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.
Claims 21, 24, 26-29, 32 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 21, the recitation, “the system being configured to enable a first fluid flow from the first fluid junction to the second fluid junction along intermediate portion of the first pipeline at the first output pressure, the first fluid flow avoiding the bypass circuit;” (line 22-24) and the recitation, “the system being configured to enable a second fluid flow along the bypass circuit toward the vaporizer at the second output pressure, the second fluid flow avoiding the intermediate portion of the first pipeline.” (line 25-27) includes new matter since the claim already recites the structure that makes this function possible and there is no other separately disclosed structure that “enables” the recited first fluid flow and the recited second fluid flow. The already recited junctions and all of the associated lines and pipes already enable the recited flows and there is no support for some other unidentified and unnamed structure that “configures” the system to perform the recited function.
In regard to claim 32, the recitation, “wherein the first pipeline is formed independent of any valve or pump between the first fluid junction and the second fluid junction” (line 11-13) is new matter. There is no support that the first pipeline is independent “any valve or pump” much less independent of any valve or pump in the recited location on the first pipeline. The disclosed pipeline is influenced by the first pump upstream thereof and this alone if fully evidence that the recitation introduces new matter. Further, there is no support whatsoever of an exclusion of any valve or pump between the first fluid junction and the second fluid junction. Not only is there no support for the exclusion, there is no support for the specific exclusion of “any valve” or “any pump” and no support of an exclusion between these two locations.
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) 21, 24, 26-29, 32 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 21, the recitation, “a first fluid junction at the intersection” (line 13) is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the intersection”. In addition, it is entirely unclear what the difference is between a fluid junction and an intersection and the recitation appears entirely redundant. Similar to saying that a hole has an opening. A fluid junction of two lines is an intersection of said two lines and therefore the recitation is unclear.
The recitation, “the system being configured to enable a first fluid flow from the first fluid junction to the second fluid junction along intermediate portion of the first pipeline at the first output pressure, the first fluid flow avoiding the bypass circuit;” (line 22-24) and the recitation, “the system being configured to enable a second fluid flow along the bypass circuit toward the vaporizer at the second output pressure, the second fluid flow avoiding the intermediate portion of the first pipeline.” (line 25-27) are indefinite since the claim recites structure already that performs the recited function and there is no other identifiable structure that “enables” the recited functions. The already recited junctions and already recited lines and pipes enable the recited flows and there is no support for some other unidentified and unnamed structure that “configures” the system to perform the recited function and no way to determine what structure of the system is supposedly responsible for the recited fluid flows aside from the structures already recited.
In regard to claim 32, the recitation, “wherein the first pipeline is formed independent of any valve or pump between the first fluid junction and the second fluid junction” (line 11-13) is indefinite as there is no way to determine what is and is not included by the recitation of the first pipeline being “independent of any valve or pump”. The recitation is further indefinite as the claim is a system claim and the system is not defined by steps such as any forming of the first pipeline. Further the recitation is indefinite since the disclosure shows that the first pipeline extends between the first fluid junction and the second fluid junction and therefore it is unclear how the pipeline could be independent of components on the first pipeline itself.
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.
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummelhoff (WO 2013/032340) in view of Matsumura (US 5678411).
Note the 112 rejections and see that the prior art meets the claims as best understood and as supported.
In regard to claim 21, Rummelhoff teaches a gas recondensing system (Fig. 2 at least, see whole disclosure) comprising:
a storage tank (1) configured for storing liquefied natural gas and boil off gas (page 3, line 35-37 “LNG cargo system”);
a first pump (2) having a first pump inlet (inlet of 2) in fluid communication with the storage tank (1) for receiving the liquefied natural gas from the storage tank (1) at a first inlet pressure via a pipeline (see inlet line to 2), the first pump (2) being operative to output the liquefied natural gas from a first pump outlet (outlet of 2) at a first output pressure greater than the first inlet pressure (per operation of pump 2);
an ejector (4) in fluid communication with the storage tank (1), the ejector (4) receiving at least some (see boil off gas leaving tank 1, hereafter BOG) of the boil off gas from the storage tank (1) via a BOG diverge pipe (at least 14) at a boil off gas inlet pressure (see gas leaving tank is at a boil off gas inlet pressure), the ejector (4) receiving the liquefied natural gas at the first output pressure via a diverge pipe (3), the ejector (4) being operative to combine the boil off gas (BOG) and the liquefied natural gas (from 2) into a combined fluid (output fluid of ejector 4) at an ejector output (outlet of 4),
the ejector (4) utilizing the first output pressure (of pump 2) as a motive force to output the combined fluid (output fluid of ejector 4) at an ejector output pressure (pressure of output of 4) greater than the boil off gas inlet pressure (see pressure at 5 is higher than pressure of BOG leaving tank 1);
