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 § 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) 10-11, 14, 20-22, 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukio et al. (JP63-028890A; Machine Translation cited in IDS of 7/31/2025) in view of Takahashi et al. (US2014/0083649A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS of 9/15/2023).
Re claim 10, Yukio et al. teach dissolving scale in a geothermal power plant by adding a mixed chemical solution comprising an alkali agent in combination with a chelant (i.e. aminopolycarboxylic acid, such as EDTA, paragraph 57), having a pH of 10 (paragraph 57, pages 3-4). In paragraph 57, Yukio teaches injecting the mixed cleaning agent into steam producing well in a geothermal power plant. Yukio et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of injecting the mixture between the steam separator and the turbine. Takahashi et al. teach inhibiting scale by injecting a chemical mixture (alkali and chelant) between the steam separator 11 and the turbine 18 (Fig. 1, paragraphs 55-58). Paragraph 52 teaches the geothermal water is vaporized in the medium evaporator 17 sent to a second turbine 18. The examiner takes the position that the vaporization of the geothermal water reads on steam such that the combined mixture of alkali and chelant) mixes with the steam as it flows from the evaporator 17 through L9 to the turbine 18 (Fig. 1). Paragraphs 24-25 teaches inhibiting scale by adjusting the pH of the geothermal water to 9 or higher to increase the solubility of silica and thereby inhibit the occurrence of scale. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Yukio et al., to include injecting the mixed chemical solution between the steam separator and the turbine, as taught by Takahashi et al., for purposes of inhibiting the occurrence to scale by increasing the solubility of the scale. Yukio et al. in view of Takahashi et al. do not specifically teach the removal of scale from the turbine blade, however, in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect the buildup and removal of scale through the geothermal power plant since Takahashi et al. teach water flowing from the production well to the turbine 18 and increasing the pH of the geothermal water to increase the solubility of the scale and thereby inhibit the occurrence of scale present on the components (i.e. turbine) of the geothermal power plant. Re claims 11 and 31, refer to the abstract of Yukio et al. Re claim 14, the limitations are similar to that of claim 10, with the exception of the dilution. Applicant is directed to the teachings of Takahashi et al. as the alkali and chelant are diluted by the geothermal water in L7 of Fig. 1. Re claims 20-22, 32, refer to the teachings of both references of the chelant EDTA (abstract of Yukio et al., paragraph 58 of Takahashi et al.).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukio et al. (JP63-028890A; Machine Translation cited in IDS of 7/31/2025) in view of Takahashi et al. (US2014/0083649A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS of 9/15/2023) and further in view Inoue et al. (US 2014/0165564A1).
Yukio et al. in view of Takahashi et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of the amounts of solutions based on the turbine inlet steam pressure. Inoue et al. teach removing geothermal scale comprising a) injecting an alkaline solution 31 and a chelating solution 21 into geothermal water line L1 flowing through a turbine 6 during power generation; and b) removing geothermal scale. Paragraph 11 teaches the concentration of the chelating agent is based on the pressure difference at the inlet and outlet of the chemical mixing part 10, such that it is possible to control the amount of chelating agent used to minimum necessary while inhibiting scale deposition, in order to operate the power generation device in an economical manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Yukio et al. to include regulating the amount of cleaning solution on the basis of pressure, as taught by Inoue et al., for purposes of controlling the amount of cleaning solution while inhibiting scale deposition, in order to operate the turbine in an efficient and economical manner.
7. Claim(s) 27 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukio et al. (JP63-028890A; Machine Translation cited in IDS of 7/31/2025) in view of Takahashi et al. (US2014/0083649A1, cited in Applicant’s IDS of 9/15/2023) and further in view of JP6121294B2.
Re claims 27 and 33, Applicant is directed to Takahashi et al. which teaches collecting steam and hot water from underground via a production well, separating steam and hot water by a steam separator 11, and supplying the separated steam to the turbine 12, 18. Yukio et al. in view of Takahashi et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of rotating the turbine by the steam to generate electricity. JP6121294B2 teaches that a geothermal power plant generates steam and rotates the steam turbine to generate electricity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Yukio et al. to include rotating the turbine in a geothermal plant, as taught JP6121294B2, for purposes of generating electricity.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 27 and 30, under 112, first paragraph is withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations.
The rejections of the claims as being unpatentable over Muller in view of the secondary references are withdrawn in view of the newly amended limitations of “consisting of” to exclude the acidic compositions of Muller. All arguments directed to Muller are now deemed moot.
Applicant’s newly amended limitations are now rejected over Yukio et al. in view of Takahashi et al. for the reasons set forth above, as Yukio et al. is directed to the use of a mixed composition comprising an alkali in combination with a chelating agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc