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 .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 16, 18, 21-23, 45, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “the multistage compressor configured to compress BOG at a temperature in a range between 40C and 45C” contains new matter since the disclosed compressor has no structure itself that determines or controls what fluid or fluid temperature is fed to the compressor. The disclosed compressor does not have any structure that controls the temperature range of the feed fluid to it.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “passing through the pressure reducer while not performing reliquefaction at the pressure reducer” (line 8-9, page 5) contains new matter as it is within the scope of the recitation that the pressure reducer does not expand the fluid from the heat exchanger and this is not supported. The disclosure is explicit (spec. para. 48) that operation of the pressure reducer is not stopped during the bypassing and the therefore the present recitation
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16, 18, 21-23, 45, 46 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a flow of CBOG” (page 2, line 10) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “a flow of BOG” (page 2, line 11) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of CBOG” (page 2, line 13) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of BOG” (page 2, line 14) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of CBOG” (page 2, line 16) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “the reliquefaction system is configured to remove the solidified lubricant oil from the hot fluid channel,
such that BOG from the storage tank flows through the bypass line to the multistage compressor while not supplying BOG from the storage tank to the cold fluid channel of the heat exchanger,
such that CBOG from the multistage compressor flows to the hot fluid channel of the heat exchanger for heating the hot fluid channel and thereby melting the solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel,
such that a mixture of CBOG and the melted lubricant oil is discharged from the heat exchanger to the separator through the pressure reducer,
such that CBOG is separated, at the separator, from the mixture and that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator for later removal, and
such that the separated CBOG is returned back to the multistage compressor via the bypass line.” (page 2, line 28 - page 3, line 14) is indefinite because it is entirely unclear what structure the recitation requires the system to have other than what was already recited previously since the functional capabilities of the system as recited are all completely capable of being performed by the structure of the system as already recited.
In addition, the recitation, “that BOG” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “supplying BOG” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “such that CBOG” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “a mixture of CBOG” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “the mixture and that” is not consistent with the previously recited mixture and it is not clear why the recitation is not --the mixture of the CBOG and that--.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “the system is configure to open” is grammatically incorrect.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “when the when the shut-off valve is open” is grammatically errant and unclear.
The recitation, “compress BOG” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
Further the recitation, “the multistage compressor configured to compress BOG at a temperature in a range between 40C and 45C” is indefinite since the compressor has no ability or structure to control what fluid is fed to it nor what temperature the fluid fed to the compressor is. The recitation is entirely errant for attributing to the compressor a functional capability that the disclosed compressor does not have and cannot provide.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “in CBOG” (page 4, line 16) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “a flow of CBOG” (page 4, line 18) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of BOG” (page 4, line 19) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of CBOG” (page 4, line 21) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of BOG” (page 4, line 22) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “of CBOG” (page 4, line 23) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “supplying BOG” (page 5, line 1) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “supplying BOG” (page 5, line 2) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other BOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “supplying CBOG” (page 5, line 4) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “mixture of CBOG” (page 5, line 7) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “CBOG” (page 5, line 10) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing CBOG anew and it is unclear if this is the same or other CBOG that was previously recited.
The recitation, “separating, at the separator, CBOG from the mixture that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator for later removal” (page 5, line 10-11) is indefinite for not consistently reciting the mixture previously recited and it is unclear if this is the same or different mixture. Further, the recitation, “that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator” makes no grammatical sense.
The recitation, “passing through the pressure reducer while not performing reliquefaction at the pressure reducer” (line 8-9, page 5) is indefinite since it is unclear what is excluded from occurring in the pressure reducer. There is no support for preventing expansion at the pressure reducer and there is no way to discern what the exclusion includes and excludes.
In regard to claim 21, the recitation, “performance of the heat exchanger” (page 4, line 19) is indefinite as there is no way to determine what features, characteristics, or parameters are and are not included within the recitation of “performance”. Further, the recitation, “bypassing the BOG” (line 1, page 6) is indefinite for improperly reintroducing BOG and it is unclear if this is the BOG previously recited or some other BOG.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “bypassing the BOG” (line 14, page 6) is indefinite for reintroducing bypassing anew improperly and it is unclear if this is the same or other bypassing.
