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 and 17 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.
Claims 1 and 17 recites the limitation "the liquid outlet tube" in pages 2 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP957 (JP2016189957A, attached translation will be referenced) in view of JP423 (JPH033423U, previously attached translation will be referenced) further in view of US947 (US20110144947A1).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP511(JP2014188511A, attached translation will be referenced) in view of JP957 in view of JP423 further in view of US947.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP511 in view of JP957 in view of JP423 in view of US947 further in view of Hutchinson (US20110232495A1).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP511 in view of JP957 in view of JP423 in view of US947 further in view of Park (US6051197).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP511 in view of JP957 in view of JP423 in view of US947 further in view of WO819 (WO2014118819A1, applicant’s provided translation will be referenced.).
Claim(s) 16 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP511 (JP2014188511A, attached translation will be referenced) in view of US947.
Rejection in view of JP957, JP423, and US947
Claim 1: JP957 teaches in figure 1 a scrubber device (Page 1 teaches this purifies air by contacting sprayed water with air.) comprising: a storage tankless reaction tower in which an internal space is formed with an open drain at a bottom of the storage tankless reaction tower (Air purification apparatus 1 has an internal space inside. The top portion of 1 where the air goes through can read upon the tankless reaction tower. However the bottom area of 4 can also read upon this as it has an open drain 27.); a liquid spray unit configured to spray a liquid in the internal space (Nozzles 3 can be seen spraying liquid. The section above with references 10-12 also show this.); a gas inlet port configured to introduce a gas to the reaction tower (Air intake 15); a liquid outlet port configured to discharge, from the reaction tower, drainage generated by treatment of taking, into the liquid, a substance in the gas (Liquid storage tank 4 can be read upon as below the outlet where the arrows drop down into the gas when it leaves the area 14. This entire area can be read as a drainage as there is a line 26-27 that leads out of the system.); a gas supply unit configured to supply the treated gas from the reaction tower (Air discharge port 22); and an external heating unit having at least a first portion provided close to the liquid outlet port with respect to the gas inlet port in the reaction tower, and a second portion heating the liquid outlet tube at a location connected downstream from the liquid outlet port (The area where the liquid storage is can be read upon by the liquid outlet tube. Heating means 5 is near the liquid outlet port above 4 and in an outlet tube of which 4 is in. Page 3 second paragraph teaches that the heating means can be any type can be a heating wire arranged inside or outside or on the piping outside.), and which is configured to heat the drainage (Abstract teaches heating the water in the storage tank), wherein the external heating unit heats based on at least one of a composition of an impurity or concentration of silica in the gas or in the drainage (This is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim. In this case, the limitation “based on” is very broad and can mean any kind of relationship, such as having the device be turned on. If the device is turned on.).
If JP957 does not teach this, JP423 teaches a scrubber for silica (Page 3 and figures 1-2). Pages 3-4 teaches that silica cleaning needs to have a heater for the cleaning liquid as shown in figure 1 by heater 4. It teaches that when the temperature of the cleaning liquid drops, it reduces the amount of particulate silica dissolved and absorbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a heating element be related to the amount of silica present that is undissolved/dissolved in order to be able to optimize the temperature so the silica gets dissolved and absorbed by the system.
The limitations of “used for the geothermal power generation” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
The prior arts do not explicitly state the gas supply unit is configured to supply the treated vapor to a power generation device and that the gas inlet port introduces a vapor for geothermal power generation.
US947 teaches a geothermal generation facility (abstract) and teaches in [0038] that geothermal generation facility uses a scrubber 104 that has a water spray device 103 in which the gas output is sent to a steam turbine 105, which is a power generation device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the scrubber of JP957 and JP423 as the scrubber of US947 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill when the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I(B). In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the scrubber of JP957 and JP423 is/are an equivalent of the scrubber of US947 as they are both meant to be used for contacting gas with a liquid spray.
Regarding the limitation of having geothermal water, this is considered to be intended usage. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). In this case there is no structure associated with the geothermal water heater. The water being used in the system is part of the contents of the apparatus and therefore is considered to be intended usage.
Rejection in view of JP511, JP957, JP423, and US947
Claim 1: JP511 teaches in figure 1 and [0035] a scrubber device ([0001] teaches seawater desulfurization.) comprising: a storage tankless reaction tower in which an internal space is formed with an open drain at the bottom of the storage tankless reaction tower (absorption tower 1 has internal space inside it. The bottom has an open drain as seen by the arrow leading out of the device.); a liquid spray unit configured to spray a liquid in the internal space (Spray nozzles 8 and 9 in figure 1); a gas inlet port configured to introduce a gas to the reaction tower ([0035] teaches inlet duct 2 introduces exhaust gas into 1.); a liquid outlet port configured to discharge, from the reaction tower, drainage generated by treatment of taking, into the liquid, a substance in the gas ([0036] teaches that the seawater is used for absorption and sent to recirculation tank 5 and leaves via pump 4.); a gas supply unit configured to supply the treated gas from the reaction tower ([0036 teaches that the gas is discharged from outlet duct 3.).
JP511 does not explicitly state an external heating unit having at least a first portion provided close to the liquid outlet port with respect to the gas inlet port in the reaction tower, and a second portion heating the liquid outlet tube at a location connected downstream from the liquid outlet port, and which is configured to heat the drainage.
JP957 teaches an analogous art with contacting a gas with liquid to clean (abstract of JP957). JP957 teaches heating means 5 for heating the drainage from the system of 1 that is in the drainage of water storage 4. JP957 teaches in page 1 that it heats the water in order to prevent freezing which would affect other components. Page 3 second paragraph teaches that the heating means can be any type can be a heating wire arranged inside or outside or on the piping outside. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the heating system of JP957 in the device of JP511 as JP957 teaches the benefit of being able to prevent the water from freezing by controlling the heat.
The prior arts do not explicitly teach the heating unit heats based on at least one of a composition of an impurity or concentration of silica in the gas or in the drainage.
JP423 teaches a scrubber for silica (Page 3 and figures 1-2). Pages 3-4 teaches that silica cleaning needs to have a heater for the cleaning liquid as shown in figure 1 by heater 4. It teaches that when the temperature of the cleaning liquid drops, it reduces the amount of particulate silica dissolved and absorbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a heating element be related to the amount of silica present that is undissolved/dissolved in order to be able to optimize the temperature so the silica gets dissolved and absorbed by the system.
JP511, JP957, JP423 teach scrubber device being a scrubber device, wherein the gas inlet port is configured to introduce, into the reaction tower, a vapor, as the gas (JP511 shows gas coming into the system via 2). The limitations of “used for the geothermal power generation” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
JP511, JP957, and JP423 do not explicitly state the gas supply unit is configured to supply the treated vapor to a power generation device and that the gas inlet port introduces a vapor for geothermal power generation.
US947 teaches a geothermal generation facility (abstract) and teaches in [0038] that geothermal generation facility uses a scrubber 104 that has a water spray device 103 in which the gas output is sent to a steam turbine 105, which is a power generation device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the scrubber of JP511, JP957, and JP423 as the scrubber of US947 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill when the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I(B). In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the scrubber of JP511, JP957, and JP423 is/are an equivalent of the scrubber of US947 as they are both meant to be used for contacting gas with a liquid spray.
Regarding the limitation of having geothermal water, this is considered to be intended usage. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). In this case there is no structure associated with the geothermal water heater. The water being used in the system is part of the contents of the apparatus and therefore is considered to be intended usage.
Claim 2: JP511, JP957, and JP423 do not explicitly teach the heating unit is configured to heat the drainage to 80°C or higher. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the heating unit be at an optimal temperature, such as 80C or higher, in order to make sure the liquid is capable of running through the system and being able to clean the air.
Claim 4: JP957 teaches the heating unit is configured to change a heating temperature of the drainage based on a composition of an impurity in the gas or in the drainage (JP957 teaches the use of a water temperature sensor in page 2 paragraph 1 that controls the heating of the water temperature. The limitation of it being based on a composition of an impurity in the gas or in the drainage can be read upon by the fact this teaches the control unit is able to control heating based on the sensor.).
Claim 5: JP423 teaches the heating unit is configured to change a heating temperature of the drainage based on a concentration of silica in the gas or in the drainage (Pages 3-4).
Claim 6: JP511 teaches a chemical agent inlet unit configured to cause a chemical agent to be contained in the drainage (Figure 1 shows the drainage leaving 5 and going to 24. [0042] teaches that water treatment apparatus 24 does coagulation precipitation, pH adjustment, filtration, and neutralization. This would read upon a chemical agent being used and contained in the drainage.).
Claims 7-10: The prior arts do not explicitly state the chemical agent adjusts the drainage to be acidic, wherein the chemical agent adjusts a hydrogen ion exponent of the drainage to 5.5 or lower, the chemical agent inlet unit is configured to adjust a hydrogen ion exponent of the drainage based on a composition of an impurity in the gas or in the drainage, or the chemical agent inlet unit is configured to adjust a hydrogen ion exponent of the drainage based on a concentration of silica in the gas or in the drainage. Examiner notes that all of these limitations appear to be based on changing the pH (acidic, hydrogen ion exponent).
JP511 teaches in [0042] that water treatment apparatus 24 does coagulation precipitation, pH adjustment, filtration, and neutralization. This means it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the right pH, being acidic as in claim 7 or being 5.5 as in claim 8. Since JP511 teaches these steps in order to treat the water coming out of the scrubber, it would also be based on what contaminants are present in the first place. This would read upon impurities and silica in claims 9 and 10. Absent a proper showing of criticality or unexpected results, the pH is considered to be a general condition that would have been routinely optimized by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to provide better treated water. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 11: The prior arts teach that the heating unit is configured to continuously heat the drainage during an operation of the geothermal power generation (JP957 teaches the use of the heating in order to prevent the water temperature from dropping too much. This means that as long as the sensor is detecting a lower temperature, it would be continuously heating.), and the chemical agent inlet unit is configured to cause the chemical agent to be temporarily contained in the drainage when a composition of an impurity or a concentration of silica in the gas or in the drainage satisfies a predetermined condition (JP511 teaches the use of a wastewater treatment 24. This would change the pH and perform other actions depending on what impurities are in the gas or drainage.).
Claim 12: JP511 teaches a dilution solution supply unit which is connected to at least a part of a portion close to the liquid outlet port with respect to the gas inlet port in the reaction tower, and a portion of the liquid outlet tube that is connected downstream from the liquid outlet port, and which is configured to supply a dilution solution for diluting the drainage (Figure 1 shows that the ocean 12 sends in a dilution solution supply via pump 13. This is connected to a portion close to the liquid outlet port and also connected to a liquid outlet tube downstream such as tank 14. Since it is fluidly connected to pump 4 via reference 5, this is also read upon by the limitation of being connected to a portion of the liquid outlet tube downstream.).
Claim 13: The prior arts do not explicitly state the dilution solution supply unit is configured to adjust an amount of supply of the dilution solution based on an amount of water in a reduction well to be returned, to an underground geothermal reservoir, the vapor being conditioned for use in the geothermal power generation. JP957 teaches in page 4 that when a level of water is low, it works to supply water from the outside in order to make sure the device can continue the function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have enough liquid in the device to be able to efficiently and properly run the device. The limitation of “vapor being conditioned for use” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 14: US947 teaches the dilution solution supply unit is configured to adjust an amount of supply of the dilution solution based on amounts of the vapor and hot water, which are pumped from a geothermal reservoir, in a production well ([0037]-[0038] teaches that the production well supplies the steam that goes to the water spray device in the scrubber which sends the steam output to the steam turbine. It teaches that the steam ejected from the production wells is regulated by valves with a control device. This limitation appears to state that the dilution supply adjusts the supply based on what is pumped from the reservoir, which is being taught by the regulation valves.).
Claim 17: JP511 teaches in figure 1 and [0035] a scrubber device ([0001] teaches seawater desulfurization.) comprising: a storage tankless reaction tower in which an internal space is formed (absorption tower 1 has internal space inside it. The bottom has an open drain as seen by the arrow leading out of the device.); a liquid spray unit configured to spray a liquid in the internal space (Spray nozzles 8 and 9 in figure 1); a gas inlet port configured to introduce a gas to the reaction tower ([0035] teaches inlet duct 2 introduces exhaust gas into 1.); a liquid outlet port configured to discharge, from the reaction tower, drainage generated by treatment of taking, into the liquid, a substance in the gas ([0036] teaches that the seawater is used for absorption and sent to recirculation tank 5 and leaves via pump 4.); a gas supply unit configured to supply the treated gas from the reaction tower ([0036 teaches that the gas is discharged from outlet duct 3.); and: a dilution solution supply unit which is connected to at least a part of a portion close to the liquid outlet port with respect to the gas inlet port in the reaction tower, and a portion of the liquid outlet tube that is connected downstream from the liquid outlet port, and which is configured to supply a dilution solution for diluting the drainage (Figure 1 shows that the ocean 12 sends in a dilution solution supply via pump 13. This is connected to a portion close to the liquid outlet port and also connected to a liquid outlet tube downstream such as tank 14. Since it is fluidly connected to pump 4 via reference 5, this is also read upon by the limitation of being connected to a portion of the liquid outlet tube downstream.).
JP511 does not explicitly state an external heating unit having at least a first portion provided close to the liquid outlet port with respect to the gas inlet port in the reaction tower, and a second portion heating the liquid outlet tube at a location connected downstream from the liquid outlet port, and which is configured to heat the drainage.
JP957 teaches an analogous art with contacting a gas with liquid to clean (abstract of JP957). JP957 teaches heating means 5 for heating the drainage from the system of 1 that is in the drainage of water storage 4. JP957 teaches in page 1 that it heats the water in order to prevent freezing which would affect other components. Page 3 second paragraph teaches that the heating means can be any type can be a heating wire arranged inside or outside or on the piping outside. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have the heating system of JP957 in the device of JP511 as JP957 teaches the benefit of being able to prevent the water from freezing by controlling the heat.
JP511 and JP957 do not explicitly state the heating unit heats based on at least one of a composition of an impurity or a concentration of silica in the gas or in the drainage.
JP423 teaches a scrubber for silica (Page 3 and figures 1-2). Pages 3-4 teaches that silica cleaning needs to have a heater for the cleaning liquid as shown in figure 1 by heater 4. There’s multiple parts including the heater 4, temperature sensor 5, and temperature regulator 7 which can be the multiple parts. It teaches that when the temperature of the cleaning liquid drops, it reduces the amount of particulate silica dissolved and absorbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a heating element, such as JP423 in the invention of JP511 and having it be related to the amount of silica present that is undissolved/dissolved, in order to be able to optimize the temperature so the silica gets dissolved and absorbed by the system.
JP511, JP957, and JP423 teach scrubber device being a scrubber device, wherein the gas inlet port is configured to introduce, into the reaction tower, a vapor, as the gas (JP511 shows gas coming into the system via 2). The limitations of “used for the geothermal power generation” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
JP511 and JP423 do not explicitly state the gas supply unit is configured to supply the treated vapor to a power generation device and that the gas inlet port introduces a vapor for geothermal power generation.
US947 teaches a geothermal generation facility (abstract) and teaches in [0038] that geothermal generation facility uses a scrubber 104 that has a water spray device 103 in which the gas output is sent to a steam turbine 105, which is a power generation device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the scrubber of JP511 and JP423 as the scrubber of US947 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill when the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I(B). In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the scrubber of JP511 and JP423 is/are an equivalent of the scrubber of US947 as they are both meant to be used for contacting gas with a liquid spray.
Regarding the limitation of having geothermal water, this is considered to be intended usage. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667). In this case there is no structure associated with the geothermal water heater. The water being used in the system is part of the contents of the apparatus and therefore is considered to be intended usage.
Rejection in view of JP511, JP957, JP423, US947, and Hutchinson
Claim 15: JP511, JP957, JP423, US947 do not explicitly state a booster pump configured to increase a pressure of the liquid, which is sprayed, to be higher than an internal pressure of the reaction tower. JP511, JP957, and JP423 teach the liquid spray to clean gas in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hutchinson teaches in the abstract a dust suppression apparatus that uses water nozzles to spray water against air to remove dust. Hutchinson teaches n [0082] that a booster pump can be used to get additional power to increase the pressure of the water when its low pressure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a booster pump of Hutchinson in the device of JP511, JP957, JP423, and US947 as Hutchinson teaches the benefit of being able to supply additional water pressure when the original source is low pressure or when it needs additional pressure.
Rejection in view of JP511, JP957, JP423, US947, and Park
Claim 18: JP511, JP957, JP423, and US947 do not explicitly teach a dry cyclone scrubber unit that has a tube body in which a swirling space, where a suspension swirls, is formed, on an upstream side of the gas inlet port. JP511, JP957, JP423, and US947 teach the device in claim 1 and teaches cleaning a gas of contaminants.
Park teaches a method for treating a waste gas by collecting minute particles (abstract). Park teaches in column 1 lines 25 to column 2 57 that gases can sometimes contain toxic gases which cause issues when using a wet type scrubber because of contamination of the liquid and the air, and they sometimes contain minute particles that can clog up a drying type apparatus. Park teaches the use of a centrifugal force to clean the gas. Figure 5 and column 10 lines 4-22 that this uses a multistage cyclone separator that is connected to the gas to remove the polymers or particles which are dry with a tube body (Figure 5 shows this in 311, 312, and 313.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have this dry cyclone of Park in the device of JP511, JP957, JP423, and US947 as Park teaches that web scrubbers can become contaminated when receiving a gas that has not had other contaminants removed (therefore it would be upstream of the wet scrubber).
Claim 19: Park teaches a plurality of dry cyclone scrubber units having different diameters of tube bodies from each other; and a switch unit configured to select, from among the plurality of dry cyclone scrubber units, the dry cyclone scrubber unit configured to supply the gas to the gas inlet port (Column 10 lines 4-33 that this uses a multistage cyclone separator that is connected to the gas to remove the polymers or particles and the air valve is opened and closed by a control signal and that separators 311-313 are different diameters wherein 311 is the largest and 313 is the smallest.).
Rejection in view of JP511, JP957, JP423, US947, and WO819
Claim 20: JP511 teaches the gas inlet port is configured to introduce, into the reaction tower, an exhaust gas and the gas supply unit is configured to emit the treated exhaust gas to an atmosphere.
JP511, JP957, JP423, and US947 do not explicitly teach the scrubber device being a scrubber device for a ship, wherein the gas inlet port is configured to introduce, into the reaction tower, an exhaust gas from an internal combustion engine of the ship, as the gas. JP511 and JP957 teach a scrubber system for using sprayed liquid to clean gas.
WO819 teaches in the abstract an exhaust gas treatment device for a marine diesel engine. [0010] teaches that this gas is from the combustion of a marine diesel engine mounted on a ship and uses seawater to treat exhaust gas. Figure 1 shows that the scrubber 9a sends the gas out to the atmosphere via 83. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a scrubber as the one of JP511, JP957, JP423, US947 in a ship as taught by WO819 as WO819 teaches that ships need to remove particulate matter and sulfur oxides in the exhaust gas.
Rejection in view of JP511 and US947
Claim 16: JP511 teaches in figure 1 and [0035] a scrubber device ([0001] teaches seawater desulfurization.) comprising: a storage tankless reaction tower in which an internal space is formed (absorption tower 1 has internal space inside it ); a liquid spray unit configured to spray a liquid in the internal space (Spray nozzles 8 and 9 in figure 1); a gas inlet port configured to introduce a gas to the reaction tower ([0035] teaches inlet duct 2 introduces exhaust gas into 1.); a liquid outlet port configured to discharge, from the reaction tower, drainage generated by treatment of taking, into the liquid, a substance in the gas ([0036] teaches that the seawater is used for absorption and sent to recirculation tank 5 and leaves via pump 4.); a gas supply unit configured to supply the treated gas from the reaction tower ([0036 teaches that the gas is discharged from outlet duct 3.); and a chemical agent inlet unit introduces a chemical agent for adjusting a pH into the reaction tower so as to be contained in the drainage (Figure 1 shows the addition of seawater entering at 12 and 13. This reads upon the limitation as [0042] teaches that water treatment apparatus 24 does coagulation precipitation, pH adjustment, filtration, and neutralization. This would read upon a chemical agent being used and contained in the drainage as the seawater can contain this. [0042] also teaches that there is a pH adjustment, therefore there must be some agent causing the pH adjustment as it states there is a treatment apparatus that performs this.).
JP511 teach scrubber device being a scrubber device, wherein the gas inlet port is configured to introduce, into the reaction tower, a vapor, as the gas (JP511 shows gas coming into the system via 2). The limitations of “used for the geothermal power generation” is considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
JP511 does not explicitly state the gas supply unit is configured to supply the treated vapor to a power generation device and that the gas inlet port introduces a vapor for geothermal power generation.
US947 teaches a geothermal generation facility (abstract) and teaches in [0038] that geothermal generation facility uses a scrubber 104 that has a water spray device 103 in which the gas output is sent to a steam turbine 105, which is a power generation device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the scrubber of JP511 as the scrubber of US947 because the simple substitution of one known element for another is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill when the substitution would be expected to produce predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I(B). In this case the substitution would likely produce predictable results because the scrubber of JP511 is/are an equivalent of the scrubber of US947 as they are both meant to be used for contacting gas with a liquid spray.
Claims 21 and 22: The prior arts does not teach the chemical agent is acidic or neutralizing agent. However JP511 teaches in [0042] pH adjustment in the treatment apparatus. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have an optimal chemical agent in order to either increase or decrease the pH in the pH adjustment step depending on the pH required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the new limitation of claims 1, 16, and 17 of having a storage tankless reaction tower is different than that of the prior art. Pages 9 to top of 12 appear to recite the amendments. Pages 13-15 further appear to restate that the prior art does not teach the new limitations. Bottom of page 12 to page 13 appear to be the applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art. It states that the present invention does not collect water and heat that in the tank, rather they have an open drain similar to that of a shower. They also argue that the heater is external to the tank and not inside. Examiner argues that the prior art of JP957 teaches that the heating can be external. Regarding the “storage-tankless” limitation, examiner believes the prior art reads upon this claim. While applicant wishes to define this by something similar to a shower drain, if the input is too much, the device will eventually accumulate liquid and become a “storage tank”. Even applicant’s figure 2 shows there is a water level 46 within the device. Since this device is capable of being a storage tank, it will still read upon this limitation. Examiner also notes that JP957 has a bottom section 4 which can be considered to not be a part of the reaction internal area as the gas and liquid react to the area above it and the drain leaves that reaction area via the bottom section 4.
Examiner’s note: Examiner suggests trying to further limit the structure itself instead of trying to define what “storage tankless” is. Instead of an open drain, it could be that the structure is that the drain leads straight into a pipe into a reduction well or some other structure without anything else that would hinder or stop the movement of the water. There is also further structure on the drain heating placemen that can possibly overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 05/20/2026
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights