DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is reminded that every amendment to the claims must be properly annotated to provide a clear prosecution history. The amendment dated 8/5/2025 improperly injects changes without proper underlining. See page 3 - “based on a difference between the first signal and the second signal” is not properly underlined. In order to avoid notices of non-compliant amendment, the applicant should ensure all changes to the claims are properly annotated.
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.
Election/Restrictions
In response to the restriction requirement dated 8/30/2024, the applicant elected group I (claims 1-7), species A, subspecies A with traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2024. Amended claim 3 is not drawn to subspecies A, as claim 3 requires a difference in temperature between the condenser feed temperature sensor and the condenser effluent temperature sensor and this is inconsistent with subspecies A. Therefore, claim(s) 3 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stothers (EP 0 161 100) in view of Roberts (US 2011/0036121) and Matsuoka (US 4829777).
In regard to claim 1, Stothers teaches a natural gas processing facility (see whole disclosure), comprising: a feed line (line receiving supply fluid, page, 17, line 1) providing a mixture of acid gases, methane, ethane, propane, and optionally butane and other heavier hydrocarbons (fully capable thereof; page 1); one or more compressors (at least one compressor implicit, page 17, line 3) configured to receive the mixture from the feed line (to 193), increase a pressure of the mixture and output a compressed mixture of methane, ethane, propane, and acid gases (see feed fluid is compressed to 350 Psia at least, page 17, line 3); a flow line (line at least from compression to 102b) for providing the compressed mixture to a stripper (interpreted as a distillation column that can have stripping gas rise therein; 102b), the stripper (102b) configured to separate the compressed mixture (feed to 102a) into an overhead product (to 176) comprising the acid gases, methane, ethane, and at least a portion of the propane (fully capable thereof) and a bottoms product (to 111a) comprising propane and any butane and other heavier hydrocarbons (fully capable thereof); a chiller (176 at least) configured to receive the overhead product (to 176), chill the overhead product (with at least 176), and output a chilled overhead product (at least part of flow to 102a); a flow line (line to 102a) for providing the chilled overhead product (at least part of flow to 102a) to a deethanizer (interpreted as a distillation column that can separate ethane; 102a), the deethanizer (102a) configured to separate the chilled overhead product (at least part of flow to 102a) into an overhead fraction (from 102A to 179) comprising the acid gases, methane and ethane, and a bottoms product comprising propane and any butane and other heavier hydrocarbons (fully capable thereof); an overhead condenser (179) configured to condense at least a portion of the overhead fraction (from 102A to 179), provide reflux (see liquid from 105B) to the deethanizer (102A), and to output an overhead vapor product (to 180) comprising methane, ethane, and acid gases (fully capable thereof); a closed loop refrigeration system (Fig. 3) configured to provide a refrigerant (refrigerant of Fig. 3) to each of the chiller (176) and the overhead condenser (179).
Stothers does not appear to explicitly teach that the chiller (Fig. 3) employs propane refrigerant. However, propane refrigerant is old and well known as a refrigerant and therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ propane for the refrigerant of the closed cycle refrigeration system (Fig. 3) for the purpose of employing an efficient refrigerant that is well understood, provides suitable cooling temperatures and is affordable and widely available.
Stothers teaches most of the claim limitations of claim 1, including
refrigerant feed lines (see refrigerant line to 176 and refrigerant line to 179) providing refrigerant flow (flow of propane) to the propane chiller (176 as modified) and to the overhead condenser (179 as modified), and
refrigerant effluent flow lines (refrigerant line from 176 and refrigerant line from 179) from the propane chiller (176 as modified) and the overhead condenser (179 as modified);
but does not explicitly teach one or more sensors configured to measure a property of the refrigerant, wherein the one or more sensors are disposed along the refrigerant feed lines (see refrigerant line to 176 and refrigerant line to 179), and along the refrigerant effluent flow lines (line from 176 and line from 179).
In addition, Stothers does not teach a digital control system configured to: receive a first signal from each of the one or more sensors recorded at a first time; receive a second signal from each of the one or more sensors recorded at a second time, wherein the second time is later than the first time; and provide an alert of a leak of gases into the closed loop refrigeration system based on a difference between the first signal and the second signal.
However, it is routine and ordinary for leaks from process natural gas streams to leak into refrigerant when leaks occur, since it is common for process streams to be at a higher pressure than a refrigerant as taught by Roberts. Roberts teaches that it is known for natural gas process streams to leak into the refrigeration system (para. 1) and teaches performing separation operations on such contaminated refrigerant to separate the leak in the refrigerant (para. 1-7) to control the composition of the refrigerant.
Further, providing leak detection to refrigeration systems using sensing of feeding and effluent refrigerant to cooling heat exchangers is routine and ordinary as taught by Matsuoka.
Matsuoka teaches (see whole disclosure and figures, including Fig. 3, 6, 8-9) determining that a refrigerant system (column 8, line 65) has a leak (column 1, line 9-10, 44, column 2, line 1-5) by providing a heat exchanger (17) that provides cooling (column 3, lines 1-5) with one or more sensors (20, 21), the one or more sensors (20, 21) configured to measure a property (temperature, column 3, lines 20-45) of refrigerant (refrigerant - column 2, line 45), wherein the one or more sensors (20, 21) are disposed along a refrigerant feed line (feed line to 17), and along a refrigerant effluent flow line (outlet line of 17), a digital control system (22) configured to: receive a first signal (column 6, line 20-35) from each of the one or more sensors (20, 21) recorded at a first time (column 6, line 20-35; see TE and TR recorded at a first time); receive a second signal (column 8, line 16-22) from each of the one or more sensors (20, 21) recorded at a second time (see after 412, TE and TR recorded at a second time - column 8, line 19-26, column 6, line 20-35, wherein the second time is later than the first time (see reiteration, Fig. 3, 6, 8-9); and provide an alert (signal to 90, column 11, line 10) of a leak of gases (insufficiency of refrigerant) based on a difference between the first signal and the second signal (see that when the first signal does not indicate an insufficiency and the second signal does indicate an insufficiency, the alert is based at least on a difference between the signals).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Stothers with one or more sensors on the refrigerant feed lines (see refrigerant line to 176 and refrigerant line to 179) and the refrigerant effluent flow lines (line from 176 and line from 179) and a digital control system, as claimed, for the purpose of automatically determining when a leak occurs in the propane refrigeration system supplying refrigerant to the propane chiller and the overhead chiller, as suggested by Roberts and Matsuoka, and to obtain the control and interface benefits of digital control systems to make the detection autonomous and to reduce the costs of performing the separating of the contaminants from the refrigerant by improving the ability to identify when leaks occur so as to reduce unnecessary operation of the separation systems for removing the contaminant (suggested by Roberts) and thereby reduce the overall costs of operation by reducing un-needed remedial actions to only those times when a leak is detected.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stothers (EP 0 161 100) in view of Roberts (US 2011/0036121), Matsuoka (US 4829777), and Goel (US 2013/0213068).
Stothers, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach that the control system is configured to isolate the propane chiller (176 as modified) when the one or more sensors are indicative of a leak in the propane chiller (176 as modified). However, it is routine and ordinary to isolate a leaking component. Goel teaches when a leak is detected in a part of a refrigeration system, in response, a control device isolates the part of the refrigeration system (para. 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control system of Stothers to isolate the propane chiller when the one or more sensors are indicative of a leak in the propane chiller, and to isolate the overhead condenser when the one or more sensors are indicative of a leak in the overhead condenser for the purpose of reducing further disfunction caused by the leaking and reduce the amount of energy and effort that must further be applied to separating the contaminant from the refrigerant.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stothers (EP 0 161 100) in view of Roberts (US 2011/0036121) and either of Washimi (JP H06137725) or Hosoya (JP 2009/236332).