Claim Interpretation
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph except for the following: the pressure reducer is an expansion valve (see spec. para. 144).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2014-0075582) already of record on 7/9/2021, also see English translation provided herewith in view of Lee (KR 2014/0075594) see translation already of record and Maher (US 3282059). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed limitations as far as can be interpreted (as described below) and as far as they are supported.
In regard to claim 1, Jung teaches a boil-off-gas (BOG) reliquefaction system (see whole disclosure) for a ship (liquefied gas carrier, para. 2) having a storage tank (T) for carrying liquefied cargo gas (LNG, para. 2), the BOG reliquefaction system comprising: comprising:
a multistage compressor (100) configured to compress the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to provide compressed BOG (CBOG) (gas from T compressed in compressor 100);
a heat exchanger (210) configured to cool a flow of the CBOG (at least part of fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) through heat exchange with the BOG (BOG) flowing from the storage tank (T) to the multistage compressor (100);
wherein the heat exchanger (210) comprises a hot fluid channel (L2a through 210) configured to receive the flow of the CBOG (at least part of fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) and further comprises a cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) configured to receive the flow of the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T),
a pressure reducer (400) configured to liquefy at least part of the cooled CBOG (at least part of L2 after 210) from the heat exchanger (210) to provide a liquid-gas mixture (into 500);
a separator (500) configured to separate, from a flow of the liquid-gas mixture (into 500) from the pressure reducer (400), a flow of liquefied BOG (from bottom of 500) for returning back to the storage tank (T);
a bypass line (through 330) configured to flow the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the multistage compressor (100) bypassing the heat exchanger (210);
a shut-off valve (330) configured to open or close the bypass line (through 330),
wherein the shut-off valve (330) is configured to open for bypassing the BOG (BOG) via the bypass line (through 330) such that the BOG (BOG) flows from the storage tank (T) via the bypass line (through 330) to the multistage compressor (100) and such that the CBOG (at least part of fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) flows through the heat exchanger (210) without heat exchanging the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) (see that the valve 330 identified is entirely configured for such functional use).
Jung teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not appear to explicitly teach at least one cylinder uses lubricant oil such that the lubricant is mixed into the BOG while compressing the BOG with the at least one cylinder, and that when the flow of the CBOG (fluid in L2) is cooled at the heat exchanger (210) at least part of the lubricant oil is solidified to leave solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210).
However, Lee594 teaches that it is well known to lubricate compressor cylinders with oil (para. 54) and teaches that a flow of the CBOG (gas from the compressor) includes at least part of the lubricant oil (para. 57).
Further, Lee594 teaches that at least part of the lubricant oil may be solidified inside the heat exchanger to form oil residue and clog the heat exchanger (para. 57). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multistage compressor (100) of Jung with oil lubricated cylinders as taught by Lee594 for the purpose of preventing wear and improving the performance of the multistage compressor (100).
Further, Jung, as modified, teaches that when the shut-off valve (330) is open, the reliquefaction system is configured (the system as described is entirely able to perform the following functional language) to remove the solidified lubricant hold from the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210),
such that the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) flows through the bypass line (through 330) to the multistage compressor (100) while not supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210),
such that the CBOG (fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) flows to the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) for heating the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) and thereby melting the solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210),
such that a mixture of the CBOG (fluid in L2) and the melted lubricant oil is discharged from the heat exchanger (210) to the separator (500) through the pressure reducer (400),
such that the CBOG (fluid from L2) is separated, at the separator (500), from the melted lubricant oil so that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator (500) for later removal, and
such that the separated CBOG (via at least line L5) is returned back to the multistage compressor (100) via the bypass line (line through 330)(see line L5 is upstream the bypass line).
In addition, supposing for any reason that Jung is considered to not be capable of these functional use limitations, Maher teaches how to remove a solidified impurity (column 1, line 70) from a hot fluid channel (17-18) of a heat exchanger (X-1) by: supplying a BOG (in 34) from a storage tank (23) to a bypass line (8) bypassing the heat exchanger (X-1) while not supplying the BOG (in 34) from the storage tank (23) to the cold fluid channel (from 36 to 37) of the heat exchanger (X-1), supplying a warm natural gas fluid (“natural gas feed stream”) to the hot fluid channel (17-18) of the heat exchanger (X-1) for heating the hot fluid channel (17-18) and thereby melting the solidified impurity (column 3, line 35-55) inside the hot fluid channel (17-18), discharging a mixture of the warm natural gas fluid and a melted impurity (column 3, line 35-55) from the heat exchanger (X-1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Jung with a controller to operate the shut off valve (330) to perform a removing of solidified impurities as taught by Maher for the purpose of providing the ability to efficiently remove any solid lubricant oil accumulated in the heat exchanger (210) of Jung while maintaining the use of oil in the compressor (100) and maintaining operation as desired so that the operation of Jung is not impaired by the solid formation.
It is noted that the modification in view of Maher results in removing the solidified lubricant oil from the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) by: supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the multistage compressor (100) via a bypass line (through 330) bypassing the heat exchanger (210) while not supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210), supplying the CBOG (fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) to the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) for heating the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) and thereby melting the solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210), discharging a CBOG-oil mixture of the CBOG and the melted lubricant oil from the heat exchanger (210) to the separator (500) passing through the pressure reducer (400), separating, at the separator (500), the CBOG (fluid from L2) from the melted lubricant oil so that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator (500) for later removal, and returning the separated CBOG (via at least L5) back to the multistage compressor (100) via the bypass line (through 330) as an obvious implementation of the bypass teachings of Maher providing the benefit of using the available warmth of the compressed boil off gas to melt frozen oil in the heat exchanger (210).
In regard to claim 2, Jung, as modified, teaches that the shut-off valve (330) is configured to open when or in response to a failure of the heat exchanger (210) since having the heat exchanger be occluded by frozen impurities to an unacceptable level is considered a failure of the heat exchanger (210). Additionally and alternatively, the shut-off valve (330) is configured to open when the heat exchanger (210) needing an overhaul (interpreted to include as a remediation of the frozen oil in the heat exchanger)(also replacement and inspection - para. 27 taught by Jung would also be an obvious time for the system to open the bypass valve 330 to make 210 not operational).
In regard to claim 18, Jung teaches a method (see whole disclosure) of operating a ship (para. 2, “carrier”) having a storage tank (T) carrying liquefied cargo gas (LNG, para. 2), the method comprising:-3-Application No.: Not Yet Assigned
compressing, at a multistage compressor (100; para. 47), boil-off-gas (BOG)(para. 3; hereafter BOG) from the storage tank (T) to provide compressed BOG (CBOG) (at least part of fluid in L2);
cooling, at a heat exchanger (210), a flow of the CBOG (at least part of fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) through heat exchange with a flow of the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the multistage compressor (100);
wherein the heat exchanger (210) comprises a hot fluid channel (L2a through 210) configured to receive the flow of the CBOG (at least part of fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) and further comprises a cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) configured to receive the flow of the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T),
liquefying, at a pressure reducer (400), at least part of cooled CBOG (at least part of L2 after 210) from the heat exchanger (210) to provide a liquid-gas mixture (after 400 into 500);
separating, at a separator (500), a flow of liquefied BOG (liquid out of bottom of 500) from a flow of the liquefied-gas mixture (after 400 into 500);
providing a bypass line (through 330) having a shut-off valve (330);
wherein the shut-off valve (330) is configured to open to bypass the BOG (BOG) via the bypass line (through 330) such that the BOG (BOG) flows from the storage tank (T) via the bypass line (through 330) to the multistage compressor (100) without heat exchanging in the heat exchanger (210).
Jung teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the multistage compressor (100) comprises at least one cylinder using lubricant oil such that at least part of the lubricant oil is contained in the CBOG from the multistage compressor (100) and that when the flow of the CBOG (fluid in L2) is cooled at the heat exchanger (210) at least part of the lubricant oil is solidified to leave solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210).
However, Lee594 teaches that it is well known to lubricate compressor cylinders with oil (para. 54) and teaches that a flow of the CBOG (gas from the compressor) includes at least part of the lubricant oil (para. 57). Further, Lee594 teaches that at least part of the lubricant oil may be solidified inside the heat exchanger to form oil residue and clog the heat exchanger (para. 57). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the multistage compressor (100) of Jung with oil lubricated cylinders as taught by Lee594 for the purpose of preventing wear and improving the performance of the multistage compressor (100).
Additionally, Jung does not explicitly teach the steps of removing the solidified lubricant oil from the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) by: supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the multistage compressor (100) via a bypass line (through 330) bypassing the heat exchanger (210) while not supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210), supplying the CBOG (fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) to the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) for heating the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) and thereby melting the solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210), discharging a CBOG-oil mixture of the CBOG and the melted lubricant oil from the heat exchanger (210) to the separator (500) passing through the pressure reducer (400), separating, at the separator (500), the CBOG (fluid from L2) from the melted lubricant oil so that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator (500) for later removal, and returning the separated CBOG (via at least L5) back to the multistage compressor (100) via the bypass line (through 330).
However, Maher teaches how to remove a solidified impurity (column 1, line 70) from a hot fluid channel (17-18) of a heat exchanger (X-1) by: supplying a BOG (in 34) from a storage tank (23) to a bypass line (8) bypassing the heat exchanger (X-1) while not supplying the BOG (in 34) from the storage tank (23) to the cold fluid channel (from 36 to 37) of the heat exchanger (X-1), supplying a warm natural gas fluid (“natural gas feed stream”) to the hot fluid channel (17-18) of the heat exchanger (X-1) for heating the hot fluid channel (17-18) and thereby melting the solidified impurity (column 3, line 35-55) inside the hot fluid channel (17-18), discharging a mixture of the warm natural gas fluid and a melted impurity (column 3, line 35-55) from the heat exchanger (X-1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Jung with the removing of solidified impurities as taught by Maher for the purpose of providing the ability to efficiently remove any solid lubricant oil accumulated in the heat exchanger (210) of Jung while maintaining the use of oil in the compressor (100) and maintaining operation as desired so that the operation of Jung is not impaired by the solid formation.
It is noted that the modification results in removing the solidified lubricant oil from the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) by: supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the multistage compressor (100) via a bypass line (through 330) bypassing the heat exchanger (210) while not supplying the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) to the cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210), supplying the CBOG (fluid in L2) from the multistage compressor (100) to the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210) for heating the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210) and thereby melting the solidified lubricant oil inside the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210), discharging a CBOG-oil mixture of the CBOG and the melted lubricant oil from the heat exchanger (210) to the separator (500) passing through the pressure reducer (400), separating, at the separator (500), the CBOG (fluid from L2) from the melted lubricant oil so that the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator (500) for later removal, and returning the separated CBOG (via at least L5) back to the multistage compressor (100) via the bypass line (through 330) as an obvious implementation of the bypass teachings of Maher providing the benefit of using the available warmth of the compressed boil off gas to melt frozen oil in the heat exchanger (210).
Claim(s) 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2014-0075582 already of record on 7/9/2021), also see English translation provided herewith in view of Lee (KR 2014/0075594 see translation already of record), Maher (US 3282059), and Hilliard (US 2007/0151290). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed limitations as far as can be interpreted (as described below) and as far as they are supported.
Jung, as modified, does not explicitly teach determining to perform the bypass based on a pressure difference between upstream and downstream of the hot fluid channel (L2 through 210). However, using such a parameter is routine and ordinary for determining when to remove solidified impurities as taught by Hilliard. Hilliard teaches performing a remedial action (para. 9, 18, 30) in response to detecting (para. 25 “sensed” pressure drop) that a hot fluid channel (64, 74) of the heat exchanger (60, 70) is clogged due to a frozen condensate (para. 25-27, “freezing condensate”) accumulating in the hot fluid channel (64, 74) of the heat exchanger (70, 60) based at least upon a pressure difference (para. 16, 25, “pressure drop” between entrance and discharge of the heat exchanger) between upstream and downstream of the hot fluid channel (64, 74); the remedial action melts the frozen condensate (para. 28) and the melted material is removed from the heat exchanger (60, 70; para. 28). See that Hilliard teaches that it is well known to employ the pressure sensing upstream and downstream of the hot fluid channel (para. 25-26) to determine a pressure difference (“pressure drop”, para. 25) for knowing that the hot fluid channel of the heat exchanger is plugged by freezing and teaches that when a pressure difference is greater than a set point to take remedial action (para. 25, 26, 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to detect accumulation of solid lubricant in the heat exchanger (210) of Jung based at least upon a pressure difference between the upstream and downstream of the hot fluid channel (from L2 thru 210) and commanding the shut-off valve (330) to open in order to bypass the heat exchanger (210) for the purpose of providing a reliable and automatic determination of when to remove the solidified lubricant from the heat exchanger (210).
Further, in the office action dated 3/2/23, the examiner took official notice that employing a period of time for a parameter to exceed a threshold is well known for ensuring more stable operation and prevents errant switching of modes, as the applicant has failed to traverse this statement. As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to perform the bypassing when the pressure difference is in excess of a second preset value for a third predetermined period of time for the purpose of providing automatic detection a solidified lubricant within the heat exchanger in a manner that is resistant to errant switching by using the third predetermined period of time and has a sufficient change in pressure difference to warrant the remediation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR 2014-0075582 already of record on 7/9/2021, also see English translation provided herewith) in view of Lee (KR 2014/0075594 see translation already of record), Maher (US 3282059), Hilliard (US 2007/0151290), and Baseen (US 2004/0045440). See the 112 rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed limitations as far as can be interpreted (as described below) and as far as they are supported.
Jung, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the remedial action of bypassing the BOG is triggered when performance of the heat exchanger (21) is decreased to 60% to 80% of a predetermined performance level. However, Baseen teaches a heat exchanger (48, 66) having freezing therein and having a controller (para. 40) that monitors the heat exchanger pressure drop performance (para. 40, 35, 38) and when the pressure drop performance decreases by 60% to 80% (see a pressure drop increase to 5 psig when ordinarily has 3 psig pressure drop, this performance drop is a 66% drop in performance see (5 psig - 3 psig) / 3 psig), the controller defrosts the heat exchanger (para. 40-41). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Jung to defrost the heat exchanger (210) when a pressure drop performance decreases by 60% to 80% for the purpose of remediating the plugging of the heat exchanger as desired and returning the heat exchanger to a desired performance level at an economical frequency.
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Jung (KR 2014-0075582 already of record on 7/9/2021, also see English translation provided herewith) in view of Lee (KR 2014/0075594 see translation already of record), Maher (US 3282059), and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0114876) and An (US 2006/0156758) and additionally
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Jung (KR 2014-0075582 already of record on 7/9/2021, also see English translation provided herewith) in view of Lee (KR 2014/0075594 see translation already of record), Maher (US 3282059), Hilliard (US 2007/0151290), and further in view of Lee (US 2016/0114876) and An (US 2006/0156758).
Jung, as modified, makes obvious most of the claim limitations as detailed above but does not explicitly teach the nitrogen purging of the separator to discharge the at least part of the oil residue at a pressure of about 5 to 7 bar, as claimed in claims 45-46. However, Lee(876) teaches that it is routine to operate a separator (23) at 3 bar – (para. 181) and An teaches nitrogen purging (see fig. 2, nitrogen injection) of a separator (30) that operates normally near 3 bar. In the office action dated 3/2/23, the examiner took official notice that providing nitrogen for purging a space of an impurity is well known as the applicant has failed to traverse this statement. As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to purge the separator (500) of Jung with nitrogen for the purpose of removing the oil residue and for providing a stable pressure to the separator (23) as taught by An and further it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ a pressure of about 5 to 7 bar in order to provide sufficient pressure for the nitrogen to be used and added to the separator for purging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/11/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
January 2, 2026