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 .
Claim Status Identifiers
The applicant has provided incorrect status identifiers for claims 11 and 34. Claim 11 should be labeled as withdrawn and claim 34 should be labeled new. The applicant is reminded to provide correct status identifiers to avoid delay and notices of non-compliant amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the equipment being fueled must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-3, 9, 12-13, 16, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29-34 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 1, the recitation, “adjusting flow of the mixing stream to maintain the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration required by equipment being fueled by the fuel product stream” in combination with the combining recitation appears to create new matter scope since the recitation requires includes that the combining step must produce a fuel product stream having a nitrogen concentration that is not within the claimed range and requires a further adjusting step to alter the nitrogen concentration. Thereby mandating that the combining step must produce an incorrect amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream initially that must then be later adjusted.
However, this appears inconsistent with the disclosed invention which only employs an adjustment of flow of the mixing stream if the nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen product stream is not within the claimed range (para. 68).
Further, it is clear that the disclosed equipment would operate even if no additional nitrogen were added from the mixing stream (note that gas turbines do not require nitrogen to function) and further since the mixing stream has a higher nitrogen concentration that the fuel stream, the disclosed invention would not necessitate adjusting the flow of the mixing stream if the combining step provided a nitrogen concentration in the fuel product stream at or below the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration and therefore the claim scope contains new matter.
In regard to claim 26, the recitation, “adjusting flow of the mixing stream to maintain a vaporized fuel stream nitrogen concentration at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration required by equipment being fueled by the fuel product stream” in combination with the combining recitation appears to create new matter scope since the recitation requires includes that the combining step must produce a fuel product stream having a nitrogen concentration that is not within the claimed range and requires a further adjusting step to alter the nitrogen concentration. Thereby mandating that the combining step must produce an incorrect amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream initially that must then be later adjusted.
However, this appears inconsistent with the disclosed invention which only employs an adjustment of flow of the mixing stream if the nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen product stream is not within the claimed range (para. 68).
Further, it is clear that the disclosed equipment would operate even if no additional nitrogen were added from the mixing stream (note that gas turbines do not require nitrogen to function) and further since the mixing stream has a higher nitrogen concentration that the fuel stream, the disclosed invention would not necessitate adjusting the flow of the mixing stream if the combining step provided a nitrogen concentration in the fuel product stream at or below the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration and therefore the claim scope contains new matter.
In regard to claim 32, the recitation, “adjusting flow of the mixing stream to maintain the fuel product stream concentration at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration required by equipment being fueled by the fuel product stream while leaving the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration unchanged.” in combination with the combining recitation appears to create new matter scope since the recitation requires includes that the combining step must produce a fuel product stream having a nitrogen concentration that is not within the claimed range and requires a further adjusting step to alter the nitrogen concentration. Thereby mandating that the combining step must produce an incorrect amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream initially that must then be later adjusted.
However, this appears inconsistent with the disclosed invention which only employs an adjustment of flow of the mixing stream if the nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen product stream is not within the claimed range (para. 68).
Further, it is clear that the disclosed equipment would operate even if no additional nitrogen were added from the mixing stream (note that gas turbines do not require nitrogen to function) and further since the mixing stream has a higher nitrogen concentration that the fuel stream, the disclosed invention would not necessitate adjusting the flow of the mixing stream if the combining step provided a nitrogen concentration in the fuel product stream at or below the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration and therefore the claim scope contains new matter.
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) Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 12-13, 16, 22, 24-27, 29-34 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, “adjusting flow of the mixing stream to maintain the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration required by equipment being fueled by the fuel product stream” is indefinite since it is not clear what “required” encompasses. Does the recitation require some connection between the equipment and the structures that perform the adjusting or does the equipment “require” an amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream to function or the does the recitation require something else? It is unclear how to interpret the recitation, since it appears that the equipment disclosed tolerates a maximum amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream and does not require a maximum amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream. It appears the disclosed equipment would operate with no added nitrogen from the mixing stream (note that gas turbines do not require nitrogen to function) and it is unclear if the recitation means that the combining in the step (c) must provide a fuel product stream nitrogen concentration that is incorrect at first and then the method performs the adjusting step to alter the nitrogen concentration in the nitrogen product stream. This appears contrary to the disclosed invention and is inconsistent with the recitation “to maintain” the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration at or below the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration.
Further, if the method permits the nitrogen concentration to be correct from the combining why would the method require further adjustment?
