Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/2026 has been entered.
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 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites “the CMU includes at least one compander”; however, claim 1 has already required this as one of the possible options so it is unclear if this is a positive recitation of a required component being present or if this is in addition to what is required in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted such that the compander is required as the limitation or in addition to the limitation present in claim 1.
Claim 25 recites “the CMU includes at least one compander”; however, claim 1 has already required this as one of the possible options so it is unclear if this is a positive recitation of a required component being present or if this is in addition to what is required in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted such that the cooling medium phase separator is required as the limitation or in addition to the limitation present in claim 1.
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 wherein the CMU includes the at least one compander (there is a compander as taught in claim 1).
With respect to claim 24, Bardon as modified teaches wherein the CMU includes the at least one cooling medium phase separator (separators 138a and 138b, paragraph 45, can be considered part of the CMU)
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 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments; however, an additional rejection has been provided in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the CMU and 112(f) are moot as the claims have been amended to no longer be interpreted with respect to the CMU.
Applicant argues that because the specification recites components that the CMU can include, the limitations of CMU are not indefinite as the term should not be interpreted under means plus function. This is not persuasive.
While the specification does recite components that the CMU can include, it is not clear what is required of the claimed invention for the CMU to be present. The specification only provide exemplary components that can be present in the CMU but does not define what is actually required of the CMU to be present and therefore it is unclear if for the CMU to be present, only one of these components is required, or if the CMU is comprise of multiple components working together.
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”.
Applicants’ argument in regard to “cooling medium unit” in this regard are moot in view of the amendments.
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 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 Capron 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. 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’s arguments in regard to Capron, page 28 are moot as Capron is no longer used in the rejection and in place Cardella is used which clearly teaches that after pre-cooling, a series of heat exchangers is used with a similar configuration to both that of the claimed invention and Bardon’s heat exchanger sections.
Applicant’s arguments in regard to claims 2, 4-7, 23-24 are moot as the rejection of claim 1 is provided above and no specific arguments are provided in regard to those claims.
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 Capron 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. 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’s arguments in regard to Capron, page 28 are moot as Capron is no longer used in the rejection and in place Cardella is used which clearly teaches that after pre-cooling, a series of heat exchangers is used with a similar configuration to both that of the claimed invention and Bardon’s heat exchanger sections.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot as the rejection of claim 11 is provided above and no specific arguments are provided in regard to those claims.
Conclusion
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