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 Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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) 2 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 2, the recitation, “the shut-off valve is configured to open at least in response to an overhaul or failure of the heat exchanger” contains new matter as the scope of the recitation includes that the valve is self-operational and/or structured to not only open itself but respond to or sense operations in the heat exchanger and there is no support for the valve to have such control structure to respond to failures or overhauls of the heat exchanger itself; rather the disclosed valve (630) is merely a valve that may be acted upon or controlled.
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(s) 1, 18, the recitation, “at least a part of the lubricant oil is solidified” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already recited previously and it is unclear if this is the same or other lubricant oil part.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “wherein the bypass line is further connected to the separator to receive the CBOG separated at the separator, and return the separated CBOG to the multistage compressor” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the CBOG separated at the separator”. In addition, the introduction here creates indefiniteness issues for the later recitation “and separated CBOG is returned back to the multistage compressor via the bypass line”.
The recitation, “such that the CBOG is separated, at the separator,” (claim 1, page 3) is indefinite since there is no previous clause that the “such that” belongs to and therefore no way to determine what is “such that”.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “the shut-off valve is configured to open at least in response to an overhaul or failure of the heat exchanger” is indefinite as the disclosure does not disclose that the valve has any structure to make the valve self-operational in response operations in the heat exchanger.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “returning the separated CBOG” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the separated CBOG”.
In regard to claim 21, the recitation, “a performance level of the heat exchanger” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what features, characteristics, or parameters are and are not included within the recitation of “a performance level”.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “for more” is indefinite for making no grammatical or logical sense.
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 bypass line (through 330) is further connected to the separator (500) to receive a separated CBOG (at least some gas in L5) separated at the separator (500) and return the separated CBOG (at least some gas in L5) to the multistage compressor (100).
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 the bypass line (through 330) is further connected to the separator (500, via L5 - see that L5 is connected to 500 since fluid in L5 can communicate fluidly into the bypass - through 330) to receive a separated CBOG (part of fluid in L5) separated at the separator (500) and return the separated CBOG (part of fluid in L5) to the multistage compressor (100),
wherein, when the shut-off valve (330) is open, the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) flows through the bypass line (through 330) to the multistage compressor (100) while the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) is not supplied to the cold fluid channel (L1 through 210) of the heat exchanger (210),
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),
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).
Further it is rehearsed that, in the modification as explained the separated CBOG (fluid from L2) is separated, at the separator (500), from the mixture of the CBOG and the melted lubricant oil, and the melted lubricant oil is collected in the separator (500) for later removal, and
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 the claimed bypassing and thereby warm the heat exchanger (210) and remove solidified impurities, as taught by Maher, for the purpose of providing the ability to efficiently remove solid lubricant oil accumulated in the heat exchanger (210) of Jung while maintaining the longevity benefits of the lubricant oil in the compressor (100) and maintaining continued operation as desired so that the normal 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 the BOG (BOG) from the storage tank (T) is not supplied 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 separated 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 be opened when a failure of the heat exchanger (210) occurs 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 be opened when the heat exchanger (210) needs 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 shut-off valve 330 to make 210 not operational).
In regard to claim 16, Jung teaches that the system is fully capable of the functional language claimed, including when the shut-off valve (330), the CBOG from the multistage compressor (100) has a temperature in a range between 40C and 45C (fully capable of such use).
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);
returning at least part of the flow of the liquefied BOG (liquid out of the bottom of 500) to the storage tank (T);
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 the 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) through the pressure reducer (400),
separating, at the separator (500), the CBOG (fluid from L2) from the CBOG-oil mixture, such that 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 undesired accumulated solid lubricant oil in the heat exchanger (210) of Jung and thereby maintain the beneficial use of lubricant oil in the compressor (100) to ensure long life and low wear in the compressor (100) and thereby further provide a way to continue maintaining operation of Jung and alleviate reductions in performance of the heat exchanger caused by solidified oil therein.
It is noted that the modification results in the removing of 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) through the pressure reducer (400),
separating, at the separator (500), the CBOG (fluid from L2) from the CBOG-oil mixture, such 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), and Baseen (US 2004/0045440) and separately and likewise
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.
Applicant's arguments (page 8) are an allegation that Jung never discloses bypassing all heat exchangers at once.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claimed invention does not require bypassing all heat exchangers at once. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the bypassing of Jung is “functionally distinct from complete bypass of the heat exchanger when the line is clogged”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive. It is not persuasive to make false allegations. The heat exchanger (210), identified in the rejection, is indeed bypassed. There are no claim limitations that the prior art as combined in the rejection fails to teach, contrary to the false claims of the applicant.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that Maher does not teach solidified lubricant oil and that therefore the teachings of Maher “do not cure the deficiencies”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the teachings of Maher do make obvious the use of bypassing a clogged heat exchanger to heat a frozen impurity to remedy the clogged heat exchanger. The assertion that Maher must teach frozen oil to be probative is entirely unpersuasive and amounts to an assertion that those ordinary skill in the art are automatons, and this assertion is not persuasive and ignores the overwhelming evidence for obviousness.
Applicant's arguments (page 10, para. 2) are that Lee594 teaches the use of oil filtering and the applicant alleges that “since Lee594 teaches an oil separator” those of ordinary skill would not look to remediation as taught by Maher. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as there is no evidence that oil filtering would eliminate unwanted oil solidification in the heat exchanger entirely and always be 100% effective at all times. Those of ordinary skill in the art know that filtering is never perfect and therefore, providing the ability to remediate solidified lubricant oil in the heat exchanger still provides the benefits as outlined in the rejection, even if the oil filtering would delay and reduce such accumulation. The rationale and benefits of the combination of the references is not in the least overcome by the ordinary teachings of filtering as remediation as taught by Maher is still useful.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are a rehearsal of the tired allegation that the Jung does not teach “complete” bypassing. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for failing to identify any structure or step that is claimed that distinguishes the claimed invention from the combination of the prior art as outlined.
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 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
Prosecution Insights