DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of species A3 (fig. 2B) and species B2 (fig. 5a) encompassing claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “ a primary cooling loop to cool at least a process stream from each module and the first mixed refrigerant and the second mixed refrigerant ” in section c) line 1 -2 of claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. 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: “ a first module” in claim 1 is understood to be an absorber (see ¶ 0116 of the publication) ; “a dehydration unit” in claim 1 is understood to be molecular sieve units ( molsieves ) or Mercury removal unit (single vessel) (see ¶ 0117 of the publication); “ the liquefaction module” is understood to be a plurality of heat exchangers (see ¶ 0 019 of the publication); “a fourth module” in claim 1 is understood to be equipment for condensate stabilization (or fractionation unit), heat transfer fluid (HTF) and at least one closed cooling water unit, condensate stabilization herein refers to equipment for processing NGLs removed from the feed gas (see publication ¶ 0122, 0132); 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 1-1 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. claim 1 recites “ a primary cooling loop to cool at least a process stream from each module and the first mixed refrigerant and the second mixed refrigerant against a first coolant comprising clean water, wherein the primary cooling loop is a closed clean water cooling loop and the cooling is against an ambient temperature” section c). The originally filed specification, including the description and drawings (e.g., Figs. 1, 2A, 2B, and 11 of the specification and drawing), fails to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of a configuration in which a single primary cooling loop is configured to cool all of the following: • ( i ) at least one process stream from each module, • (ii) a first mixed refrigerant, and • (iii) a second mixed refrigerant. While the specification generally discloses cooling of process streams and refrigerant streams within the liquefaction system, there is no explicit or implicit disclosure of a primary cooling loop that is configured to cool all of the above-recited streams in the unified manner now claimed. The figures and description depict cooling arrangements, but do not identify or describe a single cooling loop performing all such functions. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an unsupported generalization of the disclosed cooling configurations, and the specification does not demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the term “inside battery limit (ISBL)” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a term of art that lacks a clear boundary in the context of the claim, and the specification does not provide a definition sufficient to delineate the scope. Accordingly, the extent of the claimed facility is unclear. For examination purpose, it is simply considered as “a liquefaction train”. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the liquefaction module " in section a) line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis. Examiner read the limitation as –the liquefaction train-- . Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “a primary cooling loop to cool at least a process stream from each module and the first mixed refrigerant and the second mixed refrigerant ” in section c) line 1 -2 renders the scope of the claim unclear. Specifically, it is ambiguous whether: the primary cooling loop is required to cool one or more process streams per module, all process streams associated with each module, or only selected process streams from certain modules. Further, the claim recites that the same primary cooling loop cools both the first mixed refrigerant and the second mixed refrigerant, without clearly defining: the manner in which these streams are thermally coupled to the loop, or whether such cooling occurs simultaneously or under different operating conditions. Moreover, the combination of multiple distinct cooling requirements into a single “primary cooling loop” without clear structural or operational boundaries further obscures the scope of the claim, as it is unclear how the loop is configured to perform all recited cooling functions. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cooling" in section c) line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “ wherein more than 50% of the first plurality of heat exchangers are printed circuit heat exchangers and wherein the printed circuit heat exchangers are adapted to provide at least 80% of the cooling against the ambient temperature ” in section d) line 3 -5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which “cooling” it referring to. The limitation appears to have grammatical error because the first plurality of heat exchangers appears to receive a cooling via the first primary cooling loop from the ambient temperature, not provide to it. Claim 2 recites the limitation wherein “the primary cooling loop extends to cool” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase extend to cool is unclear as it does not specify how the cooling loop is arranged or interacts structurally with the recited components. Claim 2 recites the term “an outside battery limit (OSBL)” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because the phrase is a term of art that lacks a clear boundary in the context of the claim, and the specification does not provide a definition sufficient to delineate the scope. Accordingly, the extent of the claimed facility is unclear. For examination purpose, it is simply considered as “a cooler”. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first compressor” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second compressor” in line 4 lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites the limitation "a facility” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously cited limitation “a facility” in line 1 of claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the facility--. Claims 3 -6 and 8-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Remarks It is noted that due to the breadth of the 112 issues as discussed above, a prior art rejection has not been set forth at this time. However, the lack of a prior art rejection is not to be construed as an indication of allowable subject matter, and any amendments to the claims are subject to further search and/or consideration of the prior art. Normally a claim which fails to comply with the first and/or second paragraph o f 35 U.S.C. 112 will not be analyzed as to whether it is patentable over the prior art since to do so would of necessity require speculation with regard to the meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter, In re Steele, 308 F .2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F .2d 1382, 1385, 496 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a courtesy to Applicant, Examiner has cited references, which, in addition to those cited by Applicant, appear relevant to Applicant's disclosure and majority of the claimed languages for Applicant's review. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1793 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Frantz Jules can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6681 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /W.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763