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 .
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 3, 12, 19 are rejoined.
Drawings
The drawings received on 11/5/2025 are unacceptable for being unclear and creating ambiguity. The labels 62 appear to point to different elements with differing symbols and it is unclear if these are all pumps or not. Further, some of the elements are pointed to and some of the same elements are not even addressed, even though they have the same symbols and this creates ambiguity about which elements are and which elements are not pumps.
The drawings dated 6/30/2022 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of pumps 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) 1-26 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, “a plurality of interconnected frame members forming a multi-level frame structure” is new matter as there is no description of any frame members or their connection or formation of the recited structure in the disclosure.
The recitation of “individual liquefaction process systems” and separately “a natural gas liquefier” includes within the scope of the recitation that there is a natural gas liquefier and there is a liquefaction process system and there is no support for two such structures.
The recitation, “one or more refrigerant compressors and coupled refrigerant compressor power drivers associated with the refrigerant compression process system” includes within the scope of the recitation that the refrigerant compressors are separate from and additional to the refrigerant compression process system and this is not supported and therefore the recitation introduces new matter.
In regard to claim 4, The recitation, “each having its own multi-level frame structure and processing equipment” contains new matter as there is no support for a multi-level frame structure as already recited in claim 1 and a multi-level frame structure of several modules as now recited in claim 4. The disclosure does not support two separate frames as recited.
In regard to claim 14, the recitation, “near an inventory of liquefied natural gas within the liquefaction module” is new matter as there is no disclosure of storage in the liquefaction module and there is not support that the run down line must be near an inventory as claimed.
In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “in proximity” is new matter as there is nothing to support that natural gas liquefier is required to be some particular distance from a refrigerant compressor.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-26 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.
Summarily, see the claim interpretation section for the 112(f) language issues that lead to indefiniteness.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “a modularized liquefied natural gas production train” is indefinite inasmuch as it is interpreted to require anything more than what is defined in the body of the claim. Further it is unclear what portion of the recitations of the body make the train “modularized”.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “individual …process systems” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what characteristic, feature, or structure makes a process system “individual”. Further it is not clear from the specification what structure is required of a process system.
The recitation of “individual liquefaction process systems” and separately “a natural gas liquefier” is indefinite since it is not clear if the recitation includes the natural gas liquefier being part of the liquefaction process system or being a separate structure.
The recitation, “one or more refrigerant compressors and coupled refrigerant compressor power drivers associated with the refrigerant compression process system located at an end of the train” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure “associated with” requires and it is unclear if the compressors are in addition to the refrigerant compression process system or if the compressors are within the refrigerant compression process system.
Further the recitation is indefinite as there is no way to discern what is “located at an end of the train”. Further it is not clear what “an end of the train” refers to since it is not clear if this refers to some output end of the train or if this refers to a physical end of the multi-level frame structure
The recitation, “a central pipe rack that runs along a longitudinal axis of the multi-level frame structure with equipment located on both sides of the central pipe rack” is indefinite for being unclear what “equipment” includes and excludes. From the recitation it is unclear if the equipment could include any component or must include some component of the frame structure, the process systems, or some other component not otherwise identified. Further it is unclear what the recited equipment must do functionally and it is unclear if the recited equipment must include the previously recited equipment or not.
Summarily throughout the claims the recitation “the plurality of air coolers” should be --the plurality of the air coolers-- to avoid the inappropriate reintroduction of air coolers.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “and related refrigerant compressor power drivers” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis. There are no “related” refrigerant compressor power drivers recited in claim 1. This appears to be a relic.
In regard to claim 2-3, the recitation, “the axis of the train” is inconsistent with claim 1 that only recites the axis of the multi-level frame structure.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “a vacant space central corridor” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what amount vacancy is required for the space to be considered vacant. The specification provides no clear definition or description and even shows that the vacant space has structure therein of some amount and therefore it is impossible to determine what relative amount of structure is considered acceptable and the space still considered “vacant”.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation that the process systems are modules provides absolutely no clarity as to what structure is required. Neither of the terms are defined by the specification and there is no way to discern what further structure is required by merely reciting that the systems are modules. Also see the 112(f) section.
The recitation, “each having its own multi-level frame structure and processing equipment” is entirely indefinite since there is no way to determine what structure is required of the recitation, “multi-level frame structure” (see 112(f) section) and further because claim 1 already recites such a frame and it is unclear if the frame of claim 1 is the self same frame of each of the modules or if this is another frame. In addition the recitation of processing equipment is indefinite since it is not clear what “processing” is included and excluded.
The recitation, “the pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compressor process systems are individual…modules” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what characteristic, feature, or structure makes a process system “individual”. Further the disclosure does not explain what structure provides a “module” (see 112(f) section).
In regard to claim 5, the recitation is entirely indefinite as there is no way to discern how the recited modules are any different structurally from the process systems already recited and unclear how renaming the systems as modules creates any further limitation. Further, the specification provides no definition of the recited modules. Lastly, for present examination any structure that can perform some treatment before cooling meets the pretreatment module, any structure that can cool the natural gas can meet the liquefaction module, and any refrigerant compressor will meet the refrigerant compressor module.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “high flux tubes” is indefinite for being relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to discern what level of flux is considered “high”.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “the plurality of air coolers are arranged on the top level of the multi-level frame structure so that air coolers with a highest heat load and air flow are located on one portion of the top level to reduce hot air recirculation and minimize a size of at least a portion of the plurality of air coolers” is indefinite for appearing to be redundant to the recitations of claim 1. The air coolers are already limited to be on the top level and the present recitation merely lists benefits of the locating on the top level and it is entirely unclear what else is required other than location on the top level. Further, there is no way to discern what “highest” is relative to. Further, “hot” is a relative term and there is no discerning what temperature is required or what it must be hot relative to.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “high air flow” is indefinite for being relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to determine what amount of flow is required to be considered high. Further, “hot” is a relative term and there is no discerning what temperature is required or what it must be hot relative to. In regard to claim 11, inasmuch as the recitations are interpreted to require that the vacant space has a particular size the recitation is indefinite as there is no way to determine what size included and excluded.
In regard to claim 13, the recitation, “on an opposite side” is indefinite since it is not clear what the side must be opposite from.
In regard to claim 14, the recitation, “near an inventory of liquefied natural gas within the liquefaction module” is indefinite as there is no support for an inventory of LNG in the liquefaction module and it is unclear what is and is not considered an inventory. Further it is unclear what the relative term “near” includes and excludes. In regard to claim 23, the recitation, “in proximity” is indefinite for being a relative term with no way of determining what is and is not sufficiently near to be considered in proximity. Further the recitation, “which minimized required hydrocarbon inventory” and “by minimizing a length of inter-connecting piping” are indefinite as there is no way to determine what is “required” and what must be compared with to determine if the inventory or length is a minimum.
In regard to claim 26, the recitation, “amine drain systems” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require amines to treat the water as there is no support for such in the specification and it is entirely unclear what structure would be thereby required. For present examination, it is presumed that the drain system is able to remove amines from water through any method.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
Claim limitation “individual pretreatment…process system”, “individual…liquefaction …process system”, “individual…refrigerant compression process system” all invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the disclosure to delineate what structure is and is not included and required by each of the above terms. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “frame member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the disclosure to delineate what structure is and is not included and required. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “multi-level frame structure” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claim merely requires the structure to be formed by frame members which are never even mentioned in the disclosure and therefore the recited structure is unclear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “individual pretreatment…modules”, individual…liquefaction…modules”, “individual…refrigerant compressor modules” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the specification that makes clear what structure is included and excluded by the recitation of the recited modules, much less the term modules alone. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “process system equipment” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the specification that makes clear what structure is included and excluded by the recitation of the recited process system equipment. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “self propelled module transporters” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the specification that makes clear what structure is included and excluded by the recitation of the recitation of self propelled module transporters. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15, 17, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byfield (US 2014/0053599). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Byfield teaches a modularized liquefied natural gas production train (12; see whole disclosure and all figures, para. 92) having individual pretreatment (para. 109), liquefaction (para. 112), and refrigerant compression process systems (at least compressors, para. 110, 112), comprising:
a plurality of interconnected frame members (see figures see structs, columns, and other “members” of overall frame) multi-level frame structure (see 10, framed structure with vertical levels in figures, including Fig. 2) having at least a first level (22; para. 92) and a top level (38; para. 93) overlying the first level (22);
a plurality of air coolers (a subset of 30 as identified herein) installed on the top level (38) of the multi-level frame structure (10) and forming at least two air cooler banks (interpreted as at least two groups of air coolers, only requiring one air cooler per group; see two of 30 as identified herein);
a central pipe rack (interpreted as at least one pipe and supports thereof, see pipes in Fig 5-14 within a center or middle portion of the assembly) that runs along a longitudinal axis (along 14) of the multi-level frame structure (10) with equipment (see figures, there is equipment on both sides of the middle portion of the assembly; para. 92 see 24) located on both sides of the central pipe rack (at least one pipe and supports thereof in the middle portion of the assembly);
one or more refrigerant compressors (at least 84, 82) and coupled refrigerant compressor power drivers (86, para. 122; note that the refrigerant compressors are coupled and driven by the turbines) within the refrigerant compression process system (see the at least refrigerant compressors), the one or more refrigerant compressors (at least 84, 82) are located at an end (at near end in Fig. 2) of the train (12); and
a natural gas liquefier (at least cooling systems in 70; para. 117, 118) located between, along the longitudinal axis (14) of the multi-level frame structure (10), the plurality of air coolers (subset of 30) and the one or more refrigerant compressors (at least 84, 82)(see that the natural gas liquefier 70 is located between 84, 82 and some of air coolers 30 along the axis 14; see fig. 2, 14).
In regard to claim 2, Byfield teaches that the refrigerant compressors (at least 84, 82) and coupled refrigerant compressor power drivers (86) are longitudinally aligned with the longitudinal axis (14) of the multi-level frame structure (10) (see figure 14).
In regard to claim 3, Byfield teaches a vacant space central corridor (interpreted as a space within the framed structure having no limit on the amount of structures that can be therein; see at least part of middle space between sides 44, 52) is formed within the frame structure (10) by an arrangement of some (see at least some of the structs and columns etc form are around a middle space) of the plurality of interconnected frame members (structs, columns, and other “members” of overall frame), the central corridor (middle space between sides 44, 52) arranged between the first level (22) and the top level (38) and extending along the longitudinal axis (14) of the multi-level frame structure (10).
In regard to claim 4, Byfield teaches that the individual pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compressor process systems are modules (para. 108-113, 90) forming portions of the multi-level frame structure (10) and the train (12) is formed, at least in part, by connection of the modules (see 12 is formed by the sections of the plant; para. 90-91).
In regard to claim 5, Byfield teaches that the process systems (see para. 108-113) comprise: a pretreatment module (para. 109), a liquefaction module (para. 112), and a refrigerant compressor module (para. 113).
In regard to claim 6, Byfield teaches that the plurality of air coolers (30) are installed on the top level (38) of the multi-level frame structure (10) independent of an existence of one or more cantilever extensions extending laterally (see that 30 are on top regardless of any extension being present or not) from the multi-level frame structure (10), and the plurality of air coolers (identified 30) occupy no more than a full width (see fig. 4, the identified at least two air coolers 30 are located only on the top level and not past the width of the top level) of the top level (38) of the multi-level frame structure (10).
In regard to claim 7, Byfield teaches that at least some components (para. 115, 117-118) of the pretreatment module (para. 109) and the liquefaction module (para. 112) reside on the first level (22) and underneath at least some of the plurality of the air coolers (30).
In regard to claim 8, Byfield teaches that tubing (“pipe”, para. 95) coupled with the plurality of the air coolers (subset of 30) comprise at least portions of high flux tubes (tubes to 30 have higher flow than smaller tubes).
In regard to claim 9, Byfield teaches the plurality of the air coolers (30) are arranged on the top level (38) of the multi-level frame structure (10) so that air coolers with a highest heat load and air flow are located on one portion of the top level to reduce hot air recirculation and minimize a size of at least a portion of the plurality of the air coolers (30) (see that there are air coolers are on top and this minimizes hot air recirculation and minimizes a size of the air coolers relative to if they were located on a base).
In regard to claim 10, Byfield teaches that an air cooler (one of the subset of 30) of the plurality of the air coolers is located in proximity (in some distance) to a gas turbine (86) comprises a high air flow fan (higher flow than other fans) to minimize hot air recirculation (hot air from the air coolers 30 rises swifter and reduces intake of hot air into air inlet of 86 as compared to air coolers that direct hot air down) to an intake (air inlet) of the gas turbine (86).
In regard to claim 11, Byfield teaches that the vacant space (see relatively empty space Fig. 13) of the central corridor (middle space) separates process system equipment (see there is equipment lateral of the middle space), forms a passageway for maintenance personnel, and enables dispersion of a pressure wave resulting from a process system equipment explosion (see people can be in the middle and explosions of equipment can provide a pressure wave in the middle).
In regard to claim 13, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (cooling systems in 70) is installed in the liquefaction module (para. 112, 118) on one side of a central corridor (middle area of framed structure); and a pre-cooling heat exchanger (at least 64) is installed in the liquefaction module (para. 112) on an opposite side (opposite of something) of the central corridor (middle area) (further see Fig. 3 and see there is equipment for liquefying natural gas on one side of the central axis and at least one precooling heat exchanger on the other).
In regard to claim 14, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (cooling systems of 70, para. 118) is located at one end (at least) of the liquefaction module (liquefaction module 70; see figure 2) and a liquefied natural gas rundown line (LNG output) is routed outside of a liquefaction module boundary (to deliver the LNG) from the same end (that has liquefier) and away from the liquefaction module (70) to reduce a presence of the liquefied natural gas rundown line (output line) within the liquefaction module (relative to storing the LNG in the liquefaction module) and near (relatively near) an inventory of liquefied natural gas (LNG) within the liquefaction module (there is some LNG in the module 70 due to liquefaction therein).
In regard to claim 15, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (in 70) and the rundown line (LNG output) and associated piping (pipes, para. 95) are arranged to concentrate cryogenic lines and equipment with cryogenic service in a cryogenic area (area of module 70 and 68; para. 118) in proximity to an end of the liquefaction module (output line is near an end of the liquefaction module as the LNG is output therefrom).
In regard to claim 17, Byfield teaches at least one pump (rotating equipment associated with circulating refrigerant, para. 94, 114, 121) located on the first level (22) of the multi-level frame structure (10) along opposite sides of the central corridor (middle area) for maintenance access (para. 94, 114, 121) and teaches that there are a plurality of pumps (para. 115 “pumps’).
In regard to claim 21, Byfield teaches that the multi-level frame structure (10) includes one more additional levels (see all figures; see several horizontal regions levels where components could be located) between the first level (22) and the top level (38).
In regard to claim 23, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (in 70) is supported by structure of the liquefaction module (frame structure of 10 of 70) in proximity (is in some distance from) a refrigerant compressor (see at least 84, 82), which minimizes hydrocarbon inventory (at least the amount of refrigerant is reduced relative to if the piping were run circuitously rather than directly to the locations desired) in the train (12) by minimizing a length of inter-connecting piping (para. 95 “pipe) between the natural gas liquefier (in 70) and connecting equipment (throughout train)(see that piping is routed directly and is therefore less than circulating around a periphery or other non-direct routes).
