Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The specification and drawings have been reviewed and no clear informalities or objections have been noted.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (WO2013/087569A2) in view of Huang (US 2009/0151391).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, 15-17, Santos discloses a method for liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction, the method comprising: receiving a gas feed stream; condensing the gas feed stream into an LNG product stream (via liquefaction unit 100);
removing nitrogen from the LNG product stream using a nitrogen rejection unit (via nitrogen stripper column 20 which is the nitrogen rejection unit) to produce a final LNG product stream (stream 90); and
Santos, teaches the production of a LNG product stream, but is silent regarding how this stream is monitored for contaminants. More specifically, Santos does not teach monitoring component content by performing a compositional analysis of one or more process samples via mass spectrometry without using gas chromatography nor does Santos teach a control logic control system which controls a portion of the LNG facility using the mass spec data.
Huang also discloses an LNG facility (see abstract).
Huang, like Santos, teaches the routing method of removing nitrogen from an LNG stream (paragraph 7). Huang goes on to teach an LNG facility that is equipped with a feedback system utilizing logic to make adjustments to the LNG process based on the results of a compositional analysis of the gas stream (see, for example, Fig. 1b which illustrates a logic flow chart). Huang teaches that the mechanisms used to monitor the LNG stream can be any of a number of well known gas analysis tools, including mass spectrometry as well as gas chromatography (paragraph 32).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add the gas compositional analysis system along with the logic system to monitor and change at least part of the LNG system based on the compositional analysis of Huang to the method of Santos in order to monitor and produce a predictable, acceptable LNG stream for downstream use.
Furthermore, while modified Santos does not explicitly teach not using GC, Huang teaches several compositional analysis tools that are not GC. Such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Such a modification amounts to nothing more than choosing form a finite number of well-known solutions for their intended purpose to achieve entirely predictable results.
Furthermore, modified Santos teaches a plurality of locations to monitor the process streams (as disclosed in paragraph 32 of Huang which teaches that a number of locations within the process can include a compositional analysis step including measuring the composition at the beginning, stream 100, an intermediate position, stream 100a or 102 and the final product stream, bottoms of distillation column 26) and Santos also teaches the importance of “on spec LNG product” (paragraph 10 of Santos), but there is not an explicit disclosure in Santos that teaches taking a process sample of the final LNG product stream or from an intermediate stream at a location before the nitrogen rejection unit.
However, seeing that Santos is intended to meet some compositional thresholds in the final LNG product and Huang teaches a process and system for monitoring gas samples with locations at the beginning, middle and end of the process for the purpose of determining and adjusting each of these streams (see paragraph 33 of Huang which teaches making adjustments to the measured streams), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a process sample to the final LNG product of modified Santos in order to ensure that the final product meets the desired specifications as well as measuring intermediate stream in order to make adjustments to the intermediate streams as needed.
Regarding claims 3-6, Santos, as modified by Huang, discloses the further discloses evaluating the nitrogen, methane, and ethane content (or any selected compositional property, paragraph 32 of Huang).
Claim(s) 11-14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (WO2013/087569A2) in view of Huang (US 2009/0151391) and further in view of Qualls (US 2007/0012072).
Regarding claims 11-14, 18 and 19, Santos, as modified above, teaches a method in which the composition of the LNG (such as methane, ethane, nitrogen, etc.) are monitored and adjustments are made to the process to adjust these components to their desired levels/efficiency.
However, Santos does not explicitly teach a communication network to transmit data.
Qualls teaches a controller/control logic that is utilized to make adjustments to the efficiency/composition of the unit by communicating changes to, for example, a flow controller or temperature controller (paragraph 46).
However, transmitting data over a network and utilizing a control logic/processor to monitor/evaluate efficiencies and making changes accordingly, as taught by Qualls, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add such a feature to modified Santos in order to assist in automation and remove the need for manual monitoring and operation of an LNG facility.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santos (WO2013/087569A2) in view of Huang (US 2009/0151391) and further in view of Akmal (US 2016/0146764).
Regarding claims 21-23, Santos, as modified above, teaches a plurality of process samples that are taken throughout the system, but does not explicitly disclose that these process samples are analyzed simultaneously.
Akmal also discloses a system for analyzing natural gas (see abstract).
Akmal, like Santos, teaches a process that takes samples from the upstream and downstream sections of the process (see abstract which discloses multiple locations for sample analysis). Akmal goes on to teach that these samples are taken simultaneously in order to properly evaluate the function of the process units in real time without the delay associated with analysis (in this case, it’s the membranes, see paragraph 32 which states that the analyzers are operated simultaneously in order to negate the problem of timing that the analysis takes).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to operate the analyzers of modified Santos simultaneously, as taught by Akmal, in order to properly evaluate the function of the process units in real time without the delay associated with analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW J MERKLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J MERKLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725