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 .
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 1 and 2 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.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “passing unprocessed gas through a gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger that is not part of a refrigeration circuit, wherein the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger contains chilling fluid that is not a refrigerant.” In Section a). The originally filed specification describes circulating a cooling fluid through a heat exchanger to remove heat from process gas and subsequently transferring heat from that cooling fluid to a refrigerant within a refrigeration subsystem. However, the originally filed specification does not describe or otherwise indicate that the chilling fluid must be distinct from or exclude refrigerant, nor does it disclose any structural or compositional characteristic that distinguishes the claimed chilling fluid from refrigerant. Furthermore, the originally filed disclosure does not state that the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger is explicitly outside a refrigeration circuit. The specification describes the circulation of a fluid that removes heat from process gas and transfers heat to refrigerant within a refrigeration subsystem, but it does not describe excluding the chilling loop from the refrigeration circuit. A negative limitation excluding refrigerant from the chilling fluid requires clear support in the originally filed disclosure demonstrating that the inventors possessed an embodiment in which the chilling fluid is specifically not a refrigerant. The originally filed specification contains no such disclosure. Additionally, the specification does not describe any working fluid that is expressly prevented from functioning as a refrigerant or any structural feature that would prevent the chilling fluid from operating as a refrigerant under thermodynamic conditions. Accordingly, the amendment introduces new matter because the originally filed specification does not reasonably convey possession of the limitation that the chilling fluid is not a refrigerant and that the heat exchanger is not part of a refrigeration circuit.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “chilling fluid that is not a refrigerant.” This limitation renders the claim unclear because the claim fails to define what constitutes a refrigerant as opposed to a chilling fluid. In thermodynamic systems used in gas processing and refrigeration systems, a working fluid may function as a refrigerant in one portion of the system and as a heat-transfer fluid in another portion, depending on the thermodynamic state and operating conditions of the process. Many fluids commonly used in refrigeration and gas processing systems (e.g., hydrocarbons, glycols, mixed refrigerants, or other heat transfer fluids) may function as either refrigerants or cooling fluids depending on the location and thermodynamic conditions within the process. The claim does not provide any structural, compositional, or operational criteria for determining when a fluid is considered a refrigerant versus a chilling fluid. Because the claim defines the fluid only by a negative functional label rather than a structural distinction, the boundary between these two categories cannot be reasonably determined. The claim further recites that the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger is not part of a refrigeration circuit, while simultaneously requiring the chilling fluid to transfer heat to refrigerant within an evaporator of a refrigeration subsystem. Because the claim does not define where the refrigeration circuit begins or ends, the scope of the limitation cannot be reasonably determined. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2020/0064062 A1) in view of Kwon Hyoung et al. (KR 102144193 B1) and further in view of Van De Rijt (US 2010/0275645 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Liu teaches a method for supplementing condenser heat rejection in natural gas processing comprising the steps of:
(a) passing unprocessed gas (206) through a gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger (242) to generate cooled and condensed gas (254), wherein the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger (242) contains chilling fluid (244) (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 7; ¶0060–0062);
(b) transferring the cooled and condensed gas (254) to a vapor liquid separator (258) to generate a first stream of processed liquids (262) and a second stream of processed vapor (264) (see Fig. 2);
(c) allowing the chilling fluid (244) to exit the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger (242) (see Fig. 2);
(d) directing the chilling fluid (244) to a refrigeration sub-system (heat exchanger 240), wherein the refrigeration sub-system comprises an evaporator (240) configured to transfer heat from the chilling fluid (244) to a refrigerant (205), thereby generating vapor refrigerant (208) (see Fig. 2; ¶0060);
(e) circulating the refrigerant (205) throughout the refrigeration sub-system (see Fig. 2);
(f) routing the vapor refrigerant (208) through a refrigeration compressor (218, 220) (see Fig. 2);
(g) sending the vapor refrigerant (208/222) to a refrigeration condenser (224) that is configured to transfer heat load from the vapor refrigerant (222) to atmosphere (see fig. 2, stream 222 is cooled against ambient air, see ¶ 0060) and to condense (using heat exchanger 726) the vapor refrigerant into a liquid (226), thereby generating liquid refrigerant (776) (see fig. 2, 7; fig. 7 of Liu teaches extra heat exchanger (726) to condense to refrigerant);
(i) routing the liquid refrigerant (226) through an expansion device (228) configured to reduce temperature and pressure of the liquid refrigerant to generate reduced-pressure liquid refrigerant (230/230a/205) (see Fig. 2; ¶0060–0061);
(j) routing the reduced-pressure liquid refrigerant (230/230a/205) to the evaporator (240).
Liu teaches condensing vapor refrigerant into liquid refrigerant prior to routing the liquid refrigerant through the expansion device but does not explicitly teach: (k) passing at least a portion of the processed vapor to a processed vapor-to-refrigerant heat exchanger via an actuated valve controlled by a processor to remove heat from the liquid refrigerant before the liquid refrigerant is sent to the expansion valve.
However, Hyoung teaches cooling and liquefying process gas wherein feed gas is cooled in heat exchangers and transferred to a vapor-liquid separator that generates vapor and liquid streams, wherein at least a portion of the vapor stream is passed through a heat exchanger via an actuated valve controlled by a processor to remove heat from a refrigerant stream (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7; vapor stream L60 routed through valve 61 controlled by controller 64 to heat exchanger 62 to cool refrigerant stream L112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refrigeration system of Liu by routing a portion of the processed vapor from the vapor-liquid separator to provide cooling in a vapor-to-refrigerant heat exchanger via a controllable valve, in view of the teachings of Hyoung, in order to recover thermal energy within the plant, improve refrigeration cycle efficiency, and reduce external cooling requirements within the gas processing facility.
Furthermore, Liu teaches allowing the chilling fluid to exit the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger and directing the chilling fluid to a refrigeration sub-system, but does not explicitly teach the chilling fluid entering a chilling fluid reservoir and using a chilling fluid pump to direct the chilling fluid to the refrigeration subsystem, and routing the liquid refrigerant to an accumulator tank.
However, it is well known in the art for refrigeration systems to comprise fluid reservoirs, accumulators, and pumps for storage and circulation of working fluids, as taught by Van De Rijt, wherein Van De Rijt teaches a method of cooling and liquefying a process stream using refrigerant circuits comprising accumulators/reservoirs and refrigerant pumps for storage and circulation of refrigerant streams (see Fig. 1; ¶0028; ¶0043–0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the process of Liu by incorporating a chilling fluid reservoir, pump, and refrigerant accumulator tank, in view of the teachings of Van De Rijt, in order to store working fluids and ensure proper circulation and flow distribution within the refrigeration system.
The claim further recites that the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger is “not part of a refrigeration circuit.” This limitation does not patentably distinguish over Liu. Liu teaches a gas-to-fluid heat exchanger (242) in which a cooling stream (244) removes heat from process gas, and the cooling stream subsequently transfers heat to a refrigerant in evaporator (240) of a refrigeration subsystem (see Fig. 2; ¶0060–0062). Although Liu does not explicitly label heat exchanger (242) as being “outside” the refrigeration circuit, Liu clearly discloses that heat exchanger (242) is positioned upstream of the evaporator (240) and operates as a pre-cooling heat exchange stage prior to the refrigeration cycle. Accordingly, heat exchanger (242) is thermally coupled to, but structurally distinct from, the closed refrigerant loop, which comprises the compressor (218, 220), condenser (224), expansion device (228), and evaporator (240). Furthermore, the recitation that a component is “not part of a refrigeration circuit” is a negative limitation dependent on how system boundaries are defined, rather than a structural distinction of the apparatus itself. The claim does not define the boundaries of the refrigeration circuit, and therefore the limitation does not impose a clear structural distinction over Liu. Even if the limitation is interpreted as requiring that the gas-to-chilling fluid heat exchanger be outside the closed refrigerant loop, Liu inherently satisfies this requirement because heat exchanger (242) does not form part of the refrigerant circulation loop, but instead exchanges heat with a separate fluid stream (244) that subsequently transfers heat to the refrigerant in evaporator (240). Therefore, Liu teaches or at least renders obvious the recited limitation, and the amendment does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Furthermore, the recitation that the chilling fluid is “not a refrigerant” does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from Liu because Liu discloses a cooling stream (244) that removes heat from process gas in heat exchanger 242 and subsequently transfers heat to refrigerant in evaporator 240 (see Fig. 2; ¶0060–0062). A working fluid may function as a heat-transfer fluid in one portion of a system and as a refrigerant in another portion depending on thermodynamic conditions. Thus, the recitation that the chilling fluid is “not a refrigerant” merely labels the working fluid according to its function rather than introducing a structural distinction over the cooling stream disclosed by Liu.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Hyoung and Van De Rijt as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kopko et al. (US 2019/0186801 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Liu as modified above does not explicitly teach: (l) monitoring temperature and pressure of the refrigerant downstream of the compressor and upstream of the expansion valve via the processor; (m) monitoring temperature of the cooled and condensed gas via the processor; (n) adjusting the speed of the compressor in real time via the processor based on input from steps (l) and (m); and (o) adjusting the speed of the condenser fan in real time via the processor based on input from steps (l) and (m).
However, Kopko teaches a system and method for controlling a refrigeration process wherein sensors monitor operating parameters of the refrigeration system and a processor controls operation of refrigeration components including compressors and condenser fans (see Fig. 3; ¶0031; ¶0034; ¶0036–0039; ¶0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the refrigeration system of Liu by implementing processor-based monitoring of refrigerant conditions and adjusting compressor speed and condenser fan speed in real time based on sensor input, in view of the teachings of Kopko, in order to maintain desired operating temperatures and pressures while improving system efficiency and reducing energy consumption through automated control of refrigeration equipment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to the VanDelinder Declaration
The Declaration of Austin VanDelinder (page 2-3) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The declaration primarily presents arguments regarding the interpretation of the cited prior art rather than providing experimental evidence, technical data, or objective evidence demonstrating unexpected results or criticality of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 1, the declarant asserts that the chilling fluid of the claimed invention is not analogous to the refrigerant stream disclosed in Liu and that Liu contains two refrigeration loops.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. The claims do not require that the chilling fluid be chemically or structurally distinct from a refrigerant. The claims merely require a fluid used to remove heat from process gas prior to transferring heat to refrigerant within a refrigeration subsystem. Liu clearly discloses a cooling fluid stream (244) circulating through heat exchanger (242) to remove heat from process gas prior to transferring heat to refrigerant in evaporator (240) (see Fig. 2; ¶0060–0062). Thus, Liu teaches the same functional arrangement recited in the claims. The declarant’s distinction between a “refrigeration loop” and a “chilling loop” does not correspond to any structural limitation recited in the claims and therefore does not distinguish the claimed invention from Liu.
With regard to claim 2, the declarant asserts that Kopko’s sensor monitors pressure rather than temperature.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive because, even if sensor 87 of Kopko measures pressure, Kopko still teaches monitoring operating parameters of the refrigeration system and controlling compressor and condenser operation through a processor (see ¶0031–0039; ¶0052). It would have been obvious to include temperature monitoring in addition to pressure monitoring because monitoring both temperature and pressure is commonly used in refrigeration control systems. Accordingly, the declaration does not demonstrate that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention, and the rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763