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) 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the obvious modification of Byfield (US 2014/0053599).
In regard to claim 16, Byfield teaches that at least a portion of the liquefied natural gas rundown line (LNG output line) but does not explicitly teach that such comprise vacuum insulated pipes. However, the Examiner took Official Notice that providing vacuum insulated pipes are routine for insulating cryogenic liquid pipes for the purpose of reducing heat leak therein and that this is old and well known in the office action dated 05/05/2025. Applicant has failed to traverse this statement. As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Byfield with output lines having vacuum insulation for the purpose of providing low heat leak into the LNG product. Note that provision of vacuum insulation will minimize a need for liquefied natural gas troughs for spill containment since insulation will reduce heat leak and potential for over-pressurization of the lines.
In regard to claim 18, Byfield teaches at least one pump (rotating equipment associated with circulating refrigerant, para. 94, 114, 121) on sides of the central corridor (middle area) in the liquefaction module (para. 118) for maintenance access (para. 94, 114, 121) and teaches a plurality of pumps (para. 115 “pumps’) in the pretreatment module (62, para. 115). Presuming that Byfield does not teach a plurality of pumps in the liquefaction module (70), the Examiner took Official Notice that providing a plurality of pumps is old and well known in the office action dated 05/05/2025. Applicant has failed to traverse this statement. As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Byfield with a plurality of pumps in the liquefaction module for the purpose of providing greater flow rates and pressures and to provide such on opposite sides of the central corridor (middle area) for the purpose of providing easy maintenance access (see para. 94, 114, 121 of Byfield).
In regard to claim 20, Byfield teaches stairs at an end (near end) of a module (62) of the train (12)(see fig. 3) but does not appear to teach a lift system at the end (near end) of the module (62) and in communication with the vacant space of the central corridor (middle area) as claimed. However, in the Office Action dated 5/5/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that lift systems are routine and ordinary to supplement stairs in providing an aide in moving equipment up to and off of floors or levels. Applicant has failed to traverse this statement. As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Byfield with a lift system installed at the end (near end) of the module (62) of the train (12) and configured to move items between an elevation on the train (12) and a lower elevation, wherein a central corridor space (interior middle) is configured to allow removal of equipment from within the module (62) and transfer to the hydraulic lift system for the purpose of reducing the manpower and effort required to move men and items between levels. Further note that the providing the lift system would obviously provide drop zone openings to the top level and any other level between the first level and the top level (interpreted as openings adapted to permit at least some items to pass through and elevator shafts would provide such openings).
Claim(s) 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byfield (US 2014/0053599) in view of either of Tomlinson (US 10788259) cited by the applicant or Martinez (WO 2004/033975). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 19, Byfield teaches process towers (see towers in 62 on near side in Fig. 2; also see para. 115) located on a side (near side) of the pipe rack (center assembly with pipes) in the central corridor (middle area) and teaches providing equipment on an opposite side (see near side in Fig. 3 or far side in Fig. 2) but does not explicitly teach that the equipment provided is compression equipment in the pretreatment section (62). However, providing a compressor as a part of pretreatment prior to liquefaction is routine and ordinary as taught by Tomlinson (see column 5, line 50-56) or also taught by Martinez (see page 7, line 15-20, see 202 in the figures). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the provided equipment of Byfield in the pretreatment section (62) located on an opposite side of the central corridor with a compressor for the purpose of providing the natural gas at the desired pressure for liquefaction in a location that is serviceable and easy to reach for maintenance.
In regard to claim 22, Byfield teaches process towers (see towers in 62 on near side in Fig. 2) located on a side (near side) of the pipe rack (center assembly with pipes) in the central corridor (center portion) and teaches providing equipment on an opposite side (see near side in Fig. 3 or far side in Fig. 2) but does not explicitly teach that the equipment provided is a booster compressor in the pretreatment section (62). However, providing a compressor as a part of pretreatment prior to liquefaction is routine and ordinary as taught by Tomlinson (see column 5, line 50-56) or also taught by Martinez (see page 7, line 15-20, see 202 in the figures). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the provided equipment located on an opposite side of the central corridor of Byfield with a compressor in the pretreatment section (62) of Byfield for the purpose of providing the natural gas at the desired pressure for liquefaction in a location that is serviceable and easy to reach for maintenance.
Claim(s) 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byfield (US 2014/0053599) in view of Giancotti (US 2019/0041127). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Byfield teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a local electrical or instrument room located at outside edges of the train and distal from liquefied natural gas rundown lines and a cryogenic area. However, Giancotti teaches a local electrical and instrument room (72) located at an outside edge (see figure 3) of a module using LNG (para. 23) in order to provide easy access for personnel. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Byfield with an electrical and instrument room at an outside edge of the train (12) and relatively far from the cryogenic area so as to prevent accidents in the cryogenic area from endangering people manning instrument panels.
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byfield (US 2014/0053599) in view of Bellingrath (US 205/0115246). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Byfield, teaches most of the claim limitations, including a bottom deck (22) formed by the first level (22) of the multi-level frame structure (10) and does not explicitly teach oily water and amine drain system (interpreted as a system that can remove oils and amines from water) beneath the bottom deck (22). However, Bellingrath teaches collecting rainwater (para. 3) under an outdoor microturbine (para. 3) demonstrating that it is routine to collect contaminated rainwater to protect the environment, including oily water that has hydrocarbons therein. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify at least one module with an oily water and amine drain system beneath the bottom deck (22) for the purpose of preventing contaminated rainwater having lubricants, oils, and other hydrocarbon liquids used in connection with the facility to be processed to prevent such from contaminating the environment. Note that the identified drain system would be distal from lines having liquefied natural gas and a cryogenic area (since the drains are below the deck 22 and the lines for liquid natural gas and heat exchangers providing cryogenic cooling are above 22).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byfield (US 2014/0053599) in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0116426). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
Byfield teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach a plurality of self-propelled module transporters arranged along an underside of a bottom deck (22) formed by the first level (22) of the multi-level frame structure (10) to elevate the bottom deck above a ground surface and to enable rolling of train modules. However, Kobayashi teaches a natural gas liquefaction plant (para. 8) made of interconnected “modules” (para. 56, 63) and teaches that at least some modules and module components can be moved into place and are moved using a plurality of self-propelled module transporters (80A-F; para. 75) arranged along an underside of a bottom deck (para. 74 bottom of the module) formed by a first level (124, 131) of a multi-level frame structure (1) to elevate the bottom deck (124, 131) above a ground surface (ground, para. 75) and to enable rolling of train modules and module components (para. 75) and to shorten the time for construction (para. 88). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Byfield with the transporters of Kobayashi for the purpose of providing the ability to more quickly install and connect modules and module componentry and for the purpose of permitting at least some construction operations to be performed in more convenient locations and then transporting the module into position for installation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the drain system is shown in the drawings. In response, the drawing objection concerning the drain system is withdrawn. The other drawing objection remains since the amendment to the drawings is unacceptable (see above).
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that “high flux tubes” is a known term of art that “refers to heat exchanger tubes that are designed to transfer heat at high/improved rates via increased heat transfer surface area and/or fluid turbulence caused by special physical features”.
In response, the allegation is wholly unpersuasive as the relative term “high” does not become absolute merely because it is used many times in various ways. There is absolutely no evidence provided that the heat flux of such tubes is of a predetermined amount or always only higher than a standard and no evidence of what the heat transfer surface area must be increased to be considered “high”. The rejection remains and there is no evidence supporting the allegation.
Applicant's arguments (page 11) are an allegation that the prior art does not teach the amended claims. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive and the applicant is directed to the detailed rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
January 20, 2026