It appears from the disclosure that adjusting of flow of the mixing stream is simply the control input parameter that is altered if there is a need to change the nitrogen concentration of the fuel product stream. Therefore, it is unclear if the combining must create a larger than desired nitrogen concentration initially in order to require that the adjusting step is performed and it is unclear what scope the recitations include and exclude.
Further the recitation of “:” after “unchanged” is grammatically errant.
Further, note that the recitation “while leaving the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration unchanged” is unclear since any change of the flow of the mixing would not be responsible for preventing the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration from changing, but rather the manner of the separation of the LNG product stream and therefore it is unclear how to interpret the recitation.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “wherein the adjusting of the flow of the mixing stream of step (e)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “step (e)” and it is unclear why the recitation is not -- wherein the adjusting of the flow of the mixing stream of the step (e)--.
In regard to claims 24, 29, the recitation, “required by equipment” is indefinite for inappropriately reintroducing equipment anew and it is unclear why the recitation does not properly recite --required by the equipment--.
In regard to claim 25, the recitation, “whereby step (c) comprises controlling the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration independently of the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration.” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing step (c) and it is not clear what action(s) is/are encompassed by the recitation, since it would appear that the controlling action could encompass mere performance of the steps already recited (i.e. combining the mixing stream and the fuel stream) and no further action and that the recitation merely qualifies that any changing of the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration does so without requiring a change of the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration.
For examination, the recitation is considered performed so long as altering the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration does not mandate an altering the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration.
In regard to claim 26, the recitation, “adjusting flow of the mixing stream to maintain a vaporized fuel stream nitrogen concentration at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration required by equipment being fueled by the fuel product stream” is indefinite since it is not clear what “required” encompasses. Does the recitation require some connection between the equipment and the structures that perform the adjusting or does the equipment “require” an amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream to function or the does the recitation require something else? It is unclear how to interpret the recitation, since it appears that the equipment disclosed tolerates a maximum amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream and does not require a maximum amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream. It appears the disclosed equipment would operate with no added nitrogen from the mixing stream (note that gas turbines do not require nitrogen to function) and it is unclear if the recitation means that the combining in the step (c) must provide a fuel product stream nitrogen concentration that is incorrect at first and then the method performs the adjusting step to alter the nitrogen concentration in the nitrogen product stream. This appears contrary to the disclosed invention and is inconsistent with the recitation “to maintain” the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration at or below the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration.
Further, if the method permits the nitrogen concentration to be correct from the combining why would the method require further adjustment?
It appears from the disclosure that adjusting of flow of the mixing stream is simply the control input parameter that is altered if there is a need to change the nitrogen concentration of the fuel product stream. Therefore, it is unclear if the combining must create a larger than desired nitrogen concentration initially in order to require that the adjusting step is performed and it is unclear what scope the recitations include and exclude.
In regard to claim 32, the recitation, “adjusting flow of the mixing stream to maintain the fuel product stream concentration at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration required by equipment being fueled by the fuel product stream while leaving the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration unchanged.” is indefinite since it is not clear what “required” encompasses. Does the recitation require some connection between the equipment and the structures that perform the adjusting or does the equipment “require” an amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream to function or the does the recitation require something else? It is unclear how to interpret the recitation, since it appears that the equipment disclosed tolerates a maximum amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream and does not require a maximum amount of nitrogen in the fuel product stream. It appears the disclosed equipment would operate with no added nitrogen from the mixing stream (note that gas turbines do not require nitrogen to function) and it is unclear if the recitation means that the combining in the step (c) must provide a fuel product stream nitrogen concentration that is incorrect at first and then the method performs the adjusting step to alter the nitrogen concentration in the nitrogen product stream. This appears contrary to the disclosed invention and is inconsistent with the recitation “to maintain” the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration at or below the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration.
Further, if the method permits the nitrogen concentration to be correct from the combining why would the method require further adjustment?
It appears from the disclosure that adjusting of flow of the mixing stream is simply the control input parameter that is altered if there is a need to change the nitrogen concentration of the fuel product stream. Therefore, it is unclear if the combining must create a larger than desired nitrogen concentration initially in order to require that the adjusting step is performed and it is unclear what scope the recitations include and exclude.
Further, note that the recitation “while leaving the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration unchanged” is unclear since any change of the flow of the mixing would not be responsible for preventing the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration from changing, but rather the manner of the separation of the LNG product stream and therefore it is unclear how to interpret the recitation.
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) 1-3, 9, 12, 13, 16, 22, 24-27, 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2015/0308737) in view of Van Amelsvoort (EP 2796818) and Alexandra (BR 112012001046). See the 112 rejections and note that the claims are interpreted at least as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim(s) 1, 2, 24, 32, Chen teaches a method (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 6) comprising:
(a) cooling and at least partially liquefying a natural gas feed stream (100) to form a cooled LNG stream (108) having a cooled LNG nitrogen concentration (nitrogen concentration thereof);
(b) performing a plurality of phase separations (see separations figure 6) in downstream fluid flow communication with the cooled LNG stream (108) to produce a nitrogen vapor stream (136) having a vapor stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), a fuel stream (liquid descending within 534) having a fuel stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), and an LNG product stream (132) having an LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), wherein the vapor stream nitrogen concentration (of 136) is greater than the cooled LNG nitrogen concentration (108), the fuel stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen of liquid descending within 534) and the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen of 132) (due to nitrogen separation steps; para. 76),
(c) combining the fuel stream (liquid descending within 534) with a mixing stream (574) to create a fuel product stream (138) having a fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration being greater than the fuel stream nitrogen concentration (of liquid descending within 534 due to fluid with unseparated nitrogen entering from 574), the mixing stream (574) being in downstream fluid flow communication with the cooled LNG stream (108); and
(d) recycling a recycle stream (572) comprising a portion of the nitrogen vapor stream (136) as reflux (sent to top of 534) for a rectification column (534);
wherein the natural gas feed stream (100) has a feed stream nitrogen concentration (thereof) and the feed stream nitrogen concentration is equal to the cooled LNG nitrogen concentration (see that the there is no removal of nitrogen from 100 to 108); further note that the mixing of Chen leaves the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration unchanged (see that the nitrogen concentration of 132 is not altered by the mixing of 574 with the liquid descending within 534).
Chen does not explicitly teach adjusting flow of the mixing stream (574) to maintain the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (of 138) at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration tolerated by a gas turbine being fueled by the fuel product stream (138) while leaving the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen of 132) unchanged; and does not teach that the adjusting comprises adjusting a valve; and does not explicitly teach that the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration tolerated by the gas turbine fueled by the fuel product stream (138) is 15 mole percent.
However, it is well known to provide adjustment of a mixing stream as taught by Van Amelsvoort. Van Amelsvoort teaches adjusting flow of a mixing stream (11) via adjusting a valve (15) to maintain a fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen concentration of fluid to gas turbine 320 from combination of 11 and 40) at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration (para. 23 between 10% and 30%) tolerated by a gas turbine (gas turbine para. 23) being fueled by the fuel product stream (to gas turbine 320 from combination of 11 and 40).
In addition to the above evidence, Alexandra also explicitly teaches that it is routine and common that gas turbines cannot tolerate nitrogen content above 15 mol% in their gas fuels (page 6, para. 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Chen with a gas turbine fueled by the fuel product stream (138) for the purpose of providing power production from the natural gas on hand and reducing the need for external power generation and to modify Chen with the combining and adjusting of a mixing stream as taught by Van Amelsvoort for the purpose of reducing the needed size for the nitrogen column (para. 23) and for the purpose of ensuring that the fuel product stream to the gas turbine is below a maximum value (para. 23) for the purpose of ensuring proper operation of the gas turbine and to also employ a maximum value of 15% as suggested by Alexandra so as to accommodate common gas turbines.
In rehearsed regard to claim 2, Chen, as modified, teaches that the adjusting of the flow of the mixing stream of the step (e) comprises adjusting a valve (see operation of valve 15 of Van Amelsvoort).
In regard to claim 3, Chen teaches that at least one of the plurality of phase separations of the step (b) is performed in the rectification column (534) and the fuel stream (descending liquid in 534) is withdrawn as a liquid (as part of the fuel product stream 138) from a bottom end (see bottom of 534) of the rectification column (534).
In regard to claim 9, Chen teaches that at least one of the plurality of phase separations further comprises phase separating (via 114) the cooled LNG stream (108) to produce a flash gas stream (116) and the LNG product stream (132).
In regard to claim 12, Chen teaches that the plurality of phase separations further comprises introducing at least a first portion (122) of the flash gas stream (116) into the rectification column (534) to produce the nitrogen vapor stream (136) and the fuel stream (liquid descending in 534).
In regard to claim 13, Chen teaches that the mixing stream (574) comprises a second portion (part of 116) of the flash gas stream (116).
In regard to claim 16, Chen teaches (j) venting (interpreted as outputting for some other use or purpose; see 136 is output) the nitrogen vapor stream (136).