In regard to claim 1, Stothers teaches a natural gas processing facility (see whole disclosure), comprising: a feed line (line receiving supply fluid, page, 17, line 1) providing a mixture of acid gases, methane, ethane, propane, and optionally butane and other heavier hydrocarbons (fully capable thereof; page 1); one or more compressors (at least one compressor implicit, page 17, line 3) configured to receive the mixture from the feed line (to 193), increase a pressure of the mixture and output a compressed mixture of methane, ethane, propane, and acid gases (see feed fluid is compressed to 350 Psia at least, page 17, line 3); a flow line (line at least from compression to 102b) for providing the compressed mixture to a stripper (interpreted as a distillation column that can have stripping gas rise therein; 102b), the stripper (102b) configured to separate the compressed mixture (feed to 102a) into an overhead product (to 176) comprising the acid gases, methane, ethane, and at least a portion of the propane (fully capable thereof) and a bottoms product (to 111a) comprising propane and any butane and other heavier hydrocarbons (fully capable thereof); a chiller (176 at least) configured to receive the overhead product (to 176), chill the overhead product (with at least 176), and output a chilled overhead product (at least part of flow to 102a); a flow line (line to 102a) for providing the chilled overhead product (at least part of flow to 102a) to a deethanizer (interpreted as a distillation column that can separate ethane; 102a), the deethanizer (102a) configured to separate the chilled overhead product (at least part of flow to 102a) into an overhead fraction (from 102A to 179) comprising the acid gases, methane and ethane, and a bottoms product comprising propane and any butane and other heavier hydrocarbons (fully capable thereof); an overhead condenser (179) configured to condense at least a portion of the overhead fraction (from 102A to 179), provide reflux (see liquid from 105B) to the deethanizer (102A), and to output an overhead vapor product (to 180) comprising methane, ethane, and acid gases (fully capable thereof); a closed loop refrigeration system (Fig. 3) configured to provide a refrigerant (refrigerant of Fig. 3) to each of the chiller (176) and the overhead condenser (179).
Stothers does not appear to explicitly teach that the chiller (Fig. 3) employs propane refrigerant. However, propane refrigerant is old and well known as a refrigerant and therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ propane for the refrigerant of the closed cycle refrigeration system (Fig. 3) for the purpose of employing an efficient refrigerant that is well understood, provides suitable cooling temperatures and is affordable and widely available.
Stothers teaches most of the claim limitations of claim 1, including
refrigerant feed lines (see refrigerant line to 176 and refrigerant line to 179) providing refrigerant flow (flow of propane) to the propane chiller (176 as modified) and to the overhead condenser (179 as modified), and
refrigerant effluent flow lines (refrigerant line from 176 and refrigerant line from 179) from the propane chiller (176 as modified) and the overhead condenser (179 as modified);
but does not explicitly teach one or more sensors configured to measure a property of the refrigerant, wherein the one or more sensors are disposed along the refrigerant feed lines (see refrigerant line to 176 and refrigerant line to 179), and along the refrigerant effluent flow lines (line from 176 and line from 179).
In addition, Stothers does not teach a digital control system configured to: receive a first signal from each of the one or more sensors recorded at a first time; receive a second signal from each of the one or more sensors recorded at a second time, wherein the second time is later than the first time; and provide an alert of a leak of gases into the closed loop refrigeration system based on a difference between the first signal and the second signal.
However, it is routine and ordinary for leaks from process natural gas streams to leak into refrigerant when leaks occur, since it is common for process streams to be at a higher pressure than a refrigerant as taught by Roberts. Roberts teaches that it is known for natural gas process streams to leak into the refrigeration system (para. 1) and teaches performing separation operations on such contaminated refrigerant to separate the leak in the refrigerant (para. 1-7) to control the composition of the refrigerant.
Further, providing leak detection to refrigeration systems using temperature sensing of feeding and effluent refrigerant to cooling heat exchangers is routine and ordinary as taught by either of Washimi or Hosoya.
