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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 12, 2025, has been entered.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: recycle compression system” (i.e. system [for] recycle compression) in claims 2-3 and 6, liquefaction expansion system (i.e. system [for] expansion) in claims 2-5, “precooling system” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the recitation, “recycle compression system” (claim 2), the corresponding structure can be found in spec. para. 16: as “one or more recycle compressors”.
For the recitation, “expansion system”, the corresponding structure can be found in spec. para. 16: as “one or more liquefaction expanders”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of Kaart (US 20100071409 A1).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA discloses a method for the liquefaction of hydrogen (Fig 1, par 0032), the method comprising the steps of: precooling a hydrogen feed stream (Fig 1 labeled “H2 feed”) in a precooling cold box having a heat exchanger disposed therein (Fig 1 heat exchanger within precooling zone 10) to form a cooled hydrogen stream (Fig 1 it is understood precooling zone cools the hydrogen feed), wherein the heat exchanger is configured to cool down the hydrogen feed stream within the precooling cold box by indirect heat exchange between the hydrogen feed stream and a precooling refrigerant (par 0032: “the refrigeration for the precooling zone 10 is provided by a closed loop refrigeration circuit 11”); withdrawing the cooled hydrogen stream from the precooling cold box (Fig 1 see H2 stream exiting precooling zone 10 where it enters “purif”); and introducing the cooled hydrogen stream to a liquefaction cold box (Fig 1 cooled H2 stream enters liquefaction zone 5), wherein the cooled hydrogen stream liquefies within the liquefaction cold box by indirect heat exchange against a liquefaction refrigerant (Fig 1 refrigerant within closed loop refrigeration circuit 13, par 0032) to form a product hydrogen stream in the liquefaction cold box (Fig 1 stream exiting liquefaction zone 5), wherein the product hydrogen stream is in liquid form or pseudo-liquid form (Fig 1 par 0032, it is understood liquefaction zone liquefies the hydrogen stream), wherein there are M total precooling cold boxes (Fig 1, there is one precooling zone 10 in train 1a).
AAPA does not disclose a plurality of liquefaction cold boxes and therefore does not disclose: introducing the cooled hydrogen stream to a plurality of liquefaction cold boxes, wherein the cooled hydrogen stream liquefies within the plurality of liquefaction cold boxes by indirect heat exchange against a liquefaction refrigerant to form a product hydrogen stream in each of the plurality of liquefaction cold boxes, and wherein there are N total liquefaction cold boxes, wherein M is less than N.
However, it is routine and well known to economically increase capacity by increasing the number of liquefaction heat exchangers and employing a single pre-cooling heat exchanger.
Moreover, Kaart (see Fig. 2 and whole disclosure) teaches a plurality of liquefaction cold boxes (38a, 38b; providing an increase in capacity without requiring a doubling of every system and thus increasing capacity at lower costs than fully doubling the entire train) and wherein there are M precooling cold boxes (36) and N total liquefaction cold boxes, wherein M is less than N (Fig 1 M=one heat exchanger 36, and N=two heat exchangers 38a, 38b).
Kaart teaches a liquefaction apparatus (see Fig. 2 and whole disclosure), comprising: a first cooling stage (2) having a single precooling heat exchanger (36) and a second cooling stage (4) comprising two liquefaction heat exchangers (38a, 38b) providing an increase in capacity without requiring a doubling of every system and thus increasing capacity at lower costs than fully doubling the entire train. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Han with a single precooling cold box and dual liquefaction cold boxes for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the system without requiring a full doubling of the cost.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of AAPA with a single precooling cold box and dual liquefaction cold boxes for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the system without requiring a full doubling of the cost, for the purpose of increasing the liquefaction capacity without having to add a second first cooling stage without requiring a full doubling of the cost. It is noted that the modification of the rejection results in duplicating the liquefaction zone 5 of AAPA and splitting the H2 stream so that the H2 stream is distributed in parallel to each liquefaction zone.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA further discloses wherein the liquefaction refrigeration system comprises a recycle compression system and a liquefaction expansion system (see compressors and expanders in annotated Fig A), wherein the recycle compression system is configured to compress the liquefaction refrigerant (AAPA Fig 1 refrigerant within closed loop refrigeration circuit 13 is compressed by recycle compression system, par 0032) and the liquefaction expansion system is configured to expand the liquefaction refrigerant (AAPA Fig 1 refrigerant within closed loop refrigeration circuit 13 is expanded by expansion system, par 0032).
Regarding claim 3, AAPA, as modified, teaches that there are M total recycle compression systems (see there is one recycle compression system) and N total liquefaction expansion systems (from duplicating the liquefaction cold box of AAPA as taught by DAM).
Regarding claim 4, AAPA further discloses wherein the recycle compression system comprises one or more recycle compressors (annotated Fig A, see at least one compressor within recycle compression system, par 0032).
Regarding claim 5, AAPA further disclose wherein the one or more recycle compressors are arranged in parallel or series (annotated Fig A, see compressors within recycle compressions system are at least in series).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA further discloses wherein liquefaction expansion system comprises one or more liquefaction expanders, wherein the one or more liquefaction expanders are arranged in parallel or series (annotated Fig A, see expanders within expansion system arranged in parallel).
Regarding claim 7, AAPA further discloses wherein the liquefaction refrigerant is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, neon, helium, and combinations thereof (AAPA Fig 1: hydrogen is supplied as liquefaction refrigerant via the gas liquid separator 21).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA further discloses wherein the liquefaction refrigerant comprises one or more of hydrogen, neon, and helium (AAPA Fig 1: hydrogen is supplied as liquefaction refrigerant via the gas liquid separator 21).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA further discloses a precooling system comprising a precooling refrigeration cycle (AAPA Fig 1, refrigeration circuit 11 is capable of performing a precooling refrigeration cycle, par 0032).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA further discloses wherein the precooling refrigerant is selected from the group consisting of nitrogen, argon, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water, hydrocarbon, mixed hydrocarbons, fluorocarbon and combinations thereof (see para. 4 - Nitrogen cycle).
Regarding claim 11, AAPA further discloses wherein the precooling refrigerant comprises one or more of nitrogen, argon, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water, hydrocarbon, mixed hydrocarbons, and fluorocarbons (AAPA par 0004: “Regarding the warm temperature range (80K to 300K): referenced art exists using a) closed loop N2 cycle, b) vaporization of LIN from an ASU, c) mixed hydrocarbon refrigerant, and d) optionally pre-precooling to a first temperature (250K to 300K) using NH3 and/or water”).
Regarding claim 12, Modified AAPA further discloses wherein the recycle compression system comprises a single, common recycle compression system (see the compression system in annotated Fig A, see the system may be considered one system; see system has compressors with refrigerant in common).
Regarding claim 14, Modified AAPA teaches wherein the temperature at a cold end of the precooling cold box is in a range of 30K to 250K (Kaart [0064]: -60 ℃ = 213.15 K)
Regarding claim 16, Modified AAPA further discloses wherein the ratio of N total liquefaction cold boxes to M total precooling cold boxes is between 1.25 and 3.0 (1.25 ≤ N/M ≤ 3.0) (AAPA in view of Kaart N=2/M=1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA (Applicant admitted prior art) in view of Dam (US-9435583-B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guillard (US-20180038638-A1).
Inclusive of claims 15, AAPA is silent regarding wherein the temperature at a warm end of the plurality of the liquefaction cold boxes is in a range of 30K to 150K and Kaart teaches wherein the temperature at a warm end of the plurality of the liquefaction cold boxes is at least below 173.15 K (See Kaart [0067]). However, a temperature at a cold end of the precooling cold box and at a warm end of the liquefaction zone, is a result effective variable, as recognized by the teachings of Guillard (see [0084]: purified hydrogen is cooled in the first heat exchanger 345 to a temperature sufficient to remove impurities by adsorption; further see para. 80, 107 - see -190C =83K ).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to operate the system of AAPA in view of Kaart and modified the temperature at a warm end of the liquefaction zone is in the range of 30K to 150K, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)).
PNG
media_image1.png
544
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments with respect to the §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection and 112(f) interpretation have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and Applicant Specification Publication [0015] and [0073].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner respectfully remind Applicant with respect to arguments that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, that the features upon which applicant relies must be recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763