In regard to claim 22, Chen does not appear to teach pumping the LNG product stream (132) to an LNG storage tank. However, official notice is taken that it is routine and ordinary to pump LNG product from one storage to another for the purpose of moving liquid for transportation of the natural gas and as part of selling operations. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Chen by pumping the LNG product stream (132) to another LNG storage tank for the purpose of selling the liquid and transporting the natural gas to other users away from where the process of Chen is located.
In rehearsed regard to claim 24, Chen, as modified, teaches that the maximum fuel nitrogen concentration tolerated by the gas turbine is 15% (see Alexandra).
In regard to claim(s) 25-27, 29, Chen teaches a method (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 6) comprising:
(a) cooling and at least partially liquefying a natural gas feed stream (100) to form a cooled LNG stream (108) having a cooled LNG nitrogen concentration (nitrogen concentration thereof);
(b) performing a plurality of phase separations (see separations figure 6) in downstream fluid flow communication with the cooled LNG stream (108) to produce a nitrogen vapor stream (136) having a vapor stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), a fuel stream (liquid descending within 534) having a fuel stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), and an LNG product stream (132) having an LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), wherein the vapor stream nitrogen concentration (of 136) is greater than the cooled LNG nitrogen concentration (108), the fuel stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen of liquid descending within 534) and the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen of 132) (due to nitrogen separation steps; para. 76),
(c) combining the fuel stream (liquid descending within 534) with a mixing stream (574) to create a fuel product stream (138) having a fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (thereof), the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration being greater than the fuel stream nitrogen concentration (of liquid descending within 534 due to fluid with unseparated nitrogen entering from 574), the mixing stream (574) being in downstream fluid flow communication with the cooled LNG stream (108); and
(d) recycling a recycle stream (572) comprising a portion of the nitrogen vapor stream (136) as reflux (sent to top of 534) for a rectification column (534);
whereby the step (c) comprises controlling the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen concentration of 138) independently of the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (of 132)(per arrangement of the lines and separations).
Chen does not explicitly teach vaporizing the fuel product stream comprising the fuel stream and the mixing stream to produce a vaporized fuel stream; adjusting flow of the mixing stream (574) to maintain the fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (of 138) at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration tolerated by a gas turbine being fueled by the fuel product stream (138) while leaving the LNG product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen of 132) unchanged; and does not teach that the adjusting comprises adjusting a valve; and does not explicitly teach that the maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration tolerated by the gas turbine fueled by the fuel product stream (138) is 15 mole percent.
However, it is well known to provide a vaporized fuel product stream and adjustment of a mixing stream as taught by Van Amelsvoort. Van Amelsvoort teaches vaporizing a fuel product stream (see combined stream of 11 and 40 have at least a portion that is vaporized and sent to line 230 and eventually to the gas turbine 320); adjusting flow of a mixing stream (11) via adjusting a valve (15) to maintain a vaporized fuel product stream nitrogen concentration (nitrogen concentration of fluid to gas turbine 320 from combination of 11 and 40) at or below a maximum fuel gas nitrogen concentration (para. 23 between 10% and 30%) tolerated by a gas turbine (gas turbine para. 23) being fueled by the fuel product stream (to gas turbine 320 from combination of 11 and 40).
In addition to the above evidence, Alexandra also explicitly teaches that it is routine and common that gas turbines cannot tolerate nitrogen content above 15 mol% in their gas fuels (page 6, para. 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Chen with a gas turbine fueled by a vaporized fuel product stream for the purpose of providing power production from the natural gas on hand and reducing the need for external power generation as taught by Van Amelsvoort and to modify Chen with the combining and adjusting of a mixing stream as taught by Van Amelsvoort for the purpose of reducing the needed size for the nitrogen column (para. 23) and for the purpose of ensuring that the fuel product stream to the gas turbine is below a maximum value (para. 23) for the purpose of ensuring proper operation of the gas turbine and to also employ a maximum value of 15% as suggested by Alexandra so as to accommodate common gas turbines.
In regard to claim(s) 30, 33, Chen, as modified, teaches using the vaporized fuel stream as fuel for at least one gas turbine (see 320 of Amelsvoort).
In regard to claim(s) 31, 34, Chen teaches driving at least one compressor adapted to compress a refrigerant used to perform the step (a) (para. 96 - see 652, 660), but not that the gas turbine drives these refrigerant compressors. However, Amelsvoort makes clear that driving refrigerant compressors with the vaporized fuel is routine and ordinary (para. 54, 96). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to power the compressors of Chen with the gas turbine fueled by the vaporized fuel stream for the purpose of making immediate use of the power generated by the gas turbine and reducing the need for external power for the refrigerant compressors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground 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
March 6, 2026