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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 9/30/2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-9 and 12-15 are pending. The rejection of claims 5 and 7-8 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodin et al. (WO 2021/040575), and further in view of Komabayashi et al. (JP 2015113367, machine translation referenced herein) and Lewis (US 3,948,679).
Regarding Claim 1: Rodin teaches a method for selecting a scale-dissolving agent, comprising:
a step of determining coordinates of specific physical properties of scale to be removed based on Hansen solubility parameters [0095]; and
a step of selecting the dissolving agent based on the specific physical properties of the scale to be removed and the coordinates of specific physical properties of the dissolving agent [0095]; and
applying the selected dissolving agent to the scale.
Rodin discusses conventional solvent flushing techniques include estimation of Hansen solubility parameters for the fouling matter and choosing the appropriate organic solvent based on the proximity of its respective solubility parameters to that of fouling matter [0095] but is silent as to selecting the dissolving agent based on the distance between coordinates of the scale properties and the coordinates of the dissolving agent properties. However, Komabayashi teaches selecting and applying a solvent based on the distance between its Hansen solubility parameter coordinates and coordinates of the substance being dissolved (see abstract and [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rodin by selecting the dissolving agent based on the distance between the properties’ coordinates, since Komabayashi teaches that this is a known method of selecting a solvent.
Rodin does not expressly disclose removing the scale by a physical method that includes repeatedly heating and cooling the scale. However, Lewis teaches that a method for removing adherent deposits from surfaces by contacting the adherent deposits with a liquid and then heating and cooling the liquid in alternation for a time sufficient to dislodge the deposits from the surfaces (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rodin by repeatedly heating and cooling the scale in order to enhance the removal efficiency, as suggested by Lewis.
Regarding Claim 2: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Komabayashi further teaches that the specific properties are dispersion force δd, force between dipoles δp, and hydrogen bonding δh (see abstract).
Regarding Claim 3: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Rodin further teaches wherein the selecting is a step of selecting a mixed dissolving agent in which two or more different chemicals are mixed, and the mixed dissolving agent has a composition determined such that coordinates of the specific physical properties of the mixed dissolving agent based on Hansen solubility parameter approach the coordinates of the specific physical properties of the scale to be removed [0095].
Regarding Claim 5: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Komabayashi teaches selecting the dissolving agent made of a single Chemical C based on a shortest determined distance between the coordinates of the physical properties of the scale and the coordinates of the physical properties of the dissolving agent (see abstract). Komabayashi further teaches the distance Ra1 is calculated based on the formula recited in the claim [0038].
Regarding Claim 6: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Though Rodin does not expressly disclose collecting scale for determining coordinates of the physical properties, Rodin does teach that a sample of the scale may be analyzed for determining properties of the scale [0024]. Since Komabayashi teaches selecting a solvent based on the solubility parameter coordinates of the solvent and fouling material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rodin to collect the scale for determining the coordinates, as suggested by Komabayashi.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Though Rodin does not expressly disclose determining coordinates of the specific physical properties based on an elemental analysis of a fluid containing base chemicals of the scale, Rodin does teach fouling characterization may be done through inductively-coupled plasma [0038]. Since Komabayashi teaches determining coordinates of the physical properties of the scale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rodin and Komabayashi to use ICP as taught by Rodin to analyze scale samples to determine coordinates of the physical properties of the scale.
Regarding Claim 9: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 5 as discussed above. Rodin further teaches that iron sulfides are the scale to removed and that acetic acid is used in the washing solution [0104].
Regarding Claims 11 and 12: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Rodin further teaches a step of removing the scale by a physical method [0106] in addition to the step of applying the scale-dissolving agent to scale to be removed, wherein the physical method comprises: a step of applying a temperature change to scale to be removed to generate a shearing force and/or, a step of applying a mechanical force to scale to be removed [0109, 0112].
Regarding Claim 13: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Rodin further teaches that the scale to be removed comprises two or mor layers composed of different components [0037]. Rodin does not expressly disclose that the step of selecting a scale-dissolving agent comprises a step of selecting scale-dissolving agents individually for the two or more layers and sequentially applying the agents to each of the two layers of preparing a mixture of the individually selected agents for applying to the two or more layers. However, Rodin suggests that scaling having different component layers may require consecutive application of different chemical cleaning methods [0105]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rodin and Komabayashi by selecting and applying the scale-dissolving agents individually in order to target the scale layers efficiently, as suggested by Rodin.
Regarding Claim 14: Rodin and Komabayashi teach a method for producing a mixed dissolving agent comprising the step of selecting a mixed dissolving agent based on the method for selecting a scale-dissolving agent according to claim 3 (see above) and preparing the mixed dissolving agent (see Rodin, [0095]).
Regarding Claim 15: The cited prior art teach the elements of Claim 15 as discussed above. Rodin does not expressly disclose the scale to be removed is formed on geothermal power plant equipment. However, Rodin teaches the method is applicable to fouling formed in industrial components such as heat exchangers [0002], which are known components of in geothermal power plants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method to geothermal power plant equipment with a reasonable expectation of successfully removing the scale. Further it is known to cause heating by a heater or steam and to cause cooling by water, as in Lewis (col. 6, line 55; col. 7, line 23).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodin et al. (WO 2021/040575), Komabayashi et al. (JP 2015113367, machine translation referenced herein), and Lewis (US 3,948,679) and further in view of Minick (US 5,246,503).
Regarding Claim 4: Rodin, Komabayashi, and Lewis teach the elements of Claim 3 as discussed above, including selecting the mixed dissolving agent, wherein a dissolving agent of chemical A and chemical B inherently comprises x (mol%) of chemical A and y (mol%) of chemical B. Komabayashi discloses a formula for calculating a distance Ra1 between the coordinates of the physical properties of the scale and solvent, but does not expressly disclose a distance Ra2 is defined by the formula as instantly claimed. However, Minick teaches that when solvents are combined in a mixture, the Hansen Solubility Parameter of the mixture is approximately equal to the weighted average of the Hansen Solubility Parameters of the individual solvents, based on the molar volume of each solvent (col. 3, ll. 61-64). Therefore, when the dissolving agent is mixed with Chemical A and Chemical B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formula of Komabayashi to that as claimed in order to account for the molar ratios of the individual components in the solvent mixture, as suggested by Minick.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claim to specify how the scale is removed. The reference to Lewis has been introduced to address the new limitations. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714