DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed on 12 January, 2026. The amendments have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 16-17 are new.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 16 and 17, the claims recite, “the circulation line”, which appears to be directed to the “liquefied gas circulation line”. As such, the claims should be amended to use clear, concise, and exact terms (37 CFR 1.71(a)) to recite - - the liquefied gas circulation line - - .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-17 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.
As to claims 16-17, the claims have been newly presented to include the feature “wherein the liquefied gas circulation line arranged in parallel with the propulsion engine comprises a cooler arranged to cool the liquefied gas in the circulation line”, which is considered new matter. Particularly, the liquefied gas circulation line is disclosed as “L22”, and expressly disclosed as “connected to the liquefied gas collection line L30 of the fuel collection part 40…liquefied gas discharged from the high pressure pump 22 is transferred to the liquefied gas collection line L30 along the liquefied gas circulation line L22, to be again circulated to the high pressure pump 22.” (pg. 13 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application ) and “The above-described liquefied gas circulation line L22 may branch off from the liquefied gas supply line L20 downstream of the high pressure pump 22 and be connected upstream of the cooler 41 from the liquefied gas collection line 30, to be connected between the propulsion engine E and the cooler41 downstream of the high pressure pump 22” (pg. 24 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application). Furthermore, the cooler, 41, is shown in figures 1-6 to be positioned along the liquefied gas collection line, L30, and expressly described “The cooler 41 cools the liquefied gas decompressed by the decompression valve on the liquefied gas collection line L30 to allow the liquefied gas in a liquid phase to be introduced into the high pressure pump 22.” (pg. 24 of the originally-filed specification of the instant application). For these reasons, the limitations set forth within newly presented claims 16-17 are new matter not reasonably described by the originally-filed specification, and thereby, rejected under the statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of HODGSON (US 2019/0323659 A1 – published 24 October, 2019), and HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 1, KIM discloses a gas treatment system(figures 2-4) for treating liquefied gas as heavier hydrocarbons (LPG -- liquefied petroleum gas), the gas treatment system comprising:
a fuel tank(220) storing liquefied gas as a fuel to be supplied to(figures 2-4; par. 60) a propulsion engine(E) of a ship(par. 1);
a liquefied gas supply line(line defined by “FL” flowing from 220 to E within figures 2-4) supplying the liquefied gas of the fuel tank in a liquid phase to the propulsion engine(figures 2-4; par. 60), the liquefied gas supply line having a high pressure pump provided thereon(230; par. 60);
a reliquefaction apparatus(300;par. 65) liquefying boil-off gas generated in a cargo tank(100; par. 54) storing liquefied gas; and
a liquefied gas collection line(SL) collecting and transferring the liquid liquefied gas discharged from the propulsion engine upstream of the high pressure pump(par. 72-74);
wherein the reliquefaction apparatus transfers the liquefied boil-off gas to the fuel tank(the reliquefaction system, 300, supplies the liquefied boil-off gas through the process of discharging the liquefied boil-off gas to the storage tank,100, which in turn supplies the liquefied boil-off gas to the fuel tank, 220, via line “FL” connected to pump, 110), thereby allowing the liquefied boil-off gas to be supplied to the propulsion engine by the high pressure pump (liquefied boil-off gas supplied via the pump, 110, to the fuel tank, 220, is discharged via line “FL” towards the high-pressure pump, 230, and subsequently, the engine, E).
However, KIM does not expressly disclose the inclusion of the reliquefaction apparatus transferring the liquefied boil-off gas directly to the fuel tank or a liquefied gas circulation line arranged in parallel with the propulsion engine to circulate in the high-pressure pump a flow rate of liquid liquefied gas greater than or equal to a minimum required-flow rate of the high-pressure-pump.
First, HODGSON, however, is within the field of endeavor of a gas treatment system (abstract; figure 3; par. 1). HODGSON teaches a fuel tank (32) that stores a liquefied gas as a fuel(par. 90 and 98-99) to be supplied(via line 44; par. 83) to a propulsion engine (52) and a reliquefaction apparatus (see annotated figure 3) liquefying boil-off gas generated(par. 92, 95, and 101-103) in a cargo tank (50). HODGSON teaches wherein the reliquefaction apparatus includes transferring the liquefied boil-off gas directly to the fuel tank (via line 110; par. 103). Particularly, HODGSON teaches the direct transfer of liquefied boil-off gas to the fuel tank, as required by the claims enables not only capture of excess boil-off gas when the boil-off gas within the cargo tanks exceed the demand required by the engines, but allows for the boil-off gas to be stored in a liquefied state at a higher pressure than allowed within the cargo tank (par. 81). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM, in view of the teachings of HODGSON to include the direct transfer of the liquefied boil-off gas to the fuel tank from the reliquefaction apparatus for these reasons. More so, in doing so, the reliquefaction apparatus, 300, of KIM would include a line directed from a boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360, that directs the boil-off gas to an additional heat exchanger, and subsequently, directly from the reliquefaction apparatus to the fuel tank, 220.
PNG
media_image1.png
943
1214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of HODGSON
Second, HAN, is within the field of endeavor of a gas treatment system (par. 1). HAN teaches including a fuel tank (40) that stores a liquefied gas as a fuel (par. 36) to be supplied to a propulsion engine of a ship (par. 50 and 53). HAN teaches including, further, a liquefied gas circulation line arranged to split a portion of the liquid liquefied(par. 361, wherein at least a portion of the fluid remains liquefied) fluid (57) to bypass the propulsion engine and return to the fuel tank (figure 21-22). Specifically, HAN teaches the addition of this liquefied gas circulation line to return a part of the fuel when overpressure occurs or when surplus fuel is generated (par. 364). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM, in view of the teachings of HAN to include a liquefied gas circulation line downstream of a fuel discharge point of the fuel tank and to a portion that returns to the fuel tank, thereby bypassing the propulsion engine, for these reasons. In doing so, a line would be reasonably understood to be extended from FL to SL or from FL to the fuel tank, 220, of KIM which would result in a parallelly arranged (fluidically parallel) liquefied gas circulation line relative to the propulsion engine. Further, the line, in light of the teachings of HAN, would be capable to function to circulate in the high-pressure pump a flow rate of liquid liquefied gas greater than or equal to a minimum required-flow rate of the high-pressure-pump. See MPEP § 2114 – II.
As to claim 4, KIM, as modified by HODGSON and HAN, further discloses wherein the reliquefaction apparatus (300) includes:
a compressor(320) compressing in multiple stages(par. 83-84) the boil-off gas discharged from the cargo tank(figures 2-4);
a condenser(330) cooling and liquefying(par. 80) the compressed boil-off gas by using a refrigerant(par. 89-90 – using seawater); and
an intercooler(360) heat-exchanging a portion(“BL” discharged from downstream of the first compressor, 320) and the other portion of the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (“BL” discharged from 340) with each other, the intercooler transferring the boil-off gas generated by the heat exchange to the compressor(“BL” discharged from the top of the intercooler, 360, back to a downstream compressor stage, 320, figure 2-4; par. 122-123).
As to claim 6, KIM, as modified by HODGSON and HAN, further discloses wherein the reliquefaction apparatus (300) includes:
a compressor(320) compressing in multiple stages(par. 83-84) the boil-off gas discharged from the cargo tank(figures 2-4);
a condenser(330) cooling and liquefying(par. 80) the compressed boil-off gas; and
a boil-off gas heat exchanger(360) heat-exchanging boil-off gas(“BL” discharged from the cargo tank flows through at least a compression stage of the compressor, but upstream the following two compression stages, into the boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360; figures 2-4) transferred from the cargo tank to the compressor and the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (“BL” condensed within the condenser, 330, and discharged from the separator, 340, into the boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360; figures 2-4).
As to claim 15, KIM, as modified by HODGSON and HAN, discloses a liquefied gas carrier (par. 1 and 9) comprising the gas treatment system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of HODGSON (US 2019/0323659 A1 – published 24 October, 2019), HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations), and NOZAKI (WO 2019050003 A1 – published 14 March, 2019; see foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 2, KIM, as modified by HODGSON and HAN, discloses wherein the liquefied gas collection line(SL) which receives surplus liquid gas discharged from the propulsion engine and mixed with a lubricant, which is used in the propulsion engine (MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the mixing of lubricant is a functional capability of KIM, in view of the liquid gas being supplied through and discharged by the propulsion engine; par. 60, which provides there may be foreign substances within the LPG fuel), to the liquefied gas supply line (line defined by “FL” flowing from 220 to E within figures 2-4) upstream of the high pressure pump (at the location discharged from the fuel tank, 220, to “FL”, as defined for the liquefied gas supply line, which is upstream of the high pressure pump, 230) while passing through the inside of the propulsion engine such that the surplus liquid liquefied gas mixed with the lubricant is reintroduced into the propulsion engine (figures 2-4).
However, KIM does not disclose wherein the liquefied gas supply line includes a decompression valve decompressing the surplus liquefied gas discharged from the propulsion engine.
NOZAKI, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system(figures 1 and 2) for treating liquefied gas as a heavier hydrocarbon (LPG – liquefied petroleum gas; par. 1). NOZAKI teaches the inclusion of a liquefied gas collection line (41; par. 28) collecting fluid discharged from the propulsion engine (11; par. 15; figures 1 and 2) upstream of a pump (32). NOZAKI teaches wherein the liquefied gas collection line includes a decompression valve (42; par. 35). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., regulating the pressure of the fluid discharged from the engine within the liquefied gas collection line via a decompression valve, 41). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by NOZAKI such that the liquefied gas collection line is provided with a decompression valve decompressing surplus fluid from the propulsion engine, such as the liquefied gas of KIM, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of regulating the pressure of the fluid discharged from the engine within the liquefied gas collection line via a decompression valve.
As to claim 3, KIM, as modified by HODGSON, HAN, and NOZAKI, taught the inclusion of the decompression valve (see rejection of claim 2), in addition to liquid phase being introduced into the high pressure pump (see rejection of claim 2)
However, KIM, as modified, does not further disclose the liquefied gas collection line is provided with a cooler cooling the liquefied gas decompressed by the decompression valve.
NOZAKI, however, further teaches the liquefied gas collection line (41; par. 28) including a cooler (44; par. 28) for cooling the fluid decompressed by the decompression valve (par. 35). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., cooling the fluid from the decompression valve to a predetermined temperature; par. 28). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by NOZAKI such that the liquefied gas collection line is provided with cooler cooling fluid decompressed by the decompression valve, such as the liquefied gas of KIM, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of cooling the fluid from the decompression valve to a predetermined temperature.
Claim(s) 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of HODGSON (US 2019/0323659 A1 – published 24 October, 2019), HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations), and JONES (US 3,857,245 – published 31 December, 1974).
As to claim 5, KIM, as modified by HODGSON and HAN, discloses wherein the reliquefaction apparatus further includes a gas-liquid separator (340) receiving boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (par. 90), and which is capable (MPEP § 2114 – II) of providing the reliquefaction apparatus operating in at least one of a reliquefaction mode in which the liquid phase is transferred to the cargo tank via the intercooler (liquid phase is discharged from the gas-liquid separator, 340, into the intercooler, 360, which subsequently delivers the fluid into the cargo tank, 100, as shown in figures 2-4) and a fuel supply mode in which the liquid phase is transferred to the fuel tank to be supplied to the propulsion engine (liquid phase is discharged from the gas-liquid separator, 340, into the intercooler, 360, which subsequently delivers the fluid into the cargo tank, 100, and then, liquid phase received at the cargo tank is supplied, via pump 110, to the fuel tank, 220, that supplies the engine, E, as shown in figures 2-4)
However, KIM does not expressly disclose(the tank, 340, of KIM clearly shows a liquid line with a space above the stored liquid, but does not expressly provide wherein the tank separates the liquid and gas) wherein the gas -liquid separates the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase.
JONES, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system (abstract). JONES teaches a reliquefaction apparatus (combination of 5 and 6) including a condenser (7) cooling and liquefying compressed boil-off gas (col. , lines 62-66). A gas-liquid separator (9) receives the boil-off gas liquefied by the condenser (figure 1) and separates it into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase (col. 4, line 1). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., separating liquid and gas phases of the liquefied boil-off gas, such that the phases can be supplied to other portions of the gas treatment system, and powering the ship; col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by JONES such that the gas-liquid separator separates the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of separating liquid and gas phases of the liquefied boil-off gas, such that the phases can be supplied to other portions of the gas treatment system, and powering the ship (col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3).
As to claim 7, KIM, as modified by HODGSON and HAN, discloses wherein the reliquefaction apparatus further includes a gas-liquid separator (340) receiving boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (par. 90), and which is capable (MPEP § 2114 – II) of providing the reliquefaction apparatus operating in at least one of a reliquefaction mode in which the liquid phase is transferred to the cargo tank via the boil-off gas heat exchanger (liquid phase is discharged from the gas-liquid separator, 340, into the boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360, which subsequently delivers the fluid into the cargo tank, 100, as shown in figures 2-4) and a fuel supply mode in which the liquid phase is transferred to the fuel tank to be supplied to the propulsion engine (liquid phase is discharged from the gas-liquid separator, 340, into the boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360, which subsequently delivers the fluid into the cargo tank, 100, and then, liquid phase received at the cargo tank is supplied, via pump 110, to the fuel tank, 220, that supplies the engine, E, as shown in figures 2-4).
However, KIM does not expressly disclose(the tank, 340, of KIM clearly shows a liquid line with a space above the stored liquid, but does not expressly provide wherein the tank separates the liquid and gas) wherein the gas -liquid separates the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase.
JONES, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system (abstract). JONES teaches a reliquefaction apparatus (combination of 5 and 6) including a condenser (7) cooling and liquefying compressed boil-off gas (col. , lines 62-66). A gas-liquid separator (9) receives the boil-off gas liquefied by the condenser (figure 1) and separates it into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase (col. 4, line 1). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., separating liquid and gas phases of the liquefied boil-off gas, such that the phases can be supplied to other portions of the gas treatment system, and powering the ship; col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by JONES such that the gas-liquid separator separates the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of separating liquid and gas phases of the liquefied boil-off gas, such that the phases can be supplied to other portions of the gas treatment system, and powering the ship (col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of LEE (KR 101883858B1 – published 1 August, 2018; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations) and HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 8, KIM discloses a gas treatment system(figures 2-4) for treating liquefied gas as heavier hydrocarbons (LPG -- liquefied petroleum gas), the gas treatment system comprising:
a liquefied gas supply line(line defined by “FL” flowing from 220 to E within figures 2-4) supplying the liquefied gas stored in a cargo tank in a liquid phase(liquid phase from the cargo tank is supplied to the liquefied gas supply line via a pump, 110, and fuel tank, 220, as shown in figures 2-4, such that the liquefied gas supply line supplies the liquefied gas from the cargo tank) to a propulsion engine(figures 2-4; par. 60), the liquefied gas supply line being provided with a high pressure pump provided thereon(230; par. 60);
a reliquefaction apparatus(300;par. 65) liquefying boil-off gas generated in a cargo tank(100; par. 54) such that the liquefied boil-off gas is transferred to the high pressure pump (liquid phase from the cargo tank is partially formed from reliquefied boil-off gas, in view of figures 2-4, and is supplied to the liquefied gas supply line via a pump, 110, and fuel tank, 220, as shown in figures 2-4, such that the liquefied gas supply line supplies the liquefied gas from the cargo tank to the high pressure pump, 230); and
a liquefied gas collection line(SL) collecting the liquid liquefied gas discharged from the propulsion engine and delivering said liquid liquefied gas discharged from the propulsion engine upstream of the high pressure pump(par. 72-74; figures 2-4);
wherein the reliquefaction apparatus includes:
a condenser(330) cooling and liquefying(par. 80) the compressed boil-off gas by using a refrigerant(par. 89-90 – using seawater); and
a buffer (340) temporarily storing the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (par. 96).
However, KIM does not further disclose wherein the reliquefaction apparatus has a bypass line that allows at least a portion of the boil-off gas to be supplied to the buffer while bypassing the condenser so as to prepare for fluctuation of the pressure of boil-off gas transferred from the buffer to the high pressure pump according to a temperature of the refrigerant or a liquefied gas circulation line arranged in parallel with the propulsion engine to circulate in the high-pressure pump a flow rate of liquid liquefied gas greater than or equal to a minimum required-flow rate of the high-pressure-pump.
LEE, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system (par. 1; figure 1). LEE teaches it is a known technique to provide a condenser (70; par. 49) to include a bypass line (71), such that a portion of the boil-off gas (gas discharged from the tank, 10, into the compressor stages) bypasses the condenser (figure 1). LEE teaches wherein the inclusion of the bypass allows prevention of overload to the evaporation gas compressor (par. 96), protecting the condenser from preventing low-temperature evaporation gas from coming into contact therewith (par. 99), and increasing system efficiency (par. 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM, in view of the teachings of LEE, to include the bypass line, as claimed for the purposes discussed.
More so, in doing so, the combination would yield that a portion of the boil-off gas is supplied to the buffer (340 of KIM) while bypassing the condenser (330 of KIM). In addition, the combination would yield the result of “so as to prepare for fluctuations of the pressure of boil-off gas transferred from the buffer to the high pressure pump according to a temperature of the refrigerant”, which is based on capability of the combination (MPEP § 2114 – II).
Second, HAN, is within the field of endeavor of a gas treatment system (par. 1). HAN teaches including a fuel tank (40) that stores a liquefied gas as a fuel (par. 36) to be supplied to a propulsion engine of a ship (par. 50 and 53). HAN teaches including, further, a liquefied gas circulation line arranged to split a portion of the liquid liquefied(par. 361, wherein at least a portion of the fluid remains liquefied) fluid (57) to bypass the propulsion engine and return to the fuel tank (figure 21-22). Specifically, HAN teaches the addition of this liquefied gas circulation line to return a part of the fuel when overpressure occurs or when surplus fuel is generated (par. 364). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM, in view of the teachings of HAN to include a liquefied gas circulation line downstream of a fuel discharge point of the fuel tank and to a portion that returns to the fuel tank, thereby bypassing the propulsion engine, for these reasons.
In doing so, a line would be reasonably understood to be extended from FL to SL or from FL to the fuel tank, 220, of KIM which would result in a parallelly arranged (fluidically parallel) liquefied gas circulation line relative to the propulsion engine. Further, the line, in light of the teachings of HAN, would be capable to function to circulate in the high-pressure pump a flow rate of liquid liquefied gas greater than or equal to a minimum required-flow rate of the high-pressure-pump. See MPEP § 2114 – II.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of LEE (KR 101883858B1 – published 1 August, 2018; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations), HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations), and NOZAKI (WO 2019050003 A1 – published 14 March, 2019; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 9, KIM, as modified by LEE and HAN, discloses wherein the liquefied gas collection line(SL) which receives surplus liquid gas discharged from the propulsion engine and mixed with a lubricant, which is used in the propulsion engine (MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein the mixing of lubricant is a functional capability of KIM, in view of the liquid gas being supplied through and discharged by the propulsion engine; par. 60, which provides there may be foreign substances within the LPG fuel), to the liquefied gas supply line (line defined by “FL” flowing from 220 to E within figures 2-4) upstream of the high pressure pump (at the location discharged from the fuel tank, 220, to “FL”, as defined for the liquefied gas supply line, which is upstream of the high pressure pump, 230) while passing through the inside of the propulsion engine such that the surplus liquid liquefied gas mixed with the lubricant is reintroduced into the propulsion engine (figures 2-4).
However, KIM does not disclose wherein the liquefied gas supply line includes a decompression valve decompressing the surplus liquefied gas discharged from the propulsion engine.
NOZAKI, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system(figures 1 and 2) for treating liquefied gas as a heavier hydrocarbon (LPG – liquefied petroleum gas; par. 1). NOZAKI teaches the inclusion of a liquefied gas collection line (41; par. 28) collecting fluid discharged from the propulsion engine (11; par. 15; figures 1 and 2) upstream of a pump (32). NOZAKI teaches wherein the liquefied gas collection line includes a decompression valve (42; par. 35). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., regulating the pressure of the fluid discharged from the engine within the liquefied gas collection line via a decompression valve, 41). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by NOZAKI such that the liquefied gas collection line is provided with a decompression valve decompressing surplus fluid from the propulsion engine, such as the liquefied gas of KIM, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of regulating the pressure of the fluid discharged from the engine within the liquefied gas collection line via a decompression valve.
As to claim 10, KIM, as modified by LEE, HAN, and NOZAKI, taught the inclusion of the decompression valve (see rejection of claim 9), in addition to liquid phase being introduced into the high pressure pump (see rejection of claim 9)
However, KIM, as modified, does not further disclose the liquefied gas collection line is provided with a cooler cooling the liquefied gas decompressed by the decompression valve.
NOZAKI, however, further teaches the liquefied gas collection line (41; par. 28) including a cooler (44; par. 28) for cooling the fluid decompressed by the decompression valve (par. 35). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., cooling the fluid from the decompression valve to a predetermined temperature; par. 28). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by NOZAKI such that the liquefied gas collection line is provided with cooler cooling fluid decompressed by the decompression valve, such as the liquefied gas of KIM, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of cooling the fluid from the decompression valve to a predetermined temperature.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of LEE (KR 101883858B1 – published 1 August, 2018; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations), HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations), and JONES (US 3,857,245 – published 31 December, 1974).
As to claim 11, KIM, as modified by LEE and HAN, discloses wherein the buffer is a gas-liquid separator (340) receiving boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (par. 90).
However, KIM does not expressly disclose(the tank, 340, of KIM clearly shows a liquid line with a space above the stored liquid, but does not expressly provide wherein the tank separates the liquid and gas) wherein the gas -liquid separates the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase.
JONES, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system (abstract). JONES teaches a reliquefaction apparatus (combination of 5 and 6) including a condenser (7) cooling and liquefying compressed boil-off gas (col. , lines 62-66). A gas-liquid separator (9) receives the boil-off gas liquefied by the condenser (figure 1) and separates it into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase (col. 4, line 1). This is strong evidence that modifying KIM as claimed was well within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art and would produce predictable results to one skilled in the art, (i.e., separating liquid and gas phases of the liquefied boil-off gas, such that the phases can be supplied to other portions of the gas treatment system, and powering the ship; col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify KIM by JONES such that the gas-liquid separator separates the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase, since all claimed elements were known in the art, and one having ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of separating liquid and gas phases of the liquefied boil-off gas, such that the phases can be supplied to other portions of the gas treatment system, and powering the ship (col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (KR 1020190105841 A – published 18 September, 2019 and furnished with the IDS filed on 12 August, 2022; see previously furnished English machine translation for citations), in view of LEE (KR 101883858B1 – published 1 August, 2018; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations), HAN (KR 102049170 B1 – published 26 November, 2019; see provided English machine translation for citations), JONES (US 3,857,245 – published 31 December, 1974), and NOZAKI (WO 2019050003 A1 – published 14 March, 2019; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations).
As to claim 12, KIM, as modified by LEE, HAN, and JONES, does not further disclose wherein the reliquefaction apparatus transfers the liquefied boil-off gas to the liquefied gas supply line between the cargo tank and the high-pressure pump.
