the ground loop) to dispones a hydration fluid to the heat reservoir (ground) to keep it wet for a purpose of enhancing the heat exchange performance of the ground. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Halloran’s teaching in Matula’s device for a purpose of enhancing the heat exchange performance of the heat reservoir.
Regarding the limitation of “an evaporator heat exchanger that produces condensate water from a flow of air from the enclosure”, Matula discloses (paragraph 110 and figure 4) that the evaporator heat exchanger (38) collect heat from the air in the enclosure or to cool the air inside the enclosure. This process is capable of producing the condensate from the air since the hot air is cooling down, its dew point is also lower, which result condensation. This phenomena is well known in the heat pump system and a drain pan is known to use to collect the condensate under the evaporator. This phenomena is cited in reference to Muellers as well. (paragraph 57, in the cooling mode, under some ambient cooling conditions, condensate will form on the space heat exchanger, and a drip tray 56 is used to catch the condensate). Therefore, the evaporator (38) of Matula in some ambient cooling conditions as taught by Muellers, will produce condensate water from a flow of air from the enclosure.
Regarding claim 5, Matula discloses (figures 2 or 3) that the heat reservoir is configured at least partially under the floor of the greenhouse enclosure. (part of the well 16,18) is under the enclosure 12.
Regarding claim 7, Matula discloses (figure 6, paragraph 114) that the ground loop comprises a ground loop manifold comprising an inlet conduit (110) , an outlet conduit (112); a plurality of conduits (113) extend from the inlet conduit to the outlet conduit of the ground loop manifold.
Regarding claim 10, Matula discloses (figures 6 and 7) that the ground loop manifold is ground-loop mat (figure 7), wherein the plurality of the conduits (113) are coupled together by sheet (115).
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller and Halloran et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shelor (US 2015/0282440A1). Regarding claim 17, Matula, Mueller and Halloran do not disclose the greenhouse has a misting system configured to dispense a mist of water into the enclosure. Shelor disclose (figure 7) a climate control system of a greenhouse that has a misting system 700) for a purpose of generating fog or fine mist to help cool the interior of the green house and provide irrigation (paragraph 68). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Shelor’s teaching in Matula’s system for a purpose of generating fog or fine mist to help cool the interior of the green house and provide irrigation.
Regarding claim 19, Matula, Mueller, Halloran disclose that the evaporator (38) of the system produces condensate in some ambient condition (see rejection of claim 1 above) but it does not disclose that the misting system uses condensate water from the evaporator of the heat pump. Shelor discloses (figure 7 and paragraph 68) that in the greenhouse, a misting system (700) uses condensate water from the system for a purpose of utilizing condensate water for providing mist to the greenhouse. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Shelor’s teaching in Matula’s system for a purpose of providing mist to the greenhouse utilizing condensate water produced from the evaporator.
Regarding claim 20, Matula, Mueller and Halloran disclose that the evaporator (38) of the system produces condensate in some ambient condition, (see rejection of claim 1 above), but it does not disclose that the condensate water is used for irrigation of the vegetation within the green house. Shelor discloses (figure 7 and paragraph 68) that in the greenhouse, a misting system (700) uses condensate water produced from the system for a purpose of utilizing condensate water for providing irrigation to the green house. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Shelor’s teaching in Matula’s system for a purpose of utilizing condensate water for providing irrigation to the green house. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation (used for irrigation of the vegetation within the greenhouse enclosure) with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham,2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller et al and Halloran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krecke (US 2011/0005151A1). Matula , Mueller and Halloran substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation of the greenhouse enclosure has an exposed surface area with at least 25% windows. Krecke discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 42) a greenhouse (1) has an exposed surface area with at least 25% windows (3,4) made of glass for a purpose of allowing the sunlight into the enclosure so that vegetation inside the greenhouse can grow. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Krecke’s teaching in the combination of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of allowing sunlight into the greenhouse.
Claim 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller and Halloran as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Taraba et al. (US 2010/0294456A1). Regarding claim 6, Matula, Mueller and Halloran substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the ground loop is configured substantially under the enclosure, wherein at least 75% of the ground loop is configured under the enclosure. Taraba discloses (figure 1 and paragraph 34) a geothermal heat pump system (20) comprising a ground loop (26), which at least 75% of the ground loop (26) is configured under the enclosure (50) for a purpose of providing thermal energy to the enclosure with a minimum footprint of the entire system including the enclosure and the ground loop. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Taraba’s teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of providing thermal energy to the enclosure with a minimum footprint of the entire system. Regarding claim 14, Matula, and Mueller substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation the ground loop extends no more than 2 m under the enclosure. Halloran discloses (figure 1b, paragraph 17) a geothermal heat exchanger system that has a horizontal ground loop (14) buried under the ground, (below the enclosure) about 24 inches to 30 inches below the ground for a purpose of collecting thermal energy under the ground with less work of digging since the deeper the loop was buried the more digging work is required. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to use Halloran’s teaching in the combination device of Matula and Mueller for a purpose of collecting thermal energy under the ground with less work of digging.
Claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller and Halloran as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Biggs et al. (US 8,529,156B2). Regarding claims 9 and 11, Matula, Mueller and Halloran substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that ground loop conduit or ground loop mat extends within 20 degrees of horizontal. Biggs discloses (figure 2 and column 25) a geothermal system that has the bore hole (36) for containing the ground loop as well as ground mat within to be angled within 20 degrees of horizontal line 18 under the ground (17-19 degrees, see paragraph 25) for a purpose of optimizing the horizontal distance within the lot upon which the facility is located. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Biggs’ teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of optimizing the horizontal distance within the lot upon which the facility is located. Regarding claim 12, Matula discloses (figure 6) a ground loop comprises a first ground loop mat but silence about additional ground loop mat. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the second ground loop mat since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art St. Regis Paper Co. V Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, it is obvious that the more number of ground loop mat, the more heat capacity it can transfer but also the more expensive the system will be. Therefore, it is just a tradeoff between the performance and the cost of the system, which is obvious for a user to have a second ground loop mat similar to the first ground loop mat as needed for thermal performance.
Claims 9,11, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maluta, Mueller and Halloran as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lambert (US 5,634,515). Regarding claim 9, Matula, Mueller and Halloran substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that ground loop conduit or ground loop mat extends within 20 degrees of horizontal line. Lambert discloses (figure 16 and column 6, lines 54-58) a geothermal system that has the bore hole (36) for containing the ground loop as well as ground mat within to be angled within 20 degrees of horizontal line under the ground (5 to 15 degrees, see column 6, lines 54-58) for a purpose of optimizing the horizontal distance within the lot upon which the facility is located and eliminating any dangerous, costly and deep hole (column 11, lines 27-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lambert’ teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of optimizing the horizontal distance within the lot upon which the facility is located and eliminating any dangerous, costly and deep hole. Regarding claim 12, Matula discloses (figure 6) a ground loop comprises a first ground loop mat but silence about additional ground loop mat. Lambert discloses (figure 16) that the ground heat exchanger includes two group of identical heat exchanger ground loop or mat at an angle between 5-15 degrees (see, column 6, lines 54-58 and figures 16A,16b) for a purpose of increasing the heat transfer capacity of the ground heat exchanger. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Lambert’s teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of increasing the heat transfer capacity of the ground heat exchanger.
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the second ground loop mat since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art St. Regis Paper Co. V Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Furthermore, it is obvious that the more number of ground loop mat, the more heat capacity it can transfer but also the more expensive the system will be. Therefore, it is just a tradeoff between the performance and the cost of the system, which is obvious for a user to have a second ground loop mat similar to the first ground loop mat as needed for thermal performance.
Regarding claim 13, Matula, Mueller and Halloran do not disclose that the first and second ground loop mats extends no more than 4m under the enclosure. Lambert discloses (figure 16a, b, column 6, lines 50-51) that the ground loop mats (90) can descend at an angle of 5 to 15 degrees to 8 to 18 feet (about 2.4m to 5.5 m) which overlapped with the claimed range less than 4m for a purpose of avoiding dangerous, costly and deep trenches. Applicant does not disclose any criticality or any unexpected result for the deep of less than 4 m. It appears that the depth of the ground loop depends on the location of the system and the intended use of the system. If the geothermal system is located in the cold climate area, the depth of the ground loop can be greater since the frost line is deeper.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller and Halloran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2018/0209694A1). Regarding claim 8, Matula, Mueller and Halloran disclose substantially all of applicant’s invention as discussed above except for the limitation that the ground loop comprises at least 20 extension conduits. Gordon discloses (figures 1,4 and paragraph 80) that the ground loop (400) comprises at least 20 conduits (between 75 to 125) in one embodiment for a purpose of achieving desired thermal exchange efficiencies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Gordon’s teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of achieving thermal exchange efficiencies.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller and Halloran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snider et al. (US 2020/0370804A1). Matula, Mueller and Halloran substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that a heat pump further comprises a reheat coil (claim 3) that heats a flow of air from the evaporator to produce the flow of heated air into the enclosure (claim 4) Snider discloses (figure 4 and paragraph 46) that a reheat coil (paragraph 46) may be located downstream of the evaporator (80) for a purpose of reheating the supply air stream when the supply air stream (98) is overcooled to remove humidity from the supply airstream before the supply air stream is directed to the enclosure (building). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Snider’s teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of reheating the supply air stream when the supply air stream (98) is overcooled to remove humidity from the supply airstream before the supply air stream is directed to the enclosure (building).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula, Mueller and Halloran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schulak et al. (US 6,484,794). Matula, Mueller and Halloran substantially disclose all of applicant’s claimed invention as discussed above except for the limitation that system comprising a fluid cooler to cool the thermal exchange fluid (claim 15) and a fluid heater to heat the thermal exchange fluid (claim 16). Regarding claim 16, Schulak discloses (figure 1, and column 2, line 67- column 3, line 3) a geothermal energy system that has a fluid heater (80) to heat the thermal exchange fluid (fluid flowing inside the ground loop) for a purpose of providing additional heat during periods when heat from the cooling system and ground is insufficient. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Schulak’s teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of providing additional heat during periods when heat from the cooling system and ground is sufficient. Regarding claim 15, Schulak further discloses a fluid cooler (54) installed underneath the floor, so that the thermal exchange fluid can give up the heat or be cooled by the floor for a purpose of preventing underfloor freezing and/or icing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Schulak’s teaching in the combination device of Matula, Mueller and Halloran for a purpose of preventing underfloor freezing and/or icing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parrella et al. (US 2015/0163965A1) discloses a system of managing cooling element.
Taraba et al. (US 2010/0294456A1) discloses a geothermal heat pump system.
Schulak et al. (US 6,484,794) discloses an energy transfer system.
Labrador (US 6,293,121B1) discloses a water mist blower.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THO V DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-4793. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 10-6PM.
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, Atkisson Jianying 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.
/THO V DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights