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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 11/12/2025. Claims 1-15 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Further recognition:
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 13-14, the claim recites “… a loading system according to claim 1.” The claim should be amended to recite - - the loading system according to claim 1 - - for clarity. Because a loading system of claim 1 is previously recited as claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-15, the claim recites “… a storage vessel” The claim should be amended to recite - - the storage vessel - - for clarity. Because a storage vessel is previously claimed in claim 1 and is the same storage vessel see figs. 1 and 6.
Regarding claims 13-15, the claim recites “… a receiving vessel” The claim should be amended to recite - - the receiving vessel - - for clarity. Because a receiving vessel is previously claimed in claim 1 and is the same receiving vessel see figs. 1 and 6.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “… a loading system according to claim 3.” The claim should be amended to recite - - the loading system according to claim 1 - - for clarity. Because the loading system of claim 3 is previously disclosed.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “… a cryogenic fluid in a liquid state” The claim should be amended to recite - - the cryogenic fluid in the liquid state - - for clarity. Because a cryogenic fluid in a liquid state is previously cited in claim 1 which claim 3 depends from.
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:
Regarding claim 1,the recitation of claim limitation “a processing unit or a consuming unit" in at least claims 1, 4, 6 and 12.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
a processing unit or a consuming unit appears to be described as at least The processing unit may, for example, be a liquefaction unit, a compression member, while the consumption unit may, for example, be an engine, for example using the natural gas as fuel on at least pg. 3 of the specifications.
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.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spittael et al. (US20160178128A1) and in view of Kong (KR20190042290A) and further in view of Borisevich et al. (FR3066248A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Spittael teaches a loading system [Fig. 7; the various components recited in 0097-0098] configured to load a cryogenic fluid [0098 “liquefied natural gas”] from a storage vessel [86] to a receiving vessel [2], the loading system comprising:
at least a flow element [61] for the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state [0087 “liquefied natural gas to be fed”], the flow element comprising;
a main supply line [61 where the flow element and the main supply line are the same conduit] and connecting the storage vessel to the receiving vessel [fig. 1 see also fig. 7],
a consuming unit [4-6] for consuming the cryogenic fluid in a gaseous state [0056 “stream of gas”] originating at least from the receiving vessel [fig. 1].
Spittael does not explicitly teach a return line for the cryogenic fluid in a gaseous state which directly aeraulically connects the receiving vessel to the processing unit or consumption unit and wherein the loading system includes a cooling unit for cooling the cryogenic fluid flowing through the flow element to the receiving vessel, cold generated by the cooling unit results from the evaporation of the cryogenic fluid coming from the storage vessel.
However, Kong teaches a return line [l5] for the cryogenic fluid in a gaseous state [0239 “evaporation gas supply line”] which directly aeraulically [0239 “The high-pressure evaporation gas compressor (541) is installed on the evaporation gas supply line (L5)and can compress the evaporation gas generated in the liquefied gas storage tank (T) to high pressure and supply it to the propulsion engine (E)”] connects the receiving vessel [T corresponding to 2 of Spittael] to the consumption unit [541 corresponding to 4-6 of Spittael].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Spittael to have a return line for the cryogenic fluid in a gaseous state which directly aeraulically connects the receiving vessel to the consumption unit in view of the teachings of Kong where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a loading system with a return line that directly aeraulically connects the receiving vessel to the consumption unit which reduces waste of evaporated gas [Kong; 0146].
Further, Borisevich teaches wherein the loading system [1 corresponds to Spittael’s 3] includes a cooling unit [50; fig. 4] for cooling the cryogenic fluid flowing through the flow element [57, fig.4 corresponding to Spittael’s 61] to the receiving vessel [500B, fig. 4 corresponding to Spittael’s 2], cold generated by the cooling unit [50] results from the evaporation of the cryogenic fluid coming from the storage vessel [500A, lines 864-873 corresponding to Spittael’s 86].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of the modified Spittael teaching with Borisevich by combining wherein the loading system includes a cooling unit for cooling the cryogenic fluid flowing through the flow element to the receiving vessel, cold generated by the cooling unit results from the evaporation of the cryogenic fluid coming from the storage vessel where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures a loading system with a cooling unit for the cryogenic fluid flowing to the receiving vessel where cold generated from the cooling unit is from evaporation of the cryogenic fluid coming from the storage vessel which makes it possible to have an efficient, economical system [Borisevich; lines 89-94].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 1 and Spittael teaches the main supply line [61] for the cryogenic fluid [LNG] in a liquid state which connects the storage vessel [86] to the receiving vessel [fig. 1; 0087], the cooling unit [Borisevich; 50] cooling the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state flowing through the main supply line [57 of Borisevich corresponds to 61; Borisevich lines 860-873].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 1 and 1 Borisevich teaches the main supply line [Spittael; 61] for the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state [Spittael; LNG] connects the storage vessel [Spittael; 86] to the receiving vessel [Spittael; 2] and the flow element [Spittael; 61] comprises;
at least one additional supply [Borisevich; 56; fig. 4] line for the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state [Spittael; LNG] coming from the storage vessel [Spittael; 86] and flowing to the receiving vessel [lines 859-861 corresponding to Spittael’s 2], the cooling unit [50] cooling the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state [Spittael; LNG] flowing through the additional supply line [fig. 4; lines 858- 861].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 3 and Borisevich teaches wherein the cooling unit [50] comprises a pipe [58; fig. 4] through which cryogenic fluid flows and which connects the storage vessel [Spittael; 86] to the consumption unit [2; lines 890-909], the cooling unit [50] comprising at least an expansion valve [53; fig. 4], a heat exchanger [50; fig. 4] and a compressor [61; fig. 4] arranged in that order on the pipe [fig. 4], the heat exchanger [50] exchanging calories between the cryogenic fluid flowing through the additional supply line [56] and the pipe [fig. 4; lines 869-873].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 4 and Borisevich teaches wherein the heat exchanger [50] comprises at least a first pass [50b; fig. 4] constituting the pipe [58] and a second pass [50a; fig. 4] constituting the additional supply line [56], the expansion valve [56] being arranged upstream of the first pass [fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 4 and Borisevich teaches wherein the compressor [61] is installed on the pipe [58] between the heat exchanger [50] and the consumption unit [2; fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 5 and Borisevich teaches wherein the first pass [50b] of the heat exchanger [50] is configured to be subjected to pressure lower than atmospheric pressure [lines 882-883].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 4 and Borisevich teaches configured such that the temperature of the cryogenic fluid flowing through the additional supply [56] line between the heat exchanger [50] and the receiving vessel [Spittael; 2] is at least 2°C lower than the temperature of the cryogenic fluid flowing through the main supply line [57 of Borisevich corresponding to Spittael’s 61; before the depressurization valve 53; lines 178-184].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 4 and Borisevich teaches comprising a control valve [67; fig. 4] for controlling the flow rate of cryogenic fluid positioned on the main supply line [Spittael; 61] or on the additional supply line [56] upstream of the expansion valve [lines 847-863].
Regarding Claim 10, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 4 and Spittael teaches wherein the additional supply line [Borisevich ; 56] and the pipe [Borisevich ; 57] are connected to the main supply line [61 where in Fig. 1 there is clearly three way valve (53) which would connect Borisevich ’s 56 and 57 to Spittael’s main line 61].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 4 and Borisevich teaches wherein the storage vessel [Spittael; 86 corresponding to 500A of Borisevich ] comprises at least one pump [51 and 52; Fig. 4] configured to cause the cryogenic fluid [Spittael; LNG] to flow through the main supply line [Spittael; 61 corresponding to Borisevich 57], the additional supply line and the pipe [57; fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in 4 and Borisevich teaches comprising a channel [68; fig. 4; where 68 is coming from storage vessel 500A which corresponds to Spittael’s 86] for cryogenic fluid in a gaseous state [lines 910-920] connecting the storage vessel [500A which corresponds to Spittael’s 86] to the pipe [58], the channel [68] being configured to convey the cryogenic fluid in a gaseous state from the storage vessel [500A which corresponds to Spittael’s 86] to the consumption unit [lines 910-920].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Spittael teaches the loading system according to claim 1 and Spittael teaches an assembly [fig.7] comprising a floating structure [fig. 7; 1; 0045] comprising the receiving vessel [2; fig. 7; 0046], a loading terminal [81; 0098] comprising the storage vessel [86; 098] and connecting the loading terminal [81] to the floating structure [1].
Regarding Claim 14, modified Spittael teaches the loading system according to claim 1 and Spittael teaches an assembly [fig. 7] comprising a floating structure [fig. 1; 1; 0045] comprising the receiving vessel [2; fig. 1; 0046], a loading terminal [81; 0098] comprising the storage vessel [86; 098] and teaches connecting the loading terminal [81] to the floating structure [1], the main supply line [61] for the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state [LNG] which connects the storage vessel [86] to the receiving vessel [2], the cooling unit [Borisevich ; 50] cooling the cryogenic fluid in a liquid state [LNG] flowing through the main supply line [57 of Borisevich corresponding to Spittael’s 61], wherein at least the receiving vessel [2 of Spittael corresponding to 500A of Borisevich ] comprises at least a bottom wall [Borisevich ; 190; fig. 4] and a top wall [fig. 4], the main supply line [57of Borisevich corresponding to 61 of Spittael] opening closer to the bottom wall [Borisevich ; 190] than to the top wall [Borisevich ; fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 15, modified Spittael teaches the loading system as claimed in claim 3 and Spittael teaches a method for loading the receiving vessel [2] by using the loading system as claimed in claim 3 [Spittael as modified in claim 3], during which the cryogenic fluid in the liquid state [LNG] is conveyed through the main supply line [61] and the additional supply line [Borisevich ; 56] from the storage vessel [86] to the receiving vessel [2], and during which the cryogenic fluid flowing through the additional supply line [Borisevich ; 56] is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the cryogenic fluid flowing through the main supply [61 of Spittael corresponding to 57 of Borisevich ] line by expanding the cryogenic fluid coming from the storage vessel [Borisevich lines 885-892].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 6-7, filed 11/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Spittael et al. (US20160178128A1) and in view of Kong (KR20190042290A) and further in view of Borisevich et al. (FR3066248A1).
Applicant's arguments filed in the reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument on pg. 7, applicant “disagrees that the combination of Spittael and Borisevich would have been obvious to one skilled in the art… one cannot consider that one tank of the system of Borisevich is a reservoir tank.” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Spittael with Borisevich because it would make an efficient and economical system.
Further in response to applicant's argument that “one could not consider that one tank of the system of Borisevich is a reservoir tank,” it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). For clarity, Spittael has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach a loading system configured to load a cryogenic fluid from a storage vessel to a receiving vessel. In other words, the teachings of Borisevich have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the system of Spittael to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Borisevich has been relied upon for making obvious to include a cooling system for cooling the cryogenic fluid flowing through the flow element to the receiving vessel, cold generated by the cooling unit results from the evaporation of the cryogenic fluid coming from the storage vessel as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the cooling unit disclosed by Borisevich could be combined with the receiving tank of Spittael to subcool LNG from tank 500a before supplying to 500b. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Additionally, paragraphs 0011-0014 of applicant’s published application provide numerous examples of storage and receiving vessels. Therefore, applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument on pg. 7, applicant argues “the claimed method allows to load a receiving vessel from a storage vessel with cryogenic fluid in a liquid state being conveyed and during which the cryogenic fluid flowing through the additional supply line is cooled [...]. Both paths take place at the same time. In Spittael, as it appears clear from paragraph [0087], the pipeline 52 is selectively connected either to the pipeline 51 or to the filling circuit 61. Both paths cannot take place at the same time. Willing to convey cryogenic fluid from a storage vessel to a receiving vessel while allowing cryogenic fluid to be cooled to a lower temperature than that of said cryogenic fluid being conveyed, a person skilled in the art would not consider Spittael as its operating mode is clearly incompatible”, the Examiner disagrees.
Spittael describes in paragraph 0102 the connection member, according to circumstances to a allow a selection to be made in order to promote either a stream from one of the two incoming pipelines.” The combined teachings are both in the same field of endeavor (i.e. gas treatment systems). Moreover, Spittael describes a main supply line 61 from 86 into tank 2, but is silent as to an additional supply line. Borisevich the system 1 is installed on a ship, such as a gas transport ship (one of ordinary skill would recognize Borisevich would have a supply line and further discloses line 56 from 500a to 500b (first conduit 50a is a hot circuit, the LNG coming from the tank 500A being intended to be cooled by circulation in this circuit). Since, both references are in the same field of endeavor and both are concerned with gas treatment system, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Spittael and Borisevich to subcool LNG from tank 500a before supplying to 500b. Finally, the combined teachings disclose all of the structural features of the claim. Therefore, the applicant' s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763