NOZAKI, however, is within the field of endeavor provided a gas treatment system(figures 1 and 2) for treating liquefied gas as a heavier hydrocarbon (LPG – liquefied petroleum gas; par. 1). NOZAKI teaches wherein the fuel tank (21) is able to receive liquefied gas from a multitude of sources other than a cargo tank (par. 17). Therefore, when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, i.e., cargo tank, reliquefaction apparatus, supply facility, another fuel supply ship, or the like that is capable of supplying liquefied gas, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e., supply the fuel tank, which supplies the propulsion engine of the ship, with liquefied gas from a source, so as to power the propulsion engine, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify KIM, by trying to provide the reliquefaction apparatus supplying liquefied boil off gas towards the fuel tank, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP § 2143-I(E).
In doing so, the reliquefaction apparatus would provide a portion of the liquefied boil-off gas to the fuel tank, 220, of KIM, that discharges to the defined liquefied gas supply line (“FL” at the exit of fuel tank, 220). This provides that the combination would provide the liquefied boil-off gas along the liquefied gas supply line at a point between the cargo tank (100) and the high pressure pump (230).
As to claim 13, KIM, as modified by LEE, HAN, JONES, and NOZAKI, further discloses wherein the reliquefaction apparatus (300) includes:
a compressor(320) compressing in multiple stages(par. 83-84) the boil-off gas discharged from the cargo tank(figures 2-4); and
an intercooler(360) heat-exchanging a portion(“BL” discharged from downstream of the first compressor, 320) and the other portion of the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (“BL” discharged from 340) with each other, the intercooler transferring the boil-off gas generated by the heat exchange to the compressor(“BL” discharged from the top of the intercooler, 360, back to a downstream compressor stage, 320, figure 2-4; par. 122-123).
As to claim 14, KIM, as modified by LEE, HAN, JONES, and NOZAKI, previously taught the inclusion of the buffer being a gas-liquid separator separating the boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase (see rejection of claim 11). KIM, further, discloses wherein the reliquefaction apparatus further includes a gas-liquid separator (340) receiving boil-off gas liquefied in the condenser (par. 90), and which is capable (MPEP § 2114 – II) of providing the reliquefaction apparatus operating in at least one of a reliquefaction mode in which the liquid phase is transferred to the cargo tank via the boil-off gas heat exchanger (liquid phase is discharged from the gas-liquid separator, 340, into the boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360, which subsequently delivers the fluid into the cargo tank, 100, as shown in figures 2-4) and a fuel supply mode in which the liquid phase is transferred to the fuel tank to be supplied to the propulsion engine (liquid phase is discharged from the gas-liquid separator, 340, into the boil-off gas heat exchanger, 360, which subsequently delivers the fluid into the cargo tank, 100, and then, liquid phase received at the cargo tank is supplied, via pump 110, to the fuel tank, 220, that supplies the engine, E, as shown in figures 2-4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 9-10, Applicant argues against he combination of KIM and HAN based on the use of different fuels and engine, in addition to the inclusion of a vaporizer in KIM, so as to make the argument that one having ordinary skill within the art would not have looked to modify KIM with HAN. First, it appears the basis of the argument is on the relevance of KIM to HAN, but analogous art is not determined based on the combined prior arts. In fact the relevance of prior art and the teachings is based on the analogy of the arts to the instant application. See MPEP § 2141.01(a) – I. Each are relevant to a gas treatment system, which is the same as that of the instant invention. See rejection of claims 1 and 8, at least, wherein such is identified. More so, "It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859, 225 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)) ("Etter's assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole."). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). See MPEP § 2145 – III. The teachings suggested by HAN are that a liquefied gas circulation line can be included to return a part of the fuel discharged by the fuel tank to bypass the propulsion engine so as to remove an overpressure scenario of the system or when surplus fuel is generated (par. 34 of HAN). Such teaching neither changes the principle of operation of KIM nor renders KIM inoperable for its intended purpose. See MPEP § 2143.01 – V and VI. To this end, one having ordinary skill within the art would have been reasonably motivated to modify KIM by the teachings of HAN for these reasons based on the evidence of record that one having ordinary skill within the art would have been inclined to make such modifications, as suggested by the teachings of HAN. More so, the teachings were not relied upon to include the vaporizer, as argued by the Applicant, and thereby, the argument of such is not persuasive.
At pages 10-11, Applicant, further, argues, “the technical effect of the derivation is related to the specific combination of features of HAN (an engine operating with natural gas coming from a vaporizer) and solves the problem of how to control a pressure of a gas vaporized by the vaporizer”, so as to conclude that one would not have found the combination obvious. However, one having understood the invention of KIM would have necessarily looked to the teachings of HAN. KIM includes a heater (250) along the supply line that provides fuel to the engine (E). This heater necessarily is used to provide the fuel at a satisfactory pressure and temperature condition required by the engine (par. 62). As such, one having ordinary skill within the art would have been concerned with the pressure of the fuel, such that avoiding overpressure, such as through the teachings of HAN, would have been reasonable to considered. More so, the modification was based on two different motivations, (1) prevention of overpressure scenarios and (2) removing a condition of surplus fuel provided to the engine. For these reasons, and based on the evidence above, one having ordinary skill within the art, would have been reasonably motivated to modify the invention of KIM with the teachings of HAN.
At pages 12-13, Applicant alleges, “introducing back overpressure fuel into a two-phase tank upstream a pump does in now way warrant a constant determined flow rate of flued to the pump connected to the tank”, such that the combination is argued to not teach “a derivation arranged “to circulate in the high-pressure pump a flow rate of liquid liquefied gas greater than or equal to a minimum required flow rate of the high-pressure-pump”. First, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2145 – I. As such, Applicant presents no evidence of the incapability of the combination to yield “to circulate in the high-pressure pump a flow rate of liquid liquefied gas greater than or equal to a minimum required flow rate of the high-pressure-pump”. More so, the limitation is merely functional language for which the teaching, or combination(s) thereof, merely needs to be capable. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114 – II. For these reasons, the argument is not persuasive, as the Applicant does not provide any differentiation in the structure, and merely states the invention “in no way warrant[s] a constant determined flow rate of fluid to the pump connected to the tank”, absent any evidence to support such conclusions that the combination is not capable of performing such function.
At pages 13-16, Applicant alleges the rejections of the remaining claims should be withdrawn, in view of the arguments presented with regards to claim 1. However, these arguments were not persuasive, in view of the above rebuttal, and thereby, the allegations are not persuasive.
Conclusion
When evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff’d mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claim to a catalyst expressly excluded the presence of sulfur, halogen, uranium, and a combination of vanadium and phosphorous. Although the negative limitations excluding these elements did not appear in the specification as filed, it was error to disregard these limitations when determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the prior art.). "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 694, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971) (quoting In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970)). See MPEP §2143.03 – II. While claims 16-17 were only rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the prior art reasonably teaches the supported claim limitations to include the cooler, 41, disposed downstream from the liquefied gas circulation line,L22, and along the liquefied gas circulation line, L30, as described by the disclosure of the originally-filed specification of the instant application. Particularly, NOZAKI (WO 2019050003 A1 – published 14 March, 2019; see previously furnished foreign patent document and English machine translation for citations) teaches such limitation. NOZAKI teaches a fuel tank (22(2); par. 15-16) which includes a liquefied gas circulation line (51) and liquefied gas collection line (41), as shown in figure 1. NOZAKI teaches the inclusion of a cooler (44) disposed downstream from the liquefied gas circulation line and along the liquefied gas circulation line (figure 1). Particularly, the purpose of the cooler is to allow cooling of the LPG (i.e., the fuel used by the engine and discharged therefrom along a fuel recovery line) to a predetermined temperature (par. 28, lines 232-233) and suppresses the increase of the temperature of the LPG within the fuel tank (par. 53, lines 490-491). For these reasons, should the limitation be amended to that of which has full written-description support by the originally-filed specification, the prior art would reasonably teach such requirements.
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 JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 2/19/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763