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 invention I, species A4 and subspecies B1 (encompassing claims in the reply filed on September 23, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 17-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 thermal energy storage system” in claim 1 is understood to be any art recognized thermal storage;
“a processing facility” in claim 3 is understood to be a gas pre-treatment facility, that include any one of a sweetening system, a gas dehydration system, a heavy-hydrocarbons (HHC) removal system, a natural gas liquids (NGL) removal system, or combinations thereof (see claim 4; see also ¶ 0038 of the publication);
“a gas pre-treatment facility” in claim 4 is understood to be any one of a sweetening system, a gas dehydration system, a heavy-hydrocarbons (HHC) removal system, a natural gas liquids (NGL) removal system, or combinations thereof (see ¶ 0038 of the publication);
“a thermal energy conversion system” in claim 5 is understood to be a gas turbine engine (see ¶ 0020 of the publication);
“a waste heat recovery unit” in claim 7 is understood to be a heat exchanger (see ¶ 0078-0079 of the publication);
“a carbon dioxide capturing facility” in claim 8 is understood to be any art recognized CO2 separator;
“an energy storage facility” in claim 13 is understood to be any art recognized energy storage;
“a renewable energy collector” in claim 14 is understood to be photovoltaic panels (see ¶ 072-0073 of the publication);
“renewable energy source” in claim 14 is understood to be solar energy (see ¶ 0072 of the publication);
“offloading facility” in claim 16 is understood to include an LNG storage tank 22 and/or a cryogenic pump 20 (see ¶ 0044 of the publication);
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 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 1-16 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 limitation "the refrigerant fluid" in line 5-6 lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation should read –the at least one refrigerant fluid--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "refrigerant fluid” in line 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the “at least one refrigerant fluid” in line 4.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rejected thermal energy” in line 11 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temperature” in line 12 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the thermal energy” in line 12 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is referring to the “low-temperature thermal energy” or the “rejected thermal energy”
Claim 2 recites the limitation "thermal energy” in line 1 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously recited limitation “the thermal energy” in line 12 of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the natural gas liquefaction facility” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the processing facility” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the processing facility” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "offloading facility” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates with the previously cited limitation “offloading facility” in line 2 of the claim. For examination purposes, examiner read the limitation as –the offloading facility--.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the electric generator” in line 3-4 lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington et al. (US 2014/0250911) in view of Laughlin et al. (US 2019/0195571 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Huntington teaches a natural gas liquefaction system, comprising:
a natural gas feed (370) (see fig. 4, 5); and
a refrigeration circuit including comprising: a refrigeration compressor (420) adapted to compress at least one refrigerant fluid (418) (see fig. 4, 5);
a refrigerant cooler (408) adapted to remove low-temperature thermal energy from the refrigerant fluid (see fig. 4 and 5; ¶ 0078-0080);
a driver (406/motor) adapted to drive the refrigeration compressor (420) (see fig. 4, 5; ¶ 0081);
a heat exchanger (416) adapted to receive a flow of natural gas from the natural gas feed (370) and remove heat therefrom through heat exchange against refrigerant fluid (414) (see fig. 4 and 5; ¶ 0079, 0083, 0093); and,
Huntington teaches thermal energy rejected from the natural gas (370) and transfer the rejected thermal energy into a chilled nitrogen stream (407) (¶ 0078), but does not explicitly teach a heat pump adapted to recover low-temperature thermal energy rejected from the natural gas liquefaction system and to transfer the rejected thermal energy to a thermal energy storage system at a temperature higher than the temperature at which the thermal energy has been rejected.
However, Laughlin teaches a thermal energy storage system comprising a pumped thermal energy storage system store energy by operating as a heat pump or refrigerator, a heat pump adapted to recover low-temperature thermal energy (Q2) rejected from a fluid (36) and to transfer the rejected thermal energy to a thermal energy storage system (thermal storage tank 6) at a temperature higher than the temperature at which the thermal energy has been rejected (see ¶ 0100-0103; fig. 2A, 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the natural gas liquefaction system of Huntington by implementing a heat pump adapted to recover the rejected thermal energy and to transfer the rejected thermal energy to a thermal energy storage system at a temperature higher than the temperature at which the thermal energy has been rejected, in view of the teachings of Laughlin, in order to improve the overall energy efficiency of the system by recovering the waste heat for other purposes.
In regard to claim 2, the modified Huntington in view of Laughlin teaches the heat pump (as modified by Laughlin) is adapted to recover thermal energy rejected by the refrigerant cooler (408) (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
In regard to claim 5, Huntington teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the driver (406/motor) comprises an electric motor (see ¶ 0081), and an electric generator configured to generate electric energy to power the electric motor (see ¶ 0081; see also electric generator 326), and a thermal energy conversion system (the gas turbine engine 302) adapted to convert thermal energy into mechanical energy and to drive the electric generator therewith (¶ 0060-0061, 0066, 0081; fig. 4 and 5).
In regard to claim 6, Huntington teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the thermal energy conversion system comprises an internal combustion engine (the gas turbine engine 302) fueled with natural gas (308) directly or indirectly delivered by the natural gas feed (see ¶ 0057-0059, 0065, 0072, 0083, 0096; fig. 4 and 5).
In regard to claim 8, Huntington teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the processing facility comprises a carbon dioxide capturing facility (CO2 separation system 350-fig. 4/426-fig. 5) adapted to receive flue gas from the internal combustion engine (302) and remove carbon dioxide (352) therefrom (see ¶ 0066-0067; 0075-0077, 0082, 0095; fig. 4 and 5).
In regard to claim 11, Huntington teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the thermal energy conversion system further comprises a low-temperature thermodynamic circuit (the circuit that comprises the HRSG 304) configured to receive waste heat (314) from the internal combustion engine (302), and wherein the low-temperature thermodynamic circuit comprises a steam (332) or vapor turbine drivingly coupled to the electric generator (326) (see Huntington fig. 4 and 5; ¶ 0060-0061).
In regard to claim 12, Huntington teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the electric generator (326 and electricity 328) is electrically connected to different parts of the system (see fig. 4 and 5; ¶ 0060), but does not explicitly teach electrically connecting the electric generator to at least one of: the heat pump or the processing facility. However, official notice is taken that using an electricity produced in a plant for different parts of the system is an old and well-known manner of efficiently using the available power/energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Huntington by electrically connecting the electric generator of Huntington to least one of: the heat pump or the processing facility (e.g., the CO2 separation system 350), for an obvious reason of providing electricity to the any one of the equipment of the heat pump or the processing facility.
In regard to claim 14, Huntington in view of p Laughlin further teaches the system further comprising a renewable energy collector (photovoltaic power system) adapted to collect energy from a renewable energy source (solar) (Laughlin ¶ 0083, 0174-0177).
In regard to claim 15, Huntington in view of Laughlin further teaches the renewable energy collector (photovoltaic power system) is adapted to convert energy from the renewable energy resource into a storageable energy, comprising one of: thermal energy and electric energy, and wherein the renewable energy collector (photovoltaic power system) is functionally coupled to at least one of the thermal energy storage system (pumped thermal system of Laughlin) (see Laughlin ¶ 0083, 0092, 0165, 0174-0177) and an additional energy storage system.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington and Laughlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van der Walt et al. (US 2022/0065161 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Huntington teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Huntington teaches the natural gas can also contain minor amounts of contaminants such as water, nitrogen, iron sulfide, wax, crude oil, or any combinations thereof and may substantially purified prior to use in embodiments (¶ 0034), but does not explicitly teach the system comprising a processing facility powered by thermal energy from the thermal energy storage system.
However, Van der Walt teaches a natural gas processing facility (100) comprising natural gas is sent from a pipeline (102) to an acid gas removal unit (104), wherein the acid gas removal unit 104 accepts this natural gas from pipeline (102), and generates one or more of an acid gas stream, a flash gas stream, and a purified natural gas stream, processing by acid gas removal unit (104), the purified natural gas stream, with the carbon dioxide removed, is sent to dehydration unit (106) (¶ 0078-0086; fig. 1). Van der Walt further teaches a waste heat recovery unit (124) that communicate with one or more of acid gas removal unit (104), dehydration unit (106), and heavies removal unit (108), to provide heat to these components (see ¶ 0097-0098; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the natural gas liquefaction system of Huntington by implementing a processing facility powered by thermal energy from the thermal energy storage system, in view of the teachings of Van der Walt, in order to purify the natural gas by using the available energy in the system.
In regard to claim 4, the modified Huntington in view of Van der Walt further teaches the processing facility comprises a gas pre-treatment facility (104, 106) adapted to receive raw natural gas and pretreat the raw natural gas prior to delivery of the natural gas to the natural gas liquefaction facility (see Van der Walt, ¶ 0078-0086; fig. 1; see also Huntington ¶ 0034).
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington and Laughlin as applied to claim 5 or 6 above, and further in view of Pang et al. (US 2014/0165572 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Huntington teaches the system of claim 6, further comprising: a waste heat recovery unit (HRSG 304) adapted to recover waste heat (314) from the internal combustion engine (see ¶ 0060-0062; fig. 4, 5), but does not explicitly teach transfer waste heat to the thermal energy storage system.
However, Pang teaches a system further includes a thermal storage unit (110) having a cold tank containing a thermal storage working medium in a cold state (156) and a hot tank (158) containing the thermal storage working medium in a heated state, wherein the system an energy storage charge heat exchanger (160) located within HRSG (116) that facilitates a heat transfer of thermal energy between a working fluid generated in HRSG (116) and the thermal storage working medium in cold tank (156) of thermal storage unit (110), and discharges the thermal storage working medium in a heated state into hot tank (158) of the thermal storage unit (see ¶ 0027, 0032-0034, 0038; fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the natural gas liquefaction system of Huntington to transfer waste heat to the modified thermal energy storage system, in view of the teachings of Pang, for purpose of storing the waste energy instead of wasting it and increase total system efficiency.
In regard to claim 9, Huntington teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the thermal energy conversion system (the gas turbine engine 302) comprises a thermodynamic circuit (see the circuit of the gas turbine engine in fig. 4 and 5; ¶ 0056, 0060), but does not explicitly teach the thermodynamic circuit is adapted to receive thermal energy from the thermal energy storage system.
However, However, Pang teaches a system further includes a thermal storage unit (110) having a cold tank containing a thermal storage working medium in a cold state (156) and a hot tank (158) containing the thermal storage working medium in a heated state, wherein the system comprises a thermal energy conversion system comprises a thermodynamic circuit (108) adapted to receive thermal energy (in heat exchangers 112/114) from the thermal energy storage unit (158) (see ¶ 0016, 0030, 0032, 0034, 0038, 0043; fig. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thermal energy conversion system/thermodynamic circuit of Huntington adapt to receive thermal energy from the thermal energy storage system, in view of the teachings of Pang, for purpose of providing the stored heat for other use in the system to maximize efficiency of the system.
In regard to claim 10, the modified Huntington teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the thermodynamic circuit comprises a steam (332) or vapor turbine drivingly coupled to the electric generator (326) (see Huntington, fig. 4 and 5; ¶ 0031, 0060-0061, 0081, 0101).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington and Laughlin as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wakana et al. (US 2003/0101728 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Huntington teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the electric generator is functionally coupled to an energy storage facility adapted to store surplus energy generated by the electric generator.
However, Wakana teaches an energy storage gas-turbine electric power generating system comprising an electric generator is functionally coupled to an energy storage facility adapted to store surplus energy generated by the electric generator (see fig. 1 and 3; ¶ 0032, 0037, 0042, 0054, 0083-0086).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electric generator of Huntington by coupling it to an energy storage facility, in view of the teachings of Wakana, in order to store unused/surplus energy for later use.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington and Laughlin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mak (US 2008/0190106 A1).
In regard to claim 16, Huntington teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a liquefied natural gas storage (tankage, see ¶ 0072) and offloading facility (tankage, see ¶ 0072; also interpreted to be a storage and or pump, see also claim interpretation above), but does not explicitly teach the liquefied natural gas storage and offloading facility is powered by electric energy generated by the electric generator.
However, Mak teaches a liquefied natural gas storage and offloading facility (e.g., pump) is powered by an electric energy generated by an electric generator (see ¶ 0025, 0027, 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Huntington by powering , in view of the teachings of Mak, for purpose of providing the available electricity in the system to power any equipment the require electricity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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