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 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:
pre-purification unit in claims 8 understood to be adsorbers,
feed compression system in claims 8 and 17 , understood to be a compressor.
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.
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.
Pre-liquefaction processing assembly is not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11, 15-16, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardon et al. (US PG Pub 20200132366), hereinafter referred to as Bardon and further in view of Dachauer et al. (US PG Pub 20190032854), hereinafter referred to as Dachauer and Cardella et al. (US PG Pub 20180347897).
With respect to claim 1, Bardon (Figure 1) teaches an apparatus for liquefaction, comprising:
a pre-liquefaction processing system positioned to receive at least one flow of feed comprising gas to cool the at least one flow of feed to form at least one pre-cooled flow of feed at a temperature within a pre-selected liquefaction feed temperature range for feeding the at least one pre-cooled flow of feed to a plurality of liquefiers of a train of liquefiers (gas from 116d is split into 104a and 104b and sent to pre-cooling zone 146a and 146b, which is the pre-liquefaction processing system of heat exchangers 108a/108b to be cooled upstream of two separate liquefying zones 148a and 148b, paragraph 38, the two separate heat exchangers zones 148a/148b 148a/b can be considered to be a plurality of liquefiers of a train of liquefiers, the output temperature would of the pre-cooled streams can be considered a pre-selected temperature as it based on the refrigerant being provided);
the pre-liquefaction processing system including a cooling medium unit (CMU) positioned upstream of at least one heat exchanger section to feed a cooling medium to the at least one heat exchanger for cooling of the at least one flow of feed to form the at least one pre-cooled flow of feed (refrigerant 130 after being compressed in 112 is fed to 106 so it can be fed to zone 146a of 108a and 146b of 108b, paragraph 30, see Figure 1, 112/106 can be considered the CMU), the at least one heat exchanger section positioned between the liquefiers and a source of the feed to receive the at least one flow of feed for cooling the at least one flow of feed via the cooling medium (146a/b are cooled by refrigerant 160a/b which is the same refrigerant as 130), the CMU comprising at least one compander (the compressor assembly uses compressors 126a-f which are driven via rotary shaft by a turbine such as a gas turbine, paragraph 3, which would make them companders as they are compressors driven by gas turbines),
the at least one heat exchanger section comprising a first heat exchanger section (146a) and a second heat exchanger section (146b), the first heat exchanger section positioned to receive a first portion of the at least one flow of feed and the second heat exchanger section positioned to receive a second portion of the at least one flow of feed (146a receives 140a from feed 104, and 146b receives 104b from 104),
wherein the at least one pre-cooled flow of feed includes a first pre-cooled flow of feed outputtable from the first heat exchanger section and a second pre-cooled flow of feed outputtable from the second heat exchanger section (from 146a and 146b respectively, cooled streams are fed to 148a and 148b respectively),
wherein the CMU is positioned to feed to the cooling medium to the first heat exchanger section and the second heat exchanger section (112 and 106 in Bardon form the CMU with the refrigerant is fed from 112 via cooling in 106 ultimately to 146a/146b as and provides cooling as 160a/160b, paragraphs 45-46), the first heat exchanger section being connected to a first liquefier of the plurality of liquefiers of the train of liquefiers to feed at least a portion of the first pre-cooled flow outputtable from the first heat exchanger to the first liquefier; and the second heat exchanger being connected to a second liquefier of the plurality of liquefiers of the train of liquefiers to feed at least a portion of the second pre-cooled flow of feed ouputtable form the second heat exchanger to the second liquefier (from 146a and 146b, the pre-cooled stream are fed to 148a/148b which are the liquefiers producing liquefied streams 162, paragraph 46)
Bardon does not teach the apparatus is for liquefaction of hydrogen such that a flow of feed comprising hydrogen gas is cooled in the pre-liquefaction processing system.
Dachauer teaches that in a liquefaction system that a medium to be liquefied may be hydrogen or natural gas (paragraph 38).
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 Dachauer utilized the system of Bardon to have liquefied hydrogen instead of natural gas since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be obvious to have used the configuration of Bardon for a hydrogen liquefaction as it would be common knowledge in the art to when considering how to produce liquid hydrogen, that a general system which is used for liquid natural gas production would be one that is obvious to produce liquid hydrogen. Thus, the gas being pre-cooled and sent to the liquefier of Bardon would be hydrogen as modified.
Bardon does not teach that the heat exchanger sections are separate heat exchangers such that the pre-cooled flows are outputted from the first and second heat exchangers respectively as pre-cooled flows that are fed to the liquefier, which is understood that the liquefier and pre-cooler are separate heat exchangers.
Cardella (Figure 1) teaches liquefaction system configuration where there is a pre-cooling section (78) where the feed gas (11) is pre-cooled and the refrigerant (21) is also pre-cooled (paragraphs 102, 126) before the feed gas is fed to a series of heat exchangers (82-89) where it is further cooled (paragraphs 127-130) before finally passing to heat exchange for liquefaction (paragraph 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the heat exchanger sections of Bardon (pre-cooling sections 146a/146b each being separate heat exchangers from liquefaction sections 148a/148b each being separate heat exchangers) to have been constructed as different heat exchangers based on the teaching of Cardella since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (one heat exchanger which provides cooling and liquefaction) for another (separate heat exchangers for different cooling levels) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both methods of providing liquefaction of a fluid downstream of separate heat exchanger system a prima facie case obviousness to have the heat exchange sections of Bardon exists and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution with the reasonably predictable result of providing the pre-cooling and liquefaction desired. Thus as modified, the configuration of Bardon would be the refrigerant and the hydrogen being passed from the CMU (equivalent to the combination of 106 and 112 in Bardon) to the pre-cooling heat exchangers (146a and 146b) and then to the liquefiers (148a 148b)
With respect to claim 2, Bardon as modified teaches providing pre-cooling but does not teach wherein the at least one pre-cooled flow of feed is comprised of at least 95 vol% gas and also has greater than 0 volume % liquid and no more than 5 vol% liquid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the pre-cooled flow of feed comprises of at least 95 vol%% gas and also greater than 0 vol% liquid and no more than 5 vol% liquid since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Bardon as modified would not operate differently with the claimed ratio of gas to liquid as all that is required is to provide cooling to the stream, but the amount of cooling for pre-cooling is only so that it is not fully liquefied (as Bardon has a separate liquefier). Further, it appears applicant has placed no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that “each flow can be entirely gas, be at least 95 volume percent (vol %) gas and no more than 5 vol % liquid, can be between 100 vol % gas and 90 vol % gas and be between 0 vol % liquid and 10 vol % liquid, or be between 80 vol % gas and 100 vol % gas and between 20 vol % liquid and 0 vol % liquid” (specification paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 7, Bardon does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one heat exchanger also comprises a third heat exchanger positioned to receive a third portion of the at least one flow of feed and the at least one pre-cooled flow of feed includes a third pre-cooled flow of feed outputtable from the third heat exchanger;
wherein the CMU is positioned to feed the cooling medium to the third heat exchanger; and the third heat exchanger being connected to a third liquefier of the plurality of liquefiers of the train of liquefiers to feed the third pre-cooled flow of feed outputtable from the third heat exchanger to the third liquefier.
However, Baron teaches that the system can include one or more main heat exchangers with two shown (Paragraph 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of having two liquefaction arrangements (104a/146a/140a/148a and 104b/146b/140b/148b along with their respective components) for there to have been three in Baron as modified since it has been shown that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby providing what amounts to a third train of pre-cooling/liquefaction instead of just two (something Baron effectively anticipates by showing two but stating what is required is one or more) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for what is common knowledge of increasing the capacity to produce liquefaction or provide redundancy in the liquefaction process. This duplication would result in everything after precooler assembly 106 being duplication to have a third set of components, which includes the individual heat exchangers as modified as well as the flow lines and all related components shown in the figures, and would meet the limitations as claimed.
With respect to claim 11, Bardon (Figure 1) teaches a process for pre-cooling at least one flow of feed comprising gas for providing pre-cooled gas for liquefaction of the gas, the process comprising:
supplying a cooling medium from a common cooling medium unit (CMU) to at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device for cooling a feed comprising hydrogen gas via the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device, (refrigerant 130 after being compressed in 112 is fed to 106 so it can be fed to zone 146a of 108a and 146b of 108b, paragraph 30, see Figure 1, 112/106 can be considered the CMU), the CMU comprising at compander (the compressor assembly uses compressors 126a-f which are driven via rotary shaft by a turbine such as a gas turbine, paragraph 3, which would make them companders as they are compressors driven by gas turbines),
and cooling the gas via the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device with the cooling medium supplied by the CMU to provide a pre-cooled feed comprising gas at a pre-selected liquefier feed temperature (gas from 116d is split into 104a and 104b and sent to pre-cooling zone 146a and 146b of heat exchangers 108a/108b to be cooled upstream of two separate liquefying zones 148a and 148b, paragraph 38, the two separate heat exchangers zones 148a/148b can be considered to be a plurality of liquefiers of a train of liquefiers, the output temperature would of the pre-cooled streams can be considered a pre-selected temperature as it based on the refrigerant being provided),
feeding the pre-cooled feed to multiple liquefiers of a train of liquefiers of a train of liquefiers for liquefaction of the gas to form a liquid (from 146a and 146bn, the pre-cooled stream are fed to 148a/148b which are the liquefiers producing liquefied streams 162, paragraph 46),
wherein the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device comprise a first heat exchanger zone and a second heat exchanger zone (146a and 146b respectively),
wherein the cooling of the gas via the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device with the cooling medium supplied by the CMU to provide the pre-cooled feed comprising gas at a pre-selected liquefier feed temperature comprises:
cooling a first portion of the at least one flow of feed in the first heat exchanger section via the cooling medium supplied form the CMU and cooling a second portion of the at least one flow of feed in the second heat exchanger section via the cooling medium supplied form the CMU (the refrigerant is fed from 112 ultimately to 146a/146b as and provides cooling as 160a/160b, paragraph 45); ad
wherein feeding of the pre-cooled feed to the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers for liquefaction of the gas to form gas comprises:
feeding at least a portion of a first pre-cooled flow of feed output from the first heat exchanger section to a first liquefier of the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers and feeding at least a portion of a second pre-cooled flow of feed output from the second heat exchanger section to a second liquefier of the train of liquefiers (from 146a and 146bn, the pre-cooled stream are fed to 148a/148b, which are the liquefiers, which are the liquefiers producing liquefied streams 162, paragraph 46).
Bardon does not teach process is for liquefaction of hydrogen such that a flow of feed comprising hydrogen gas is cooled in the pre-liquefaction processing system and the liquefiers liquefy hydrogen gas to produce liquid hydrogen.
Dachauer teaches that in a liquefaction system that a medium to be liquefied may be hydrogen or natural gas (paragraph 38).
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 Dachauer utilized the system of Bardon to have liquefied hydrogen instead of natural gas since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be obvious to have used the configuration of Bardon for a hydrogen liquefaction as it would be common knowledge in the art to when considering how to produce liquid hydrogen, that a general system which is used for liquid natural gas production would be one that is obvious to produce liquid hydrogen. Thus, the gas being pre-cooled and sent to the liquefier of Bardon would be hydrogen which is pre-cooled and then liquefied as modified.
Bardon does not teach that the heat exchanger sections are separate heat exchangers such that the pre-cooled flows are outputted from the first and second heat exchangers respectively as pre-cooled flows that are fed to the liquefier, which is understood that the liquefier and pre-cooler are separate heat exchangers. Examiner previously took official notice that this would be obvious, which applicant has timely traversed.
Cardella (Figure 1) teaches liquefaction system configuration where there is a pre-cooling section (78) where the feed gas (11) is pre-cooled and the refrigerant (21) is also pre-cooled (paragraphs 102, 126) before the feed gas is fed to a series of heat exchangers (82-89) where it is further cooled (paragraphs 127-130) before finally passing to heat exchange for liquefaction (paragraph 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the heat exchanger sections of Bardon (pre-cooling sections 146a/146b each being separate heat exchangers from liquefaction sections 148a/148b each being separate heat exchangers) to have been constructed as different heat exchangers based on the teaching of Cardella since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (one heat exchanger which provides cooling and liquefaction) for another (separate heat exchangers for different cooling levels) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as they are both methods of providing liquefaction of a fluid downstream of separate heat exchanger system a prima facie case obviousness to have the heat exchange sections of Bardon exists and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution with the reasonably predictable result of providing the pre-cooling and liquefaction desired.
With respect to claim 15, Bardon as modified does not teach wherein the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device comprises a third heat exchanger; wherein the cooling of the hydrogen gas via the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device with the cooling medium supplied by the CMU to provide the pre-cooled feed comprising hydrogen gas at a pre-selected liquefier feed temperature comprises: cooling a third portion of the at least one flow of feed in the third heat exchanger via the cooling medium supplied from the CMU; and wherein the feeding of the pre-cooled feed to the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers for liquefaction of the hydrogen gas to form liquid hydrogen comprises: feeding a third pre-cooled flow of feed output from the third heat exchanger to a third liquefier of the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers.
However, Bardon teaches that the system can include one or more main heat exchangers with two shown (Paragraph 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of having two liquefaction arrangements (104a/146a/140a/148a and 104b/146b/140b/148b along with their respective components) for there to have been three in Baron as modified since it has been shown that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby providing what amounts to a third train of pre-cooling/liquefaction instead of just two (something Baron effectively anticipates by showing two but stating what is required is one or more) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for what is common knowledge of increasing the capacity to produce liquefaction or provide redundancy in the liquefaction process. This duplication would result in everything after precooler assembly 106 being duplication to have a third set of components, which includes the individual heat exchangers as modified as well as the flow lines and all related components shown in the figures, and would meet the limitations as claimed.
With respect to claim 16, Bardon wherein the CMU and the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device are included in a pre-liquefaction processing system positioned upstream of a train of liquefiers (all of the components upstream of 148a/148b can be considered a pre-liquefaction processing system).
With respect to claim 21, Bardon as modified teaches feeding warmed cooling medium output from the first heat exchanger to the CMU for being cooled to the pre-selected temperature; and feeding warmed cooling medium output from the second heat exchanger to the CMU for being cooled to the pre-selected temperature (from the heat exchangers 146a/146b, the warmed cooling medium outputs are passed to the CMU into 112 as 128 paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 22, Bardon as modified teaches wherein the CMU is positioned to receive warmed cooling medium outputtable from the first heat exchanger to cool the warmed cooling medium outputtable from the first heat exchanger to the pre-selected temperature and the CMU is also positioned to receive warmed cooling medium outputtable from the second heat exchanger to cool the warmed cooling medium outputtable from the second heat exchanger to the pre-selected temperature (from the heat exchangers 146a/146b, the warmed cooling medium outputs are passed to the CMU into 112 as 128 paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 23, Bardon as modified teaches the at least one compander include a first compander and the CMU includes the first compander (there is a compander as taught in claim 1).
With respect to claim 24, Bardon as modified teaches wherein the at least one cooling medium phase separator includes a first cooling medium phase separator and the CMU includes the first cooling medium phase separator (separators 138a and 138b, paragraph 45, can be considered part of the CMU, one of which can be considered the first separator)
Claim(s) 4-6, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardon/Dachauer/Cardella and further in view of Turney et al. (US PG Pub 20230009727), hereinafter referred to as Turney.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Bardon does not teach wherein the plurality of liquefiers of the train of liquefiers includes a third liquefier and the first heat exchanger is connected to the first liquefier and the third liquefier such that first portion of the first-precooled flow of feed outputtable from the first heat exchanger is feedable to the first liquefier and a second portion of the first pre-cooled flow of feed outputtable from the first heat exchanger is feedable to the third liquefier, and a fourth liquefier and the first heat exchanger is connected to the fourth liquefier such that a third portion of the first pre-cooled flow outputtable from the first heat exchangers is feedable to the fourth liquefier.
Turney teaches that a single precooling cold box M can be used to feed multiple liquefaction cold boxes N and that the ratio of N total liquefaction cold boxes to M total precooling cold boxes is between 1.25 and 3 (paragraphs 29-30) and that there is a need for a process arrangement which allows for utilization of larger capacities possible of other equipment (paragraph 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the pre-cooled stream produced by the first heat exchanger (146a) of Bardon as modified feed hydrogen split into three streams to three separate liquefying heat exchangers (three version of 148a in parallel) each which are provided to liquefy hydrogen in order to be able to allow for utilization of larger capacities of other equipment to produce more liquefied hydrogen. This would result in the one stream splitting and feeding the first and a third and fourth liquefier.
With respect to claim 6, Bardon as modified does not teach the second heat exchanger is also connected to a third liquefier of the train of liquefiers so that a first portion of the second pre-cooled flow of feed outputtable from the second heat exchanger is feedable to the second liquefier and a second portion of the second portion of the second-precooled flow of feed ouptuttable from the second heat exchanger is feedable to the third liquefier.
Turney teaches that a single precooling cold box M can be used to feed multiple liquefaction cold boxes N and that the ratio of N total liquefaction cold boxes to M total precooling cold boxes is between 1.25 and 3 (paragraphs 29-30) and that there is a need for a process arrangement which allows for utilization of larger capacities possible of other equipment (paragraph 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the pre-cooled stream produced by the second heat exchanger (146b) of Bardon as modified feed hydrogen split into two streams to two separate liquefying heat exchangers (two version of 148b in parallel) each which are provided to liquefy hydrogen in order to be able to allow for utilization of larger capacities of other equipment to produce more liquefied hydrogen. This would result in the one stream splitting and feeding the second and a third heat exchangers (liquefiers) respectively.
With respect to claim 12, Bardon as modified does not teach the feeding of the at least the portion of the first pre-cooled flow of feed output from the first heat exchanger to the first liquefier of the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers comprises: feeding a first portion of the first pre-cooled flow of feed output from the first heat exchanger to the first liquefier and feeding a second portion of the first pre-cooled flow of feed output from the first heat exchanger to a third liquefier of the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers.
Turney teaches that a single precooling cold box M can be used to feed multiple liquefaction cold boxes N and that the ratio of N total liquefaction cold boxes to M total precooling cold boxes is between 1.25 and 3 (paragraphs 29-30) and that there is a need for a process arrangement which allows for utilization of larger capacities possible of other equipment (paragraph 8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the pre-cooled stream produced by the first heat exchanger (146a) of Bardon as modified feed hydrogen split into two streams to two separate liquefying heat exchangers (two version of 148a in parallel) each which are provided to liquefy hydrogen in order to be able to allow for utilization of larger capacities of other equipment to produce more liquefied hydrogen. This would result in the one stream splitting and feeding the first and third heat exchangers (liquefier) respectively.
With respect to claim 13, Bardon as modified does not teach the feeding of the at least the portion of the second pre-cooled flow of feed output from the second heat exchanger to the second liquefier of the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers comprises: feeding a first portion of the second pre-cooled flow of feed output from the second heat exchanger to the second liquefier and feeding a second portion of the second pre- cooled flow of feed output from the second heat exchanger to a fourth liquefier of the multiple liquefiers of the train of liquefiers
Turney teaches that a single precooling cold box M can be used to feed multiple liquefaction cold boxes N and that the ratio of N total liquefaction cold boxes to M total precooling cold boxes is between 1.25 and 3 (paragraphs 29-30) and that there is a need for a process arrangement which allows for utilization of larger capacities possible of other equipment (paragraph 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the pre-cooled stream produced by the second heat exchanger (146b) of Bardon as modified feed hydrogen split into two streams to two separate liquefying heat exchangers (two version of 148b in parallel) each which are provided to liquefy hydrogen in order to be able to allow for utilization of larger capacities of other equipment to produce more liquefied hydrogen. This would result in the one stream splitting and feeding the second and a fourth heat exchangers (liquefiers) respectively.
Claim(s) 8-10, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardon/Dachauer/Cardella and further in view of Huang (US PG Pub 20230341180).
With respect to claim 8, Bardon does not teach wherein the pre-liquefaction processing system also comprises: a pre-purification unit (PPU) positioned upstream of the at least one heat exchanger to purify the at least one flow of feed and/or a feed compression system positioned upstream of the at least one heat exchanger for compressing the at least one flow of feed to a pressure within a pre-selected range of feed pressures.
Huang (Figure 4) teaches that in a hydrogen liquefaction system upstream of the first heat exchanger (442) there is a hydrogen purification unit and a compressor (41 and 441, paragraph 60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have upstream of the pre-cooling zones of Bardon to have had a hydrogen purification unit and a compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing compression and purification would as would be common knowledge in the art of increase the heat exchange efficiency and ensure that components that might freeze in the liquefaction process are removed. As it is a purification unit, that purifies hydrogen, it can be considered art recognized equivalent over the PPU as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, Bardon as modified teaches wherein the pre-liquefaction processing system includes the feed compression system and the PPU (as modified both are present).
With respect to claim 10, Bardon as modified teaches the train of liquefiers (the two heat exchanger zones that liquefy).
Bardon does not teach a source of feed, the source of feed comprising a hydrogen production facility that generates hydrogen gas via renewable power
Huang teaches that a hydrogen liquefaction unit and source of hydrogen for the liquefaction unit can be powered by an off-grid superconducting wind turbine generator (paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on teaching of Huang to have provided the source of hydrogen for Bardon as modified using an off-grid superconducting wind turbine generator (a source of renewable power) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the hydrogen using a wind turbine generator would provide what is common knowledge in the art of generating hydrogen with minimal emissions without the need for power generated by fossil fuels.
With respect to claim 17, Huang as modified does not teach wherein the pre-liquefaction processing system also includes a PPU and/or a feed compression system.
Huang (Figure 4) teaches that in a hydrogen liquefaction system upstream of the first heat exchanger (442) there is a hydrogen purification unit and a compressor (41 and 441, paragraph 60).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have upstream of the pre-cooling zones of Bardon to have had a hydrogen purification unit and a compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing compression and purification would as would be common knowledge in the art of increase the heat exchange efficiency and ensure that components that might freeze in the liquefaction process are removed. As it is a purification unit, that purifies hydrogen, it can be considered art recognized equivalent over the PPU as claimed.
With respect to claim 18, Bardon as modified teaches compressing the hydrogen gas before the hydrogen gas is fed to the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device (as modified based on Huang, compression is upstream of the pre-cooling zone).
With respect to claim 19, Bardon as modified teaches purifying the hydrogen gas before the hydrogen gas is fed to the at least one pre-liquefaction cooling device (as modified based on Huang, purification is upstream of the pre-cooling zone).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardon/Dachauer/Cardella/Huang and further in view of Schwarz (US PG Pub 20230147955), hereinafter referred to as Schwarz.
With respect to claim 20, Bardon as modified does not teach wherein the wherein the hydrogen gas of the at least one flow of feed is between 95 volume percent (vol%) of the at least one flow of feed and 100 vol% of the at least one flow of feed.
Schwarz teaches that a feed gas (3) to a hydrogen liquefaction system is 100% hydrogen (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when liquefying hydrogen in the system of Bardon as modified to have based on the teaching of Schwarz for that hydrogen to have been 100% hydrogen as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (multiple different possible feed % are disclosed, paragraph 9) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Bardon as modified does not teach the hydrogen gas is provided via at least one hydrogen production facility that forms the hydrogen gas via at least one renewable power source.
Huang teaches that a hydrogen liquefaction unit and source of hydrogen for the liquefaction unit can be powered by an off-grid superconducting wind turbine generator (paragraph 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have based on teaching of Huang to have provided the source of hydrogen for Bardon as modified using an off-grid superconducting wind turbine generator (a source of renewable power) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the hydrogen using a wind turbine generator would provide what is common knowledge in the art of generating hydrogen with minimal emissions without the need for power generated by fossil fuels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that, “pre-purification unit” and “feed compression system” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as they do not include the term means and they are known terms. This is not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that a “pre-purification unit” would be known to refer to devices to perform purification such as PSA or TSA systems is further showing proof that it should be treated under 35 USC 112(f) as it is meant to refer to devices to perform purification, without specification reciting one and thus includes the interpretation of a generic placeholder “unit” with a function “pre-purification” referring to a limitation in the specification. The same can be said in response to applicant’s argument in regards to “feed compression system”.
Applicant argues that “Bardon’s precooler assembly 106 has a series of chiller that cool a single flow of feed by use of 2 different refrigerants provided by compression assemblies” and “There is no suggestion or motivation to adjust so that different heat exchangers are positioned to cool different portions of a feed using a cooling medium from the same cooling medium unit”. This is not persuasive.
The rejection above takes into account that Bardon teaches two separate pre-cooling systems, one which has the heat exchangers 116a-116d and one which has two heat exchangers (108a/108b) which are made up of a pre-cooling section (146a/146b) and liquefying sections (148a/148b). The heat pre-cooling sections of the heat exchangers (146a/146b) are mapped to the pre-liquefaction processing system/pre-liquefaction cooling device as claimed; however, Bardon does not teach that they are separate heat exchangers from the liquefaction sections of the heat exchanger such that there are individual heat exchangers which feed liquefiers as claimed.
Applicant argues, page 15, paragraph 2 that any increase in components would not be desired by Bardon as Bardon desires to reduce the number of process components. This is not persuasive.
While Bardon may desire to decrease the number of components, the individual components splitting into multiple components based on the teaching of Cardella would not provide a teaching away or an increase in the components as described by Bardon as Bardon is referring to reducing the number of turbines, compressors and/or coolers, of which providing splitting each of the heat exchangers (108a/108b) would not be considered. The components referred to are components of the refrigeration system of Bardon, which would not be changed as the overall refrigeration systems would remain the same, with the same streams passed through the same overall locations.
Applicant appears to be arguing that there would be no reason to make any modifications to Bardon because “any liquefier will have a zone of cooling that result in a gas cooling prior to being liquefied” such as the two zones in Bardon which is not persuasive and that the modification lacks any support and is “improperly ignoring Bardon’s explicit text of different ‘zones’ to contend that there is a teaching of separation of such elements in Bardon’. This is not persuasive.
While any liquefier will have a zone of cooling that results in a gas cooling prior to being liquefied, examiner does not agree that such configuration will be present in one singular heat exchanger. Cardella (Figure 1) clearly teaches that after an initial precooling section (78) in the liquefaction section (79) that multiple individual heat exchangers are used (82-91, paragraphs 102, 110, 139) where it can be considered that further pre-cooling would occur in the heat exchangers upstream of final liquefaction (including 82). This is a clear alternative configuration to that of Bardon that is providing the same overall result by having multiple individual heat exchangers to achieve liquefaction instead of one heat exchanger which provides both further cooling (which can still be considered pre-cooling) and liquefaction.
The configuration that applicant argues is not present can be clearly seen to not be true as seen in Cardella which has a series of heat exchangers upstream that are separate from and not part of an overall heat exchanger which provide cooling via the cooling medium to hydrogen prior to the hydrogen being liquefied in a final heat exchanger. Some or all of the heat exchangers upstream of the final heat exchanger can be considered to be a continuation of pre-cooling, similar to Bardon which has two separate locations for pre-cooling.
Applicant further argues that “Bardon’s precooler assembly 106 has a series of chiller that cool a single flow of feed by use of 2 different refrigerants provided by compression assemblies” and “There is no suggestion or motivation to adjust so that different heat exchangers are positioned to cool different portions of a feed using a cooling medium from the same cooling medium unit”. This is not persuasive.
The rejection above takes into account that Bardon teaches two separate pre-cooling systems, one which has the heat exchangers 116a-116d and one which has two heat exchangers (108a/108b) which are made up of a pre-cooling section (146a/146b) and liquefying sections (148a/148b). The heat pre-cooling sections of the heat exchangers (146a/146b) are mapped to the pre-liquefaction processing system/pre-liquefaction cooling device as claimed; however, Bardon does not teach that they are separate heat exchangers from the liquefaction sections of the heat exchanger such that there are individual heat exchangers which feed liquefiers as claimed.
Applicant argues that any increase in components would not be desired by Bardon as Bardon desires to reduce the number of process components. This is not persuasive.
While Bardon may desire to decrease the number of components, the individual components splitting into multiple components based on the teaching of Cardella would not provide a teaching away or an increase in the components as described by Bardon as Bardon is referring to reducing the number of turbines, compressors and/or coolers, of which providing splitting each of the heat exchangers (108a/108b) would not be considered. The components referred to are components of the refrigeration system of Bardon, which would not be changed as the overall refrigeration systems would remain the same, with the same streams passed through the same overall locations. Further, it has been established that a prima facie case of obviousness exist for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143) where it would have been obvious in this case to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used multiple heat exchangers instead of one singular heat exchanger to achieve the same predictable cooling and liquefaction as claimed thus rendering the limitation obvious. The previous rejection and the rejection above are not “ignoring Bardon’s explicit text of different ‘zones’” to be different heat exchangers as claimed but is showing that these different zones would be different heat exchangers based on the teaching of Cardella which applicant is not addressing above.
Applicant argues pages 16-17 that the rejection shows improperly hindsight as “the proposed modification of Bardon is contrary to Bardon’s disclosure and principle operation of Bardon’s systems and Bardon’s explicitly textual discussion of main heat exchangers that have different zones defined therein”. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant has not provided any specific argument as to how hindsight is present and does not specifically address Cardella here. While Bardon may desire to decrease the number of components, the individual components splitting into multiple components based on the teaching of Cardella would not provide a teaching away or an increase in the components as described by Bardon as Bardon is referring to reducing the number of turbines, compressors and/or coolers, of which providing splitting each of the heat exchangers (108a/108b) would not be considered. The components referred to are components of the refrigeration system of Bardon, which would not be changed as the overall refrigeration systems would remain the same, with the same streams passed through the same overall locations. Additionally, Bardon’s showing of two main heat exchanger is not a principle of operation or required by the “explicit textual discussion of main heat exchangers” as argued by applicant, which argument appears to be suggesting that no modification can be made to the prior art or any modification would not be done because Bardon teaches the two heat exchangers. As Cardella has clearly shown that multiple heat exchangers can be used in the configuration Bardon teaches, instead of a singular main heat exchanger such modification would have been obvious as shown above.
Applicant argues, pages 17-20 that in Cardella “there is no splitting of any feed so that a first heat exchanger receives some of the feed and aa second heat exchanger receives another portion of the feed” and as such in Cardella there is no first heat exchanger as claimed and no second heat exchanger as claimed and Cardella teaches a single heat exchanger as provided and thus there is “no suggestion that there be multiple pre-cooler heat exchangers in Cardella or that different heat exchanger received different positions of the feed”. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is not addressing the rejection specifically here or how Cardella would be applied to the modification of Bardon. That Cardella only teaches one set of heat exchangers which the feed passes through is not relevant to the modification made. Cardella (Figure 1) clearly teaches that after an initial precooling section (78) in the liquefaction section (79) that multiple individual heat exchangers are used (82-91, paragraphs 102, 110, 139) where it can be considered that further pre-cooling would occur in the heat exchangers upstream of final liquefaction (including 82). The pre-cooling section as labeled in Bardon with the heat exchanger (81) can be considered equivalent to Bardon’s heat exchanger system (116a-116d). Where Bardon differs from Cardell is that it splits the feed into two separate heat exchangers (first and second zones respectively of 146a/148a and 146b/148b) where further pre-cooling can be considered to take place in the first zone and liquefaction in the second. The first zones would be equivalent to any or all of the heat exchangers in Cardella and that Cardella does not split the feed is not relevant to the rejection or to the modification made, as the modification is made on a system already has a split feed to a part of the system that does not rely on the feed being split but relies on how cooling and liquefaction heat exchangers would be configured. Thus when applying the teachings of Cardella to that of Bardon, the modification would be to instead of having a singular heat exchanger which contains both regions in the liquefaction section of the system, to have had multiple heat exchangers as in Cardella that make up the zones of Bardon, which would render the limitation as claimed obvious.
Applicant further argues that “a substitution of Cardella’s heat exchanger arrangement would result in precooler assembly 106 being replaced by heat exchanger 81 and the main heat exchangers 108a, 108b, being replaced with liquefaction heat exchangers 82-89 of Cardella” which lacks rationale underpinning as to why this modification would be done and would “be contrary to the principle operation for both. Cardella’s heat exchanger arrangement” and “Bardon’s single precooler assembly”. This is not persuasive.
Applicant is not addressing the combination of the references in the rejection above but the references individually. Cardella (Figure 1) clearly teaches that after an initial precooling section (78) in the liquefaction section (79) that multiple individual heat exchangers are used (82-91, paragraphs 102, 110, 139) where it can be considered that further pre-cooling would occur in the heat exchangers upstream of final liquefaction (including 82). The pre-cooling section as labeled in Bardon with the heat exchanger (81) can be considered equivalent to Bardon’s heat exchanger system (116a-116d). Where Bardon differs from Cardell is that it splits the feed into two separate heat exchangers (first and second zones respectively of 146a/148a and 146b/148b) where further pre-cooling can be considered to take place in the first zone and liquefaction in the second. The modification made in the rejection above is that for each main heat exchanger, the first zone and the second zone would exist as multiple heat exchangers instead of a single heat exchanger as it has been established that a prima facie case of obviousness exist for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143) where it would have been obvious in this case to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used multiple heat exchangers instead of one singular heat exchanger to achieve the same predictable cooling and liquefaction as claimed thus rendering the limitation obvious. One having common knowledge in the art would recognize this not only to be prima facie obvious as it would have the same result of producing the cooling and liquefaction necessary.
Applicant’s arguments pages 21-22 in regards to claims 2, 4,5-7 are moot as applicant provides no additional argument to those rejections and only argues that there in no separate heat exchangers taught by Bardon, which is not provide in the rejection above as it is shown that Cardella teaches using multiple heat exchangers instead of a single heat exchanger.
Applicant argues page 22 in regard to claim 9 that Bardon does not disclose a compander as it “never uses such a term” and does not illustrate a compander.
The lack of using the explicit term in the specification of Bardon does not mean that Bardon does not teach a compander being present. A compander, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art is a compressor that is connected to a turbine such that the energy from the turbine drives the compression. Bardon teaches that the compressor assembly uses compressors 126a-f which are driven via rotary shaft by a turbine such as a gas turbine (paragraph 3) which would make the combination of the compressor and turbine as disclosed a compander. This combination meets applicant’s definition food in the specification “devices that include an expander that is interlinked with at least one compressor stage to help power compression via the gas expansion provided by the expander” (paragraph 55 of the instant specification).
Applicant argues that the separators as claimed in Bardon are not the same as the separators as claimed as they are “downstream of the precooler assembly that is alleged of pre-cooler 106 being modified” and thus “downstream of the alleged CMU, not upstream of it”. This is not persuasive.
The claims do not require that the phase separator is upstream or downstream of the CMU, but part of it. The CMU as modified includes the component after 106 which includes the separators (138a, 138b) which are used to separate cooling medium, the presence of the pre-cooler is not relevant to the rejection and does not change the presence of the separators. The only requirement in the claim is that is that the CMU is upstream of at least one heat exchanger to feed a cooling medium to the at least one heat exchanger which as the respective separators feed refrigerant to the respective heat exchangers (146a/146b) meets the limitation as claimed.
Applicant argues page 26, in regards to claim 11 that “Bardon’s precooler assembly 106 has a series of chiller that cool a single flow of feed by use of 2 different refrigerants provided by compression assemblies” and “There is no suggestion or motivation to adjust so that different heat exchangers are positioned to cool different portions of a feed using a cooling medium from the same cooling medium unit”. This is not persuasive.
The rejection above takes into account that Bardon teaches two separate pre-cooling systems, one which has the heat exchangers 116a-116d and one which has two heat exchangers (108a/108b) which are made up of a pre-cooling section (146a/146b) and liquefying sections (148a/148b). The heat pre-cooling sections of the heat exchangers (146a/146b) are mapped to the pre-liquefaction processing system/pre-liquefaction cooling device as claimed; however, Bardon does not teach that they are separate heat exchangers from the liquefaction sections of the heat exchanger such that there are individual heat exchangers which feed liquefiers as claimed.
Applicant argument continues, page 26 that “a modification of Bardon to increase the number of components for cooling and to increase the complexity of the system would be desired” is contrary to Bardon’s specific teachings.
While Bardon may desire to decrease the number of components, the individual components splitting into multiple components based on the teaching of Cardella would not provide a teaching away or an increase in the components as described by Bardon as Bardon is referring to reducing the number of turbines, compressors and/or coolers, of which providing splitting each of the heat exchangers (108a/108b) would not be considered. The components referred to are components of the refrigeration system of Bardon, which would not be changed as the overall refrigeration systems would remain the same, with the same streams passed through the same overall locations.
Applicant appears to be arguing, page 26-27 that there would be no reason to make any modifications to Bardon because “any liquefier will have a zone of cooling that result in a gas cooling prior to being liquefied” such as the two zones in Bardon which is not persuasive and that the modification lacks any support and is “improperly ignoring Bardon’s explicit text of different ‘zones’ to contend that there is a teaching of separation of such elements in Bardon’. This is not persuasive.
While any liquefier will have a zone of cooling that results in a gas cooling prior to being liquefied, examiner does not agree that such configuration will be present in one singular heat exchanger. Cardella (Figure 1) clearly teaches that after an initial precooling section (78) in the liquefaction section (79) that multiple individual heat exchangers are used (82-91, paragraphs 102, 110, 139) where it can be considered that further pre-cooling would occur in the heat exchangers upstream of final liquefaction (including 82). This is a clear alternative configuration to that of Bardon that is providing the same overall result by having multiple individual heat exchangers to achieve liquefaction instead of one heat exchanger which provides both further cooling (which can still be considered pre-cooling) and liquefaction.
The configuration that applicant argues is not present can be clearly seen to not be true as seen in Cardella which has a series of heat exchangers upstream that are separate from and not part of an overall heat exchanger which provide cooling via the cooling medium to hydrogen prior to the hydrogen being liquefied in a final heat exchanger. Some or all of the heat exchangers upstream of the final heat exchanger can be considered to be a continuation of pre-cooling, similar to Bardon which has two separate locations for pre-cooling.
Applicant remaining augments are moot as they only address the alleged lack of teaching of the rejections of claims 1 and 11 without providing specific arguments to the limitation of those rejections and as such are moot.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights