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 Interpretation
Regarding the preamble, “[a] geothermal heating and cooling system comprising…,” to satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim (see MPEP 2111.02). It is noted this interpretation is not applied to the method of claim 15.
The recitation "made by a process comprising a) forming a polymer composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer and/or a propylene-based polymer into a tube and b) stretching the tube in the axial direction and in the peripheral direction to obtain the biaxially oriented pipe" is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Ueda (WO0021732A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda discloses a geothermal heating and cooling system (see abstract) comprising a conduit (buried pipe w/ water – Page 1) comprising a biaxially oriented pipe (biaxially oriented – Page 1) made by a process comprising a) forming a polymer composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer and/or a propylene-based polymer into a tube (polyolefin polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene – Page 5) and b) stretching the tube in the axial direction and in the peripheral direction to obtain the biaxially oriented pipe (via stretching apparatus of Fig. 1, see also Page 4).
Regarding claim 2, Ueda discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda further discloses the biaxially oriented pipe has an outer diameter of 25 to 250 mm (see 153 mm outer diameter – Page 9 & see MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claim 11, Ueda discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda further discloses
the ethylene-based polymer comprises a high-density polyethylene (HDPE – Page 5).
Regarding claim 14, Ueda discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda further discloses no crosslinking is performed on the tube obtained by step a) (non-crosslinked – Page 9).
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) 3-5, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (WO0021732A1) in view of Soliman (WO2020221876A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda does not teach the biaxially oriented pipe has an MRS value of at least 10.0 MPa at 20° C. over a period of 50 years.
Soliman teaches the biaxially oriented pipe has an MRS value of at least 10.0 MPa at 20° C. over a period of 50 years (see Page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to include the composition of Sioliman thereby providing the MRS value of at least 10.0 MPa at 20° C. over a period of 50 years, as it has been held obvious to provide a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4-5, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda does not teach the biaxially oriented pipe has an outer diameter of 25 mm to 63, or 25-35 mm and a ratio of the outer diameter to a wall thickness (SDR) of 11 to 20, or 15-20 and has a time to failure of at least 500 hours, according to the accelerated point load test in accordance with PAS1075:2009, Annex A3 at a hoop stress of 4 MPa and at a temperature of 90° C.
Soliman teaches the biaxially oriented pipe has an outer diameter of 25 mm to 63, or 25-35 mm and a ratio of the outer diameter to a wall thickness (SDR) of 11 to 20, or 15-20 and (see overlapping ratios using values of Page 13, outer diameter of 10-60 mm and thickness of 1-10 mm) has a time to failure of at least 500 hours, according to the accelerated point load test in accordance with PAS1075:2009, Annex A3 at a hoop stress of 4 MPa and at a temperature of 90° C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda, to include the diameter/thickness of Soliman, in order to improve the time to failure of a water conducting pipe (Page 13). Applicant is further directed to MPEP2112.01 [R-I], which states where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.
Regarding claim 12-13, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda does not teach the amount of the ethylene-based polymer with respect to the total amount of polymers in the polymer composition is at least 95 wt % or wherein the amount of the propylene-based polymer with respect to the total amount of polymers in the polymer composition is at least 95 wt %, however, does contemplate additives, such as anti-oxidants to reduce the polyolefin composition below 100% (see Page 6).
Soliman teaches the amount of the ethylene-based polymer with respect to the total amount of polymers in the polymer composition is at least 95 wt % or wherein the amount of the propylene-based polymer with respect to the total amount of polymers in the polymer composition is at least 95 wt % (see Page 2, line 24 – Page 4, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to include the polymer composition of Soliman, in order to provide anti-oxidants or other additives in effective concentrations (see Page 2, line 24 – Page 4, line 5).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (WO0021732A1) in view of Pflueger (DE19727493A1).
Regarding claims 6-9, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda does not teach
the system is a vertical system; wherein the conduit comprises a first vertically disposed pipe having a first outer diameter D1 and a first wall thickness W1 configured for passing a fluid downwards, a second vertically disposed pipe having a second outer diameter D2 and a second wall thickness W2 configured for passing a fluid upwards and a U-shaped connecting pipe connecting the first vertical pipe and the second vertical pipe at their lower ends, wherein at least the first vertically disposed pipe is the biaxially oriented pipe; wherein D1/W1 is larger than D2/W2; wherein D1/W1 is 13 to 20 and D2/W2 is 7 to 13.
Pflueger teaches wherein the system is a vertical system (Fig. 1-3); wherein the conduit comprises a first vertically disposed pipe (tube 7 & polyethylene – Page 1) having a first outer diameter D1 and a first wall thickness W1 configured for passing a fluid downwards, a second vertically disposed pipe (pipe 11) having a second outer diameter D2 and a second wall thickness W2 configured for passing a fluid upwards and a U-shaped connecting pipe connecting the first vertical pipe and the second vertical pipe at their lower ends, wherein at least the first vertically disposed pipe is the biaxially oriented pipe; wherein D1/W1 is larger than D2/W2; wherein D1/W1 is 13 to 20 (50 mm inner diameter w/ wall thickness of 4.3 mm, resulting in a value of 13.6) and D2/W2 is 7 to 13 (20 mm inner diameter w/ wall thickness of 2 mm resulting in a value of 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to include the vertical system of Pflueger, in order to provide a vertical buried pipe to exchange heat with the surrounding earth for use in a heat pump (Page 1).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desmeules (US20100139886A1) and Ueda (WO0021732A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ueda teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Ueda is silent to wherein the system is a horizontal system.
Desmeules teaches wherein the system is a horizontal system (see horizontal extension of tubes 12; Fig. 22D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to include such a tube in a horizontal system as taught by Desmeules, in order to extract heat from the soil for building heating or the like (¶[0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Desmeules teaches a method of transporting a fluid in a geothermal heating and cooling system (see abstract) comprising circulating the fluid (heat transfer liquid) through a polyolefin based polymer tube (tubing loops 12, Fig. 22C,22D & polyethylene - ¶[0048]).
Desmeules does not teach a biaxially oriented pipe, wherein the biaxially oriented pipe is made by a process comprising a) forming a polymer composition comprising a polyolefin into a tube, and b) stretching the tube in the axial direction and in the peripheral direction to obtain the biaxially oriented pipe.
Ueda teaches a biaxially oriented pipe (biaxially oriented – Page 1) made by a process comprising a) forming a polymer composition comprising an ethylene-based polymer and/or a propylene-based polymer into a tube (polyolefin polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene – Page 5) and b) stretching the tube in the axial direction and in the peripheral direction to obtain the biaxially oriented pipe (via stretching apparatus of Fig. 1, see also Page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Desmeules to include, in order to the biaxially oriented pipe of Ueda, in order to provide a buried pipe with excellent pressure resistance and improved strength (Page 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S RUPPERT whose telephone number is (571)272-9911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
