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 Objections
Claims 3-4 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 4 require the recitation of “mechanical” after energy. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5-6, 12-13, 19 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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 19 all recite limitations drawn to an absorption chiller; however, the claim they depend from all already require the limitations which the absorption chiller performs in an absorption cycle and as such it is unclear if this is only requiring a more specific configuration of the operations specifically that an absorption chiller is required or that an additional cooling is provided by an absorption chiller. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the absorption chiller and respective aspects of the absorption chiller are just a repetition of the absorption cycle.
Claim 19 recites “generate a cooling fluid; and perform one or both of the following: providing the cooling to the pretreatment system to perform the purification operation; and provide the cooling to the condenser to cool the purified natural gas stream below a condensation temperature of the purified natural gas stream” which is considered indefinite as claim 15 from which claim 19 depends requires both of these operations. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims.
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, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US PG Pub 20200080771), hereinafter referred to as Cooper and further in view of McBay (US PG Pub 20130232973), hereinafter referred to as McBay and Yabase et al. (US PG Pub 20140026602), hereinafter referred to as Yabase and Van Amelsvoort et al. (US PG Pub 20190264978), hereinafter referred to as Van Amelsvoort and Thomas (US PG Pub 20220128298), hereinafter referred to as Thomas.
With respect to claim 1, Cooper (Figure 12, 100) teaches a method for producing liquefied natural gas, the method comprising:
receiving an initial natural gas stream (natural gas stream 110, paragraph 225);
performing a purification operation on the initial natural gas stream to form a purified natural gas stream (pre-treatment facility 108, paragraph 225) and condensing the purified natural gas stream (LNG is produced by the system to be sent to storage 92 from natural gas and thus it is condensed, paragraph 158, 227).
Cooper does not teach receiving heated heat transfer fluid from a wellbore extending from a surface into an underground magma reservoir, the wellbore configured to heat the heat transfer fluid via heat transfer with the underground magma reservoir to form the heated heat transfer fluid and the using the heated heat transfer fluid for the purification; however, Cooper does teach that power for the operation of the plant can be provided by a geothermal plant (which is what is described by the claim language, but not the specific configuration).
McBay (Figure 1) teaches an electricity can be generated where water is injected into injection well 14 that extends into the earth to a thermal pool (560) which produces stream which is pumped out of a production well (16) and generates electricity (20). Thermal pools can include magma (paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the electrical power to operate the entire system of Cooper to have been provided by a geothermal system as taught by McBay which uses magma to generate a heated heat transfer fluid (steam) from a wellbore which is used to provide electricity (which would result in the heat transfer fluid being used for the purification operation as it is providing the electrical power to the system of Cooper, so all components within Cooper are at least in part operated by the heat transfer fluid) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using the specific geothermal power system as taught by McBay whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to provide power using geothermal power in a way that can be used in more geographic sites than traditional geothermal wells (paragraph 11 of McBay).
Cooper does not teach performing the purification operation on the initial natural gas stream using a cooling fluid generated by an absorption cycle using heat from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Van Amelsvoort teaches that a chilling unit, which is preferably a mechanical chiller (paragraph 125-126) which can be an absorption chiller driven by steam (paragraph 31) is provided to cool multiple heat exchangers including one that is part of a treatment stages (paragraph 99). The cooling is provided by cooling water (404, 403, paragraphs 125-124) from the absorption chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Van Amelsvoort to have provided as part of the cooling system of Cooper as modified an absorption chiller driven by the to generate cooling water which is used to provide cooling to the feed gas after purification (which would still be the initial natural gas stream, as the initial natural gas is still present and thus part of the purification operation) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an absorption chiller would provide what is common knowledge in the art of a known an absorption chiller is an efficient refrigeration system that is suitable for providing multiple stages of cooling in a natural gas liquefaction system.
Further, Yabase teaches that an absorption chiller can be used to provide cooling and it can be driven by using steam generated by geotherm (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Cooper as modified to have when using an absorption chiller driven by steam to have provided some of the steam from the geothermal well to the absorption chiller based on the teaching of Yabase since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that as the geothermal well was already a source of steam, it would have been obvious to have used some of that steam if available to drive the absorption chiller so as to not have to use an external system to provide the steam for the absorption chiller as well.
Cooper does not teach condensing the purified natural gas using the cooling fluid generated by the absorption cycle using the heat from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Van Amelsvoort teaches that a chilling unit, which is preferably a mechanical chiller (paragraph 125-126) which can be an absorption chiller driven by steam (paragraph 31) is provided to cool multiple heat exchangers (paragraph 99) including desuperheaters for the refrigeration cycle that cools the liquefaction refrigerant and pre-cools the natural gas (paragraph 107) and the after cooler for the compressed liquefaction refrigerant used to provide LNG in the second cooling stage (200, paragraphs 111, 114). The cooling is provided by cooling water (404, 403, paragraphs 125-124) from the absorption chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Van Amelsvoort to have provided as part of the cooling system of Cooper as modified, the use of the absorption chiller driven by the steam (heated heat transfer fluid) to generate cooling water which is used to provide cooling to aftercoolers of the refrigerant used to liquefy the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an absorption chiller to provide cooling to the liquefaction refrigerant would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the necessary refrigeration for the aftercoolers of refrigeration compressors using an efficient refrigeration system. As the cooled fluid from the absorption chiller is used to provide at least some cooling to the liquefaction refrigeration it is used as part of the overall cooling process to bring the purified natural gas stream below the condensation temperature, thus meeting the limitation as claimed.
Cooper does not teach compressing the purified natural gas stream using mechanical energy obtained from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Thomas (Figure 1) teaches that in a natural gas liquefaction system that after purification (100) that natural gas is compressed (202) using an electric motor upstream of liquefaction (paragraphs 44-45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Thomas to have provided a compressor downstream of the purification of Cooper as modified powered by an electric motor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that compressing a stream prior to heat transfer and liquefaction increases the heat transfer efficiency and makes it easier to liquefy the fluid by having the fluid at a higher pressure. As the power for the system of Cooper as modified is provided by the geothermal power from the steam, the compressor which is part of the system would also be provided power in this way, and the power when provided to the electric motor would result in mechanical energy being generated by the electric motor to rotate the compressor.
With respect to claim 3, Cooper as modified wherein: the heated heat transfer fluid comprises steam (the heat transfer fluid is steam as modified above);
and compressing the purified natural gas stream using energy obtained from the heated heat transfer fluid comprises operating a compressor using the steam (as the power for the system of Cooper as modified is provided by the geothermal power from the steam, the compressor which is part of the system would also be provided power in this way).
With respect to claim 4, Cooper as modified teaches wherein the heated heat transfer fluid comprises steam (the heat transfer fluid is steam as modified);
and compressing the purified natural gas stream using energy obtained from the heated heat transfer fluid comprises: generating electricity using the steam (as modified the steam is used to generate electricity);
and operating a compressor using the generated electricity (as modified the electricity is used to provide compression).
With respect to claim 5, Cooper does not teach receiving by an absorption chiller a heated heat transfer fluid; using by the absorption chiller, the heated heat transfer fluid to generate a cooling fluid; and cooling the initial gas stream using the cooling fluid (as modified in claim 1 this is what is happening in Cooper).
With respect to claim 6, Cooper as modified teaches wherein condensing the purified natural gas stream comprises: receiving, by an absorption chiller, a heated heat transfer fluid; using, by the absorption chiller, the heated heat transfer fluid to generate a cooling fluid; and cooling the purified natural gas stream using the cooling fluid below a condensation temperature of the purified natural gas stream (as modified in claim 1, this is what is happening in Cooper).
With respect to claim 7, Cooper as modified teaches wherein the initial natural gas stream comprises one or more of water, sulfur compounds and mercury (those are the components removed in pre-treatment, paragraph 225).
With respect to claim 8, Cooper (Figure 12, 100) teaches a system for producing liquefied natural gas, the system comprising:
a pretreatment system configured to:
receive an initial natural gas (natural gas stream 110, paragraph 225);
and perform a purification operation on the initial natural gas stream to form a purified natural gas stream (pre-treatment facility 108, paragraph 225)
and a condenser configure to condense the purified natural gas stream (LNG is produced by the system to be sent to storage 92, though not shown in Figure 12, paragraphs 158, 227, and though not shown in Figure 12, the system provides as shown in each variation of what is inside the liquefaction units 10 include a cryogenic heat exchanger which parodies the liquefaction, paragraph 148).
Cooper does not teach a wellbore extending from a surface into an underground magma reservoir, the wellbore configured to heat transfer fluid via heat transfer with the underground magma reservoir to form a heated heat transfer fluid and the pretreatment system configured to perform a purification operation using the heated heat transfer fluid.
McBay (Figure 1) teaches an electricity can be generated where water is injected into injection well 14 that extends into the earth to a thermal pool (560) which produces stream which is pumped out of a production well (16) and generates electricity (20). Thermal pools can include magma (paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the electrical power to operate the entire system of Cooper to have been provided by a geothermal system as taught by McBay which uses magma to generate a heated heat transfer fluid (steam) from a wellbore which is used to provide electricity (which would result in the heat transfer fluid being used for the purification operation as it is providing the electrical power to the system of Cooper, so all components within Cooper are at least in part operated by the heat transfer fluid) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using the specific geothermal power system as taught by McBay whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to provide power using geothermal power in a way that can be used in more geographic sites than traditional geothermal wells (paragraph 11 of McBay).
Cooper does not teach performing the purification operation on the initial natural gas stream using a cooling fluid generated by an absorption cycle using heat from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Van Amelsvoort teaches that a chilling unit, which is preferably a mechanical chiller (paragraph 125-126) which can be an absorption chiller driven by steam (paragraph 31) is provided to cool multiple heat exchangers including one that is part of a treatment stages (paragraph 99). The cooling is provided by cooling water (404, 403, paragraphs 125-124) from the absorption chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Van Amelsvoort to have provided as part of the cooling system of Cooper as modified an absorption chiller driven by the to generate cooling water which is used to provide cooling to the feed gas after purification (which would still be the initial natural gas stream, as the initial natural gas is still present and thus part of the purification operation) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an absorption chiller would provide what is common knowledge in the art of a known an absorption chiller is an efficient refrigeration system that is suitable for providing multiple stages of cooling in a natural gas liquefaction system.
Further, Yabase teaches that an absorption chiller can be used to provide cooling and it can be driven by using steam generated by geotherm (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Cooper as modified to have when using an absorption chiller driven by steam to have provided some of the steam from the geothermal well to the absorption chiller based on the teaching of Yabase since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that as the geothermal well was already a source of steam, it would have been obvious to have used some of that steam if available to drive the absorption chiller so as to not have to use an external system to provide the steam for the absorption chiller as well.
Cooper does not teach the condenser condensing the purified natural gas using the cooling fluid generated by the absorption cycle using the heat from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Van Amelsvoort teaches that a chilling unit, which is preferably a mechanical chiller (paragraph 125-126) which can be an absorption chiller driven by steam (paragraph 31) is provided to cool multiple heat exchangers (paragraph 99) including desuperheaters for the refrigeration cycle that cools the liquefaction refrigerant and pre-cools the natural gas (paragraph 107) and the after cooler for the compressed liquefaction refrigerant used to provide LNG in the second cooling stage (200, paragraphs 111, 114). The cooling is provided by cooling water (404, 403, paragraphs 125-124) from the absorption chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Van Amelsvoort to have provided as part of the cooling system of Cooper as modified, the use of the absorption chiller driven by the steam (heated heat transfer fluid) to generate cooling water which is used to provide cooling to aftercoolers of the refrigerant used to liquefy the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an absorption chiller to provide cooling to the liquefaction refrigerant would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the necessary refrigeration for the aftercoolers of refrigeration compressors using an efficient refrigeration system. As the cooled fluid from the absorption chiller is used to provide at least some cooling to the liquefaction refrigeration it is used to provide cooling so that the condenser can using the cooling fluid for condensing.
Cooper does not teach a compressor configured to compress the purified natural gas using mechanical energy obtained from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Thomas (Figure 1) teaches that in a natural gas liquefaction system that after purification (100) that natural gas is compressed (202) using an electric motor upstream of liquefaction (paragraphs 44-45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Thomas to have provided a compressor downstream of the purification of Cooper as modified powered by an electric motor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that compressing a stream prior to heat transfer and liquefaction increases the heat transfer efficiency and makes it easier to liquefy the fluid by having the fluid at a higher pressure. As the power for the system of Cooper as modified is provided by the geothermal power from the steam, the compressor which is part of the system would also be provided power in this way, and the power when provided to the electric motor would result in mechanical energy being generated by the electric motor to rotate the compressor.
With respect to claim 10, Cooper as modified wherein: the heated heat transfer fluid comprises steam (the heat transfer fluid is steam as modified above);
the compressor is configured to compress the purified natural gas stream using mechanical energy obtained from the steam (as the power for the system of Cooper as modified is provided by the geothermal power from the steam, the compressor which ultimately would have a mechanical driver even if electrically powered receives electrical energy from the steam to drive the mechanical driver).
With respect to claim 11, Cooper as modified wherein: the heated heat transfer fluid comprises steam (the heat transfer fluid is steam as modified above);
the compressor is configured to operate at least in part using electricity (as modified the compressor operates using electricity from the steam).
With respect to claim 12, Cooper as modified teaches the heated heat transfer fluid; generate a cooling fluid; and provide the cooling to the pretreatment system to perform the purification operation (as modified this is provided by Cooper)
With respect to claim 13, Cooper as modified comprising an absorption chiller configured to: receive the heated heat transfer fluid; generate a cooling fluid; and provide the cooling to the condenser to cool the purified natural gas stream below a condensation temperature of the purified natural gas stream (as modified, this is provided by Cooper).
With respect to claim 14, Cooper as modified teaches wherein the initial natural gas stream comprises one or more of water, sulfur compounds and mercury (those are the components removed in pre-treatment, paragraph 225).
With respect to claim 15, Cooper teahces (Figure 12, 100) teaches a system for producing liquefied natural gas, the system comprising:
a pretreatment system configured to:
receive an initial natural gas (natural gas stream 110, paragraph 225);
and perform a purification operation on the initial natural gas stream to form a purified natural gas stream (pre-treatment facility 108, paragraph 225)
and a condenser configure to condense the purified natural gas stream (LNG is produced by the system to be sent to storage 92, though not shown in Figure 12, paragraphs 158, 227, and though not shown in Figure 12, the system provides as shown in each variation of what is inside the liquefaction units 10 include a cryogenic heat exchanger which parodies the liquefaction, paragraph 148).
Cooper as modified does not teach that the purification operation is provided using a heated heat transfer fluid, the heated heat transfer fluid obtained via heat transfer with an underground magma reservoir.
McBay (Figure 1) teaches an electricity can be generated where water is injected into injection well 14 that extends into the earth to a thermal pool (560) which produces stream which is pumped out of a production well (16) and generates electricity (20). Thermal pools can include magma (paragraph 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the electrical power to operate the entire system of Cooper to have been provided by a geothermal system as taught by McBay which uses magma to generate a heated heat transfer fluid (steam) from a wellbore which is used to provide electricity (which would result in the heat transfer fluid being used for the purification operation as it is providing the electrical power to the system of Cooper, so all components within Cooper are at least in part operated by the heat transfer fluid) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby using the specific geothermal power system as taught by McBay whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that to provide power using geothermal power in a way that can be used in more geographic sites than traditional geothermal wells (paragraph 11 of McBay).
Cooper does not teach performing the purification operation on the initial natural gas stream using a cooling fluid generated by an absorption cycle using heat from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Van Amelsvoort teaches that a chilling unit, which is preferably a mechanical chiller (paragraph 125-126) which can be an absorption chiller driven by steam (paragraph 31) is provided to cool multiple heat exchangers including one that is part of a treatment stages (paragraph 99). The cooling is provided by cooling water (404, 403, paragraphs 125-124) from the absorption chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Van Amelsvoort to have provided as part of the cooling system of Cooper as modified an absorption chiller driven by the to generate cooling water which is used to provide cooling to the feed gas after purification (which would still be the initial natural gas stream, as the initial natural gas is still present and thus part of the purification operation) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an absorption chiller would provide what is common knowledge in the art of a known an absorption chiller is an efficient refrigeration system that is suitable for providing multiple stages of cooling in a natural gas liquefaction system.
Further, Yabase teaches that an absorption chiller can be used to provide cooling and it can be driven by using steam generated by geotherm (paragraph 34).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Cooper as modified to have when using an absorption chiller driven by steam to have provided some of the steam from the geothermal well to the absorption chiller based on the teaching of Yabase since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that as the geothermal well was already a source of steam, it would have been obvious to have used some of that steam if available to drive the absorption chiller so as to not have to use an external system to provide the steam for the absorption chiller as well.
Cooper does not teach the condenser condensing the purified natural gas using the cooling fluid generated by the absorption cycle using the heat from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Van Amelsvoort teaches that a chilling unit, which is preferably a mechanical chiller (paragraph 125-126) which can be an absorption chiller driven by steam (paragraph 31) is provided to cool multiple heat exchangers (paragraph 99) including desuperheaters for the refrigeration cycle that cools the liquefaction refrigerant and pre-cools the natural gas (paragraph 107) and the after cooler for the compressed liquefaction refrigerant used to provide LNG in the second cooling stage (200, paragraphs 111, 114). The cooling is provided by cooling water (404, 403, paragraphs 125-124) from the absorption chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Van Amelsvoort to have provided as part of the cooling system of Cooper as modified, the use of the absorption chiller driven by the steam (heated heat transfer fluid) to generate cooling water which is used to provide cooling to aftercoolers of the refrigerant used to liquefy the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an absorption chiller to provide cooling to the liquefaction refrigerant would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the necessary refrigeration for the aftercoolers of refrigeration compressors using an efficient refrigeration system. As the cooled fluid from the absorption chiller is used to provide at least some cooling to the liquefaction refrigeration it is used to provide cooling so that the condenser can using the cooling fluid for condensing.
Cooper does not teach a compressor configured to compress the purified natural gas using mechanical energy obtained from the heated heat transfer fluid.
Thomas (Figure 1) teaches that in a natural gas liquefaction system that after purification (100) that natural gas is compressed (202) using an electric motor upstream of liquefaction (paragraphs 44-45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Thomas to have provided a compressor downstream of the purification of Cooper as modified powered by an electric motor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that compressing a stream prior to heat transfer and liquefaction increases the heat transfer efficiency and makes it easier to liquefy the fluid by having the fluid at a higher pressure. As the power for the system of Cooper as modified is provided by the geothermal power from the steam, the compressor which is part of the system would also be provided power in this way, and the power when provided to the electric motor would result in mechanical energy being generated by the electric motor to rotate the compressor.
With respect to claim 17, Cooper as modified wherein: the heated heat transfer fluid comprises steam (the heat transfer fluid is steam as modified above);
the compressor is configured to compress the purified natural gas stream using mechanical energy obtained from the steam (as the power for the system of Cooper as modified is provided by the geothermal power from the steam, the compressor which ultimately would have a mechanical driver even if electrically powered receives electrical energy from the steam to drive the mechanical driver).
With respect to claim 18, Cooper as modified wherein: the heated heat transfer fluid comprises steam (the heat transfer fluid is steam as modified above);
the compressor is configured to operate at least in part using electricity (as modified the compressor operates using electricity from the steam).
Cooper as modified does not teach wherein the electricity is generated by a turbine using the steam.
McBay teaches that it is known that steam from wells that is heated can be used to drive turbine to generate electricity (paragraph 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of McBay to have in Cooper as modified to have when using steam to generate electricity for the electricity to have been generated by using a turbine that uses the steam since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that using a steam turbine to generate electricity is a reliable way of generating electricity.
With respect to claim 19, Cooper as modified teaches further comprising an absorption chiller configured to: receive the heated heat transfer fluid;
generate a cooling fluid; and perform one or both of the following: providing the cooling to the pretreatment system to perform the purification operation; and provide the cooling to the condenser to cool the purified natural gas stream below a condensation temperature of the purified natural gas stream (as modified this is what is happening in Cooper).
With respect to claim 20, Cooper as modified teaches wherein the initial natural gas stream comprises one or more of water, sulfur compounds and mercury (those are the components removed in pre-treatment, paragraph 225).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 11/10/2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 35 USC 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 Van Amelsvoort and Yabase.
Applicant argues that in any instance that the Examiner is providing personal knowledge or is taking common knowledge Official notice of elements of the claims which are not found in the cited references, the Applicant traverses the assertions. Note that Applicant does not provide any reasoned statement specifically pointing out any supposed errors in the examiner's action but merely preempts the use of any statements of fact not supported by documentary evidence. Firstly, it is noted in MPEP 2141 III that prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention' s nonobviousness.” Presently, the examiner asserts that, absent any comment from the Applicant as to which statements of fact are being traversed and why, the examiner asserts that any limitation or assertion of fact not taught by the prior art was sufficiently explained in the rejections above as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fill in any gaps not found in the prior art. Further note MPEP 2144.03 C which states to adequately traverse a finding based upon facts not supported by documentary evidence, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. Further, MPEP 2141 IV states that if an applicant disagrees with any factual findings by the Office, an effective traverse of a rejection based wholly or partially on such findings must include a reasoned statement explaining why the applicant believes the Office has erred substantively as to the factual. A mere statement or argument that the Office has not established a prima facie case of obviousness or that the Office' s reliance on common knowledge is unsupported by documentary evidence will not be considered substantively adequate to rebut the rejection or an effective traverse of the rejection. Further, MPEP 2144.03 C states that if applicant adequately traverses the examiner' s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. Therefore, without a reasoned statement from the Applicant explaining why the applicant believes the office has erred substantially to the findings of fact which specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, any use of common knowledge or Official Notice of facts not found in the cited references are not considered properly traversed and therefore, require no documentary evidence from the examiner. For at least the reasons stated above, applicant's reply is not found persuasive to overcome the rejections of record and therefore the rejections above are deemed proper and remain.
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 BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763