DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant has amended Claims 1, 4, and 12. Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Previous Title objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment.
Previous 112b rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendment. New 112b rejections are presented below, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant amended Claim 1 by removing the “and/or” phrase and requiring the geothermal steam is heated and compressed by a compressor comprising a turbine driven by the upgrading steam. Applicant argues that Matsuno does not teach this feature. Examiner agrees and Matsuno is withdrawn as a primary reference for Claim 1.
Applicant then argues that Bronicki does not teach this feature either because the vapor compressor 52E, mapped as “the compressor” of Claim 1, receives water vapor sourced from sea water rather than a geothermal fluid from the well, and that one of ordinary skill cannot properly characterize this water as a “geothermal steam” as required in the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner directs applicant to their own spec. A water source 17 enters a geothermal evaporator 5 and becomes the geothermal steam 6. Nowhere in the spec or the claims is there a requirement for the water 17 to be a geothermal-based fluid. Upon evaporation of the water 17, the “geothermal steam” line 6 is called “geothermal steam” because it has been heated by a geothermal source. Now looking to Figure 6 of Bronicki, the evaporator 40E uses a geothermal fluid (the brine output of separator 13E after exiting pre-heater 27E and also the steam output of separator 13E after exiting the condenser 22E) to vaporize a water source (sea water from pump 30E). As such, the sea water, once vaporized, qualifies as a ”geothermal steam” under BRI when read in light of the specification because it is vaporized using geothermal heat. Furthermore, Claim 6 of the instant application explicitly recites this is how the geothermal steam is formed.
Previous grounds of rejection over Bronicki stand. New grounds of rejection are presented with Bronicki as the primary reference to account for differences with Matsuno, as necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claims 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the source for the upgrading steam is at least one of: … the compressor. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because it is unclear how the compressor could be the source of the upgrading steam. As per the spec, the upgrading steam can “drive” the compressor, via a steam jet process or by driving a turbine which then drives the compressor, but in either case, the compressor is not the source of the upgrading steam.
Claim 12 recites the compressor comprising a steam jet compressor. Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 11, which is dependent on Claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable because Claim 1 requires that the compressor is a compressor comprising a turbine driven by the upgrading steam, which is not a steam jet compressor. Option (ii) of Claim 12 would be incompatible with Claim 1.
Claims 13 – 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bronicki et al. (hereafter “Bronicki” – US 2002/0178723).
With regards to Claims 1 and 11:
Bronicki discloses a process engineering plant (Figure 6) and, in its natural use, a method (Figure 6) for providing process steam (water vapor exiting vapor compressor 52E) for a process (heating evaporator 40E) using geothermal heat (from production well shown upstream of separator 13E) from a geothermal station (production well shown in Figure 6), in which the geothermal heat of a thermal fluid (geothermal liquid exiting condenser/evaporator 22E) heated in an underground geothermal heat source is used to provide a geothermal steam (in line supplying vapor compressor 52E), in which an upgrading steam (high temperature steam 14E directed to steam turbine 21E) is used to upgrade the geothermal steam (by driving the vapor compressor 52E mechanically via a shaft, see Paragraph 24 and Figure 6), and in which the geothermal steam is simultaneously compressed and heated in an upgrading device / compressor (vapor compressor 52E) during the upgrading (Figure 6, Paragraph 24);
wherein the geothermal steam is heated and compressed by means of a compressor (vapor compressor 52E) comprising a turbine (steam turbine 21E) driven by the upgrading steam (steam 14E).
With regards to Claim 2:
Bronicki discloses the upgrading steam with a higher pressure and higher temperature than the pressure and temperature of the geothermal steam is used to upgrade the geothermal steam (this is inherent in Bronicki, the steam in line 14E downstream of the separator 13E and entering steam turbine 21E must be at a higher pressure/temperature than the steam entering compressor 52E or the turbine 21E would not be capable of driving the compressor 52E via the shaft, let alone also drive a generator 26E) and/or wherein the upgrading steam and the geothermal steam are mixed during upgrading.
With regards to Claim 3:
Bronicki discloses a turbo-compressor (vapor compressor 52E, Figure 6) of a turbocharger driven by the turbine is used as the compressor (vapor compressor 52E driven by steam turbine 21E, see Figure 6 and Paragraph 24).
With regards to Claim 6:
Bronicki discloses the thermal fluid delivers geothermal heat to water via indirect heat exchange (at evaporator 40E, receiving the geothermal brine output of separator 13E after exiting pre-heater 27E and also the geothermal steam output of separator 13E after exiting the condenser 22E) and wherein the water is at least partially evaporated by the indirect heat exchange with the thermal fluid to form geothermal steam (exiting evaporator 40E to compressor 52E).
With regards to Claim 7:
Bronicki discloses the thermal fluid or the water heated and/or partially evaporated by the geothermal heat is evaporated in an evaporator (evaporator 40E) to form geothermal steam.
With regards to Claim 12:
Bronicki discloses the source for the upgrading steam is at least one of: (i) a source (geothermal fluid from production well) for providing upgrading steam with a higher pressure and higher temperature than the pressure and temperature of the geothermal steam (high pressure steam 14E flows through the turbine 21E and the condenser 22E before being used as a heat source in evaporator 40E to form the geothermal steam – likewise, liquid brine 15E goes through preheater 27E before being used as a heat source in evaporator 40E – as such, the upgrading steam must have a higher temperature and pressure than the geothermal steam flowing towards compressor 52E since the geothermal steam is heated by the two above sources after they have already given up a majority of their heat and pressure to other upstream components).
With regards to Claim 14:
Bronicki discloses a thermal circuit comprising the thermal fluid and an indirect heat exchanger is provided for transferring geothermal heat to water (from production well to evaporator 40E back to well via injection well) and/or that an evaporator (evaporator 40E) is provided for providing the geothermal steam from the water heated by means of geothermal heat (as seen in Figure 6).
With regards to Claim 15:
Bronicki discloses the heat exchanger is part of the evaporator for at least partially evaporating he water and providing the geothermal steam (see evaporator 40E receiving sea water, evaporating it and directing it to vapor compressor 52E).
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 of this title, 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 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronicki et al. (hereafter “Bronicki” – US 2002/0178723) in view of Nakao et al. (hereafter “Nakao” – JP 2015/031252).
With regards to Claims 8 and 16:
Bronicki does not explicitly disclose the upgrading steam is generated by combustion of fossil fuels, biogas, biomass, and/or residual materials, instead disclosing the upgrading steam being solely geothermal steam. Nakao (Figure 1) teaches a similar geothermal power plant including a separator (2) and a steam turbine (4), wherein downstream of the separator, the geothermal steam is superheated in a superheater (3) by “heat obtained from the combustion of biomass” (Paragraph 32). MPEP 2143A teaches it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield predictable results. In this case, use of a combustion-based superheater to superheat separated geothermal steam prior to expansion in a steam turbine is known in the art to increase the energy of the steam to generate more power at the turbine (Paragraph 45 of Nakao). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bronicki by including a biomass combustion based superheater between the separator and the steam turbine in order to yield the predictable benefits described above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronicki et al. (hereafter “Bronicki” – US 2002/0178723) in view of Kitz et al. (hereafter “Kitz” – US 5656172).
With regards to Claim 9:
Bronicki does not explicitly disclose the heated thermal fluid with a temperature of at least 60 °C and/or of at most 220 °C, is used to provide a geothermal steam and/or in which the geothermal steam has a temperature of at least 60 °C and/or of at most 220 °C, before upgrading. Kitz (Figure 2) teaches a similar geothermal power plant including a geothermal fluid separator (204) which produces a brine (302) that is used as a thermal fluid in an evaporator (303). Kitz teaches that “Heat-exchanger brine temperature typically ranges from 180 degrees to 300 degrees C, preferably at least 120 degrees C, and most preferably at least 150 degrees C” (Col. 13, Lines 19 – 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bronicki to make the temperature of the thermal fluid in the range recited since this is the typical range of brine solutions downstream of a separator. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05 teaches "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Applicant has shown no evidence of criticality of unexpected results in the values recited, and one of ordinary skill would seek to optimize the system parameters based on desired parameters of the end user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronicki et al. (hereafter “Bronicki” – US 2002/0178723) in view of Fukuda et al. (hereafter “Fukuda” – JP S60-098178).
With regards to Claim 10:
Bronicki does not explicitly disclose the geothermal steam is heated by at least 20 °C during the upgrading and/or in which the geothermal steam is compressed by at least 1 bar during the upgrading. Fukuda (Figures 3 and 8) teaches a steam compressor driven by a turbine, wherein the steam compressor compresses the steam by at least 1 bar during compression (see Figure 8, steam goes from P2 at 1 kg/cm2 = 0.98 bar to P1 at 5 kg/cm2 = 4.9 bar). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bronicki to make the vapor compressor compress the steam by at least 1 bar in order to properly release heat to the evaporator of Bronicki during operation. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05 teaches "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Applicant has shown no evidence of criticality of unexpected results in the values recited, and one of ordinary skill would seek to optimize the system parameters based on desired parameters of the end user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but otherwise allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAERT DOUNIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2146. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs: 10a - 4:30p.
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached on (571) 270-7878. 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.
/Laert Dounis/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Friday, May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights