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
Claims 3, 12, and 19 were rejoined in the previous office action. The applicant should indicate such with correct status identifiers to avoid notices of non-compliant amendment.
Drawings
The drawings received on 11/5/2025 are unacceptable and are not entered 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 claimed inter-connecting piping and connecting equipment, elements 84, 86, what delineates the claimed cryogenic area, local instrument rooms, and junction boxes must be shown and identified 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) 1-7, 9-16, 19-26 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, “the liquefied natural gas processing components of each module are located on both sides” is new matter as there is no support that every module has components on both sides. The disclosure only supports that the train as a whole has equipment on both sides.
The recitation, “separate pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compression process systems” includes new matter scope as the recitation includes that the systems are separate in regard to fluid or heat transfer between systems and such is not supported.
The recitation, “the modules each having…a common width” is new matter. The scope of the recitation includes that an extent of the modules is the same in a width direction and this is not supported. In addition to the lack of support the application drawings explicitly demonstrate that the modules may have differing widths (see Fig. 6B, see that a greatest width dimension of module 46 is less than a greatest width dimension of the next module).
In regard to claim 4, The recitation, “modules are releasably connected” contains new matter as there is no support for the modules to be releasably connected and further this encompasses connections that are not disclosed.
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) 1-7, 9-16, 19-26 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, “separate pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compression process systems” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure makes the systems separate as claimed.
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, “individual …modules” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what characteristic, feature, or structure makes a module “individual”.
The recitation, “the pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compressor process systems implemented as individual…modules” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what characteristic, feature, or structure makes a process system “implemented as individual…modules”. Further the disclosure does not explain what structure provides a “module”.
The recitation, “the liquefied natural gas processing components of each module are located on both sides” is indefinite since the disclosure does not support that every module has components on both sides and it is unclear what structures are required to be on both sides of each module.
The recitation, “the modules each having…a common width” is indefinite since it appears that the applicant is interpreting the recitation to require that each of the modules have the same width but this is not consistent with the disclosure and it is unclear what structure must be considered in regard to the recited width and it is unclear if the width must be the widest structural reach of the module or the width of some other structure.
The recitation, “each module such that” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing module.
The recitation, “the length of the train and the liquefied natural gas processing components…” is indefinite for not having a comma and for appearing to run with the previous recitation.
The recitation, “each module are located” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing module and it is unclear why the recitation is not --each of the modules are located--.
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 3, the recitation, “extends through each module” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing module and it is unclear why the recitation is not --extends through each of the modules are located--.
The recitation, “a length direction” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing anew that which was already previously introduced and it is unclear if this is the same or other direction.
The recitation, “the multi-level frame of each module,” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing module and it is unclear why the recitation is not --multi-level frame of each of the modules--.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “modules are releasably connected” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure is required by the recited connection especially as the disclosure describes no such connections, and there is no way to discern what structural features the presently recited connections must have to qualify and further no way to determine even what functional capability such connections require.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “process module” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what makes a module a “process module” (further see claim interpretation section below).
The recitation, “separate modules” is indefinite as it is unclear what structure, feature, or characteristic is required to make the modules “separate”.
Further, the recitations concerning combining modules are inconsistent with the recitations of claim 1 requiring “individual” modules. It is entirely unclear how the modules are both combined into one module and separate and individual.
Further, the recitation, “the pretreatment module, the liquefaction module, and the refrigerant compressor module are all separate modules” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure makes the modules “separate” as claimed.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “expected to be subjected to the greatest heat load and air flow” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the greatest” and it is not clear what structure is required to create an expectation. Further an expectation is not a structure and it is unclear what structure the recitation requires.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “of each module” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing module and it is unclear why the recitation is not --of each of the modules--.
In regard to claim 12, the recitation, “of each module” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing module and it is unclear why the recitation is not --of each of the modules--.
In regard to claim 14, the recitation, “the same end” 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, “relevant” is indefinite as there is no way to determine what makes something “relevant to a refrigerant compressor.
The recitation, “minimizes” is indefinite as the scope of the recitation includes that the recited length is smallest relative to some other candidates but it is unclear what those other possibilities are and therefore no way of determining what lengths are and are not included in the recitation scope.
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 “pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compression process systems implemented as individual pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compressor modules” are defined by the claim as comprising “unique liquefied natural gas processing components” and therefore 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 such “unique liquefied natural gas processing components”. 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 “a process module” 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 by a process module. 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) 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byfield (US 2014/0053599). See the 112 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) comprising:
separate pretreatment (para. 109), liquefaction (para. 112), and refrigerant compression (at least compressors, para. 110) process systems (interpreted as systems that can perform the recited function, i.e. pretreatment, liquefaction, refrigerant compression) implemented as individual pretreatment (62; para. 109), liquefaction (at least 70; para. 112), and refrigerant compressor (72; para. 110) modules (interpreted as systems that have components that can perform the recited function) each comprising liquefied natural gas processing components (parts of the systems or modules, see 24 etc in figures, para. 40, 92 “equipment”) and a multi-level frame (see 10, frame 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); the modules (modules) each having a length (see all figures, left to right in Fig. 4) and a common width (see width between 52 and 44) and arranged back-to-back relative to each other along a length direction (along axis 14, para. 92) of the train (12) such that the common width (width between 52 and 44) of the modules (modules) and a collective length (of the modules) defines a width and a length of the train (12);
a plurality of air coolers (a subset of 30 as identified herein) installed on the top level (38) of the multi-level frame (10) of at least some of the modules (modules) to form 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) extending along the length of the train (12);
a central opening (interior of the frame 10) extending along a length direction of the each of the modules (modules) such that 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) runs through the arranged modules (modules) along the length of the train (12), and the liquefied natural gas processing components (para. 40) of each of the modules (modules) are located on both sides (on either side of axis 14) of the central pipe rack (at least one pipe and supports);
one or more refrigerant compressors (at least 84, 82) and coupled refrigerant compressor drivers (86, para. 122; note that the refrigerant compressors are coupled and driven by the turbines) of the refrigerant compression process system (para. 110) are located on the refrigerant compressor module (para. 110) at one end (at near end in Fig. 2) of the train (12); and
a natural gas liquefier (68; para. 117, 118) of the liquefaction process system (para. 112) supported on a base (surface of 22; para. 118 “if the decision is made to position the MCHE on the liquefaction module”) of the first level (22) of the multi-level frame (frame with vertical levels in figures) of the liquefaction module (at least 70) at a location thereof (see that 68 is disclosed as being alternatively located on the floor or base of the first level 22) that is devoid of any air coolers of the plurality of the air coolers (subset of 30)(due to the size and height of the liquefier (68), is within the width of the train (12), and is adjacent to the one or more refrigerant compressors (82, 84) of the refrigerant compressor module (para. 110)(see that the modules are back-to-back and therefore the liquefier 68 is considered adjacent to the compressors).
In regard to claim 2, Byfield teaches that the refrigerant compressors (at least 84, 82) and the refrigerant compressor drivers (86) coupled thereto are aligned in the length direction (see figure 14) of the train (12).
In regard to claim 3, Byfield teaches a vacant space (interpreted as a space within the frame; see at least part of middle space between sides 44, 52) extends through each of the modules (modules) along the length direction (left to right in Fig. 4) thereof such that a central corridor (middle space between sides 44, 52) runs through the arranged modules (modules) between the first level (22) and the top level (38) of the multi-level frame (10) of each of the modules (modules), with at least a part of the central corridor (middle space between sides 44, 52) configured as the central pipe rack (at least one pipe and supports).
In regard to claim 4, Byfield teaches that the individual pretreatment, liquefaction, and refrigerant compressor process modules (para. 108-113, 90) are releasably connected (note that the modules may be fluidly connected and disconnected and thermally connected and disconnected, and physically connected and disconnected with tools; and construction permits deconstruction para. 90).
In regard to claim 5, Byfield teaches that the pretreatment module (para. 109), the liquefaction module (para. 112), and the refrigerant compressor module (para. 110, 113) are all separate modules (each performs the separate recited functions).
In regard to claim 6, Byfield teaches that the plurality of the air coolers (30) are installed on the top level (38) of the multi-level frames (10) of at least some of the modules (modules) 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 frames (10) of the at least some of the modules (modules), and the plurality of the air coolers (identified 30) occupy no more than the width of the train (12) (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).
In regard to claim 7, Byfield teaches that at least some components (para. 115, 117-118 equipment) of the pretreatment module (para. 109) and the liquefaction module (para. 112) reside on the first level (22) of the multi-level frames (10) thereof and underneath at least some of the plurality of the air coolers (30).
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 frames (10) of the at least some of the modules (modules) so that air coolers of the plurality of the air coolers (30) are located at one portion of the top level (38) (see that some air coolers may have a highest heat load and air flow at different times of operation and are fully capable of such functional use as compared to at least some other air coolers, for example 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 adjacent (near) to a gas turbine (86) and includes a fan (of the one of the subset of 30) to direct hot air recirculation away from an intake (air inlet) of the gas turbine (86)(as hot air rises and reduces intake of hot air into air inlet of 86 as compared to air coolers that direct hot air down).
In regard to claim 11, Byfield teaches that the vacant space (see relatively empty space Fig. 13) of the central corridor (middle space) further separates the liquefied natural gas processing components (equipment) of each of the modules (modules)(see there is equipment lateral of the middle space), forms a passageway for maintenance personnel (people can move therein), and provides a pathway for pressure wave dispersion upon explosion of one or more of the liquefied natural gas processing components (equipment) (space fully capable of providing path for a pressure wave).
In regard to claim 13, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (68) is located on the liquefaction module (para. 112, 118) on one side of the central corridor (middle space between sides 44, 52); and a pre-cooling heat exchanger (at least one precooling heat exchanger, para. 116, 117) is located on the liquefaction module (para. 112, including 60) on an opposite side of the central corridor (middle space between sides 44, 52) (further see Fig. 3 and see there is 68 on one side of the central or middle area and at least one precooling heat exchanger on the other).
In regard to claim 14, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (68 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 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).
In regard to claim 15, Byfield teaches that the natural gas liquefier (68 in 70) and the rundown line (LNG output) and associated piping (pipes, para. 95) are arranged to concentrate cryogenic lines and equipment that uses cryogenic fluid (LNG and refrigerant) at a cryogenic area (area of module 70 and 68; para. 118) along 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 21, Byfield teaches that the multi-level frame (10) of the one or more of the modules (modules) includes one more additional levels (see all figures; see several horizontal regions or 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 location of the natural gas liquefier (68 in 70) of the liquefaction module (70) relative to a refrigerant compressor (84, 82) of the refrigerant compressor module (para. 110, 113) minimizes a length of inter-connecting piping (para. 95 “pipe”; between 84, 82 and 68) between the natural gas liquefier (68 in 70) and connecting equipment (see that piping is routed along axis 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, 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 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) to move items between the top level (38) and the first level (22) of the multi-level frame (10) of one or more of the modules (modules) of the train (12) 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 the central corridor space (middle space between sides 44, 52) 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 Tomlinson (US 10788259) and/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) of the central corridor (middle space between sides 44, 52) 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) and/or 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 (middle space between sides 44, 52) from the compression equipment 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, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 22 since Tomlinson teaches a booster compressor (see 24, 42).
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 modules (modules) having a bottom deck (see 22) formed by the first level (22) of the multi-level frame (10) of the modules (modules) and does not explicitly teach oily water and chemical drain systems (interpreted as a drain that can drain these fluids) pre-installed 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 chemical drain systems beneath the bottom deck (22) of the modules (modules) 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) and would be obvious to preinstall when manufacturing the modules to reduce the construction time at the installation site.
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 the first level (22) of the multi-level frame (10) of each of the modules (modules) to elevate the first level (22) above a ground surface and to enable rolling of the modules (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 first level (para. 74 bottom of the module) (124, 131) of a multi-level frame (1) to elevate the first level (124, 131) above a ground surface (ground, para. 75) and to enable rolling of the 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 the modules of Byfield and connect the 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 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the 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
Prosecution Insights