DETAILED ACTION
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 of Group I (claims 19-34) and Species 2A (Fig. 2A) reading on claims 19, 22, 24, 30, 34 in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 20, 21, 23, 25-29, 31-33, 35-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: at least reference number 4 is not included in Fig. 2A. 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. 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.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 22, 24, 30, 34 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 19, the recitation, “high-pressure” is indefinite for being a relative term with no way to determine what pressure qualifies and does not qualify as being “high”.
The recitation, “the flow of combusted gas” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “combusted gas” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference –the flow of the combusted gas--.
The recitation, “wherein in step I)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “step I)” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference –wherein in the step I)--.
The recitation, “the flow of expanded combusted gas” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “expanded combusted gas” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference – the flow of the expanded combusted gas--.
The recitation, “obtained in step i.” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “step i” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --obtained in the sub-step i--. Further no period should be present.
The recitation, “and in sub-step iv.” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “sub-step iv” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --and in the sub-step iv--. Further no period should be present.
The recitation, “the pumped flow of liquid oxygen” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “liquid oxygen” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --the pumped flow of the liquid oxygen--.
The recitation, “of step III)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “step iii)” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --of the step III)--.
The recitation, “said flow of partially heated oxygen” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “partially heated oxygen” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --said flow of the partially heated oxygen--.
In regard to claim 22, the recitation, “wherein sub-step iii.” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “sub-step iii” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --wherein the sub-step iii--. Further no period should be present.
The recitation, “comprises the steps of” is unclear since “the steps” lack proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if this is referencing the previously introduced steps or not.
The recitation, “iiie) treatment the flow” is indefinite for being grammatically errant.
The recitation, “each of steps iiib), iiic) and iiid) may be repeated several times” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing the already previously introduced steps. Further it is unclear what qualifies as one time and thereby “several times”.
In regard to claim 24, the recitation, “wherein sub-step iv.” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing “sub-step iv” and it is unclear why the recitation does not reference --wherein the sub-step iv--. Further no period should be present.
The recitation, “said flow” is entirely unclear as there is no way to determine which flow is being referenced.
The recitations in the step iva), “a main composition” and then later recited “a main composition” is indefinite for reintroducing the same recitation improperly and it is unclear how to interpret the reintroduction.
The recitation, “a main composition” (see step ivb) is indefinite for again reintroducing a main composition anew improperly.
The recitation, “the bottom” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “a first CO2-rich gas phase” is indefinite since there is no way to determine what qualifies as CO2-rich.
The recitation, “a CO2-rich liquid phase from the bottom” is indefinite since there is no way to determine what qualifies as CO2-rich. Further, “the bottom” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “lamination by a lamination valve” is indefinite as the term lamination is entirely devoid of meaning and it is unclear what structure is being required.
The recitation, “in step iva)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing the step iva).
In regard to claim 30, the recitation, “of step I)” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing step I).
The recitation, “of sub-step i.” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing sub-step I and there should be no period included.
In regard to claim 34, the recitation, “using electric power available in excess” is indefinite since it is unclear what makes electric power “available in excess”.
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.
Claim limitation “dehydration unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification uses the term but never defines what structure is sufficient to provide for the recited unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “CO2 liquefaction unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure uses the term but never defines what structure is sufficient and necessary to provide for the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 19, 22, 30, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felbab (US 2024/0019208) in view of Smith (US 3438216). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claims 19, 22, Felbab teaches a process (see whole disclosure, including figure 7) comprising:
II) producing a flow of combusted gas (12, from combustor of gas turbine, para. 53) from high-pressure combustion of a fuel (LNG; para. 51) and subjecting the flow of the combusted gas to sub-steps of:
i. expansion (via gas turbine, para. 53), obtaining a flow of expanded combusted gas with power production (output of gas turbine),
ii. cooling (see 14, para. 84),
iii. dehydration (para. 84, see further identifications below),
iv. further cooling (see at least 34), purifying (see separators), and liquefying (see liquid CO2, para. 87), obtaining a flow of liquid CO2 (38, 54, para. 87) and a flow of partially heated oxygen (para. 52, 99 after heating), and
III) making available a flow of liquid oxygen (para. 52),
and in the sub-step iv the flow of the liquid oxygen of the step III) is used to obtain said flow of the partially heated oxygen (para. 52, 99).
Note further that Felbab teaches that the sub-step iii comprises:
iiia) separating (via 16) a first portion (17) of condensed water vapor (para. 84) and a flow with a first level of dehydration (18) in a first separator (16),
iiib) compressing the flow the first level of dehydration (18) in a first compressor (20) obtaining a flow (after 20) with a first level of compression and dehydration (para. 84),
iiic) cooling the flow with the first level of compression and dehydration (after 20) in a first heat exchanger (direct mixing heat exchange structure 24) obtaining a compressed, cooled, and dehydrated flow (after 24), and
iiid) further separating a second portion (bottom of 26) of condensed water vapor and a flow (top of 26) with a second level of dehydration in a second separator (26), and
iiie) treatment the flow with the second level of dehydration (top of 26) in a dehydration unit (35) obtaining a flow with a main composition of CO2 (para. 86), wherein each of the steps iiib), iiic) and iiid) may be repeated several times (see that the process permits continued operation and reoccurrence of these steps).
Felbab, as identified, does not explicitly teach that the heat exchange in the step I) with the flow of the expanded combusted gas is performed using a pumped flow of liquefied natural gas to heat exchange, obtaining a flow of partially vaporized natural gas. However, it is well known to provide cooling to exhaust gas of gas turbines with LNG as taught by Smith. Smith teaches (Fig. 1) cooling exhaust gas (13) from a gas turbine (column 2, line 1-6) with LNG (column 1, line 22, 55) thereby obtaining gainful vaporization of LNG and providing useful cooling of the exhaust gas of the gas turbine. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ LNG to cool the heat exchanger (14) of Felbab to provide useful vaporization of the LNG and useful cooling of the exhaust gas.
Further, official notice is taken that using a pump to move the liquefied natural gas is routine and ordinary. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pump the liquid natural gas for the purpose of providing a desired delivery of the liquid natural gas to the exhaust gas heat exchanger (14) of Felbab and provide the cooling rate desired.
Felbab