a discharge line (5 to heat exchangers of page 4, line 14 “series of heat exchangers” hereafter 5 for simplicity) coupled to the ejector (4) to receive the ejector output (outlet of 4) from the ejector (4), the discharge line (5) extending from the ejector (4);
a valve (40) fluidly integrated into the discharge line (5) downstream of the ejector output (outlet of 4), operation of the valve (40) enabling selective control of fluid flow and fluid pressure within a portion of the discharge line (5) upstream therefrom (from the valve 40) to facilitate a phase conversion of the boil off gas in the combined fluid (in line after ejector 4) to create a quantity of converted liquified natural gas (some of the liquid in line 5 that had been BOG before the contact with the liquid natural gas; hereafter some liquid in 5) in the discharge line (5)(see that the valve can vary its opening and this is all the structure required to be able to perform the recited function);
a second pump (10) fluidly integrated into the discharge line (5) downstream of the valve (40) such that a second pump inlet (inlet of 10) of the second pump (10) receives the quantity of converted liquified natural gas (some liquid in 5) that is produced from the combined fluid (output of ejector 4) (see that the second pump 10 receives an amount of liquid formed from the output of ejector 4), the second pump (10) being operative to elevate a pressure of the converted liquefied natural gas (some liquid in 5) to a second output pressure greater than the first output pressure of the first pump (2) (per operation of pump 10) and output the converted liquified natural gas (some liquid in 5) from a second pump outlet (outlet of 10) at the second output pressure into a portion of the discharge line (5) downstream of the second pump inlet (inlet of 10); and
a vaporizer (see page 4, line 15 “series of heat exchangers”, hereafter heat exchangers); the diverge pipe (3) the ejector (4) the discharge line (5) the valve (40), and the second pump (10) forming one circuit (path from 3 to 4 to 5 to 40 to 10) to the vaporizer (heat exchangers); the system being capable of a second fluid flow along the one circuit (path from 3 to 4 to 5 to 40 to 10) toward the vaporizer (heat exchangers) at the second output pressure; the system being capable of a second fluid flow along the one circuit (path from 3 to 4 to 5 to 40 to 10) toward the vaporizer (heat exchangers) at the second output pressure.
Rummelhoff does not explicitly teach that the diverge pipe (3) has a first fluid junction with a first pipeline, the first pipeline having an intermediate portion extending from the first fluid junction to a second fluid junction, the second fluid junction intersecting with the discharge line (5) and leading to the vaporizer (heat exchangers); the system thereby being capable of a first fluid flow from the first fluid junction to the second fluid junction along the intermediate portion of the first pipeline at the first output pressure, the first fluid flow avoiding the one circuit (path from 3 to 4 to 5 to 40 to 10) and system thereby being capable of the second fluid flow along the one circuit (path from 3 to 4 to 5 to 40 to 10) and avoiding the intermediate portion of the first pipeline, so that the one circuit (path from 3 to 4 to 5 to 40 to 10) is a bypass circuit around the intermediate portion of the first pipeline.
However, providing fluid bypasses is old and well known as taught by Matsumura. Matsumura explicitly teaches (Fig. 1) a storage tank (1) of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)(column 7, line 35-40); a first pump (3) in fluid communication with the storage tank (1) for receiving the liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the storage tank (1) at a first inlet pressure and operative to output the liquefied natural gas (LNG) from a first pump outlet (outlet of 3) at a first output pressure (outlet pressure of 3) greater than the first inlet pressure (due to operation of 3); a first pipeline (see 14) in fluid communication with the first pump (3) to receive the liquefied natural gas (LNG) that is output from the first pump (3); a diverge pipe (see line through second pump 6) in fluid communication with the first pipeline (14) and extending therefrom so as to define a first fluid junction (see junction right before 29) of the diverge pipe (line through 6) and the first pipeline (14); the first pipeline (14) having an intermediate portion (middle part) extending from the first fluid junction (junction just before 29) to a second fluid junction (junction after 21 just before 4 hereafter junction after 21 for shorthand), the second fluid junction (junction after 21) intersecting with a discharge line (19) and leading to a vaporizer (4); the identified lines above thereby providing the capability of providing a first fluid flow (flow through 14) from the first fluid junction (just before 29) to the second fluid junction (junction after 21) along the intermediate portion (middle part) of the first pipeline (14) at the first output pressure (pressure of the first pump 3) to the vaporizer (4), the first fluid flow (flow through 14) avoiding the diverge pipe (line through second pump 6); and further the identified lines provide the ability to alternatively flow a second fluid flow (flow through 6) through the diverge pipe (through 6) along a bypass circuit (through the second pump 6) and avoid the intermediate portion (middle part) of the first pipeline (14). Thereby the teachings of Matsumura show it is routine to provide the ability to bypass a second pump to provide flexibility in pumping. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rummelhoff with the first pipeline as identified above from Matsumura so as to provide the ability to selectively pump liquefied natural gas directly to the vaporizer (heat exchangers) at the first output pressure (pressure of the first pump) without the use of the second pump (10 of Rummelhoff) to increase the flexibility of the system and to provide the ability to bypass the second pump (10 of Rummelhoff) in situations where the demanded output from the vaporizers is very low and there is no need for the operation of the ejector (4) and the second pump (10) and for the purpose of providing efficient pressurization and to save energy in certain situations thereby providing greater flexibility to the system.
Note that the identified modification of Rummelhoff meets all of the claim limitations that are supported and definite.
In regard to claim 32, Rummelhoff, as modified, teaches that the first pipeline (14 of Matsumura) is formed independent of any valve or pump (see that the pipeline is made of a material that does not depend on any valve or pump to hold and transport fluid) between the first fluid junction (before 29) and the second fluid junction (after 21).
Claims 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummelhoff (WO 2013/032340) in view of Matsumura (US 5678411) and Dabkowski (US 2018/0216877).
Rummelhoff teaches most of the claim limitations including a compressor (30) in fluid communication with the storage tank (1) for receiving at least some of the boil off gas therefrom, but does not explicitly teach a pressurized boil off gas output line from the compressor (30) combining with an output from the vaporizer downstream therefrom.
However, it is routine and ordinary to provide compressed boil off gas to an output line after a vaporizer. For example, Dabkowski teaches an output line (4, 15) from a boil-off gas compressor (3, 9) is combined with an output line (14’) from a vaporizer (13) downstream therefrom for the purpose of providing pressurized boil off gas to user or consumer. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rummelhoff, as modified, with the output line of Dabowski so as to provide pressurized boil off gas from the compressor (30) to combine with output from the vaporizer of Rummelhoff, for the purpose of providing pressurized boil off gas to the engines when more fuel is needed by the engines and to improve the ability of the system to provide a greater range of output.
Claims 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Rummelhoff (WO 2013/032340) in view of Matsumura (US 5678411) and further in view of Werner (US 2008/0110181).
In addition, Claims 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rummelhoff (WO 2013/032340) in view of Matsumura (US 5678411), Dabkowski (US 2018/0216877), and further in view of Werner (US 2008/0110181).
Note the 112 rejections and see that the prior art meets the claims as best understood and as supported and that the claims are interpreted as outlined in the prior art rejections.
In regard to claims 26-29, Rummelhoff teaches a separator (6) fluidly integrated into the discharge line (5) before the valve (40), the separator (6) being operative to separate any residual boil off gas not converted to liquified natural gas from the combined fluid (output of ejector 4); a compressor (30) in fluid communication with the storage tank (1) for receiving at least some boil off gas therefrom; the separator (6) includes a residual boil off gas outlet (see top) in fluid communication with a boil off gas line (14) fluidly coupling the storage tank (1) to the compressor (30).
Rummelhoff does not explicitly teach a mixer fluidly integrated into the discharge line between the ejector (4) and the separator (6), the mixer being operative to disperse the boil-off gas within the liquefied natural gas in the combined fluid (output of ejector 4). However, it is well known to employ mixers for the purpose of providing improved condensation of vapor. Werner teaches a mixer (G) between an ejector (F) and the separator (H), the mixer (G) being operative to disperse the boil off gas within a liquified natural gas (see that gas is dispersed within liquid natural gas)(para. 23-24). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rummelhoff with a mixer between the ejector (4) and the separator (6), the mixer being operative disperse the boil-off gas within the liquified natural gas in the combined fluid (output of ejector 4) of Rummelhoff for the purpose of providing more condensation of vapor through increased direct contact between gas and liquid components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 6-7) are an allegation that the amendment overcomes the former 112 issues. In response, the applicant is applauded for the improvements made to the claims. However, the amendment still contains some 112 issues as detailed above.
Applicant's arguments (page 7-8) are an allegation that the claimed invention is not obvious over the amended limitations. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive in view of the detailed grounds of rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that Matsumura does not teach a bypass circuit formed by the diverge pipe, the ejector, the discharge line, the valve, and the second pump…around the intermediate portion of the first pipeline from the first fluid junction to the second fluid junction.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the rejection is not founded on Matsumura alone but relies on the Rummelhoff as modified by Matsumura as outlined in the rejection above and the combination does indeed provide the recited bypass circuit (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated ANY of 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
JFPIII
February 11, 2026