Washimi teaches (see whole disclosure and figures) determining that a refrigerant system (para. 1, refrigerating apparatus) has a leak (para. 1) by providing a heat exchanger (4, evaporator) that provides cooling (para. 9) with one or more sensors (20, 21), the one or more sensors (20, 21) configured to measure a property (temperature, para. 9) of refrigerant (refrigerant - para. 9), wherein the one or more sensors (20, 21) are disposed along a refrigerant feed line (refrigerant feed line to 4), and along a refrigerant effluent flow line (outlet line of 4), a digital control system (10) configured to: receive a first signal (para. 5, 7) from each of the one or more sensors (20, 21) recorded at a first time (temperatures recorded early on); receive a second signal (temperatures recorded later when a leak has occurred) from each of the one or more sensors (20, 21) recorded at a second time (after temporal change, par. 9); and provide an alert (judgement para. 9) of a leak of gases (refrigerant leak para. 9) based on a difference between the first signal and the second signal (based on a change in those temperatures over the temporal change, para. 9).
Alternatively, Hosoya teaches it is routine to determine that a refrigerant system (page 1, para. 3, refrigeration apparatus) has a leak (page 2, para. 2) by providing a heat exchanger (20) that provides cooling (page 2, para. 2) with one or more sensors (), the one or more sensors (21, 22) configured to measure a property (temperature, page 2, para. 2-4) of refrigerant (refrigerant - page 2, para. 4), wherein the one or more sensors (21, 22) are disposed along a refrigerant feed line (line to evaporator), and along a refrigerant effluent flow line (outlet of evaporator), a digital control system (15) configured to: receive a first signal (temperatures sensed) from each of the one or more sensors (21, 22) recorded at a first time (page 7, para. 2, “previous calculation timing”); receive a second signal (page 7, para. 2, “current calculation value”) from each of the one or more sensors (21, 22) recorded at a second time (page 7, para. 2 “current calculation” being after the previous calculation); and provide an alert (page 7, para. 1 “slighting of a refrigerant leak lamp”) of a leak of gases (refrigerant leakage determined page 7, para. 1) based on a difference between the first signal and the second signal (page 6, para. 6-7, page 7, para. 2-3; see first order lag process and see calculation over a time to adjust for abnormalities in making leakage determination).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Stothers with one or more sensors on the refrigerant feed lines (see refrigerant line to 176 and refrigerant line to 179) and the refrigerant effluent flow lines (line from 176 and line from 179) and a digital control system, as claimed, for the purpose of automatically determining when a leak occurs in the propane refrigeration system supplying refrigerant to the propane chiller and the overhead chiller, as suggested by the teachings of Roberts and either of Washimi or Hosoya, and to obtain the control and interface benefits of digital control systems to make the detection autonomous and to reduce the costs of performing the separating of the contaminants from the refrigerant by improving the ability to identify when leaks occur so as to reduce unnecessary operation of the separation systems for removing the contaminant (suggested by Roberts) and thereby reduce the overall costs of operation by reducing un-needed remedial actions to only those times when a leak is detected.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stothers (EP 0 161 100) in view of Roberts (US 2011/0036121), either of Washimi (JP H06137725) or Hosoya (JP 2009/236332) and further in view of Goel (US 2013/0213068).
Stothers, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach that the control system is configured to isolate the propane chiller (176 as modified) when the one or more sensors are indicative of a leak in the propane chiller (176 as modified). However, it is routine and ordinary to isolate a leaking component. Goel teaches when a leak is detected in a part of a refrigeration system, in response, a control device isolates the part of the refrigeration system (para. 23). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control system of Stothers to isolate the propane chiller when the one or more sensors are indicative of a leak in the propane chiller, and to isolate the overhead condenser when the one or more sensors are indicative of a leak in the overhead condenser for the purpose of reducing further disfunction caused by the leaking and reduce the amount of energy and effort that must further be applied to separating the contaminant from the refrigerant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
September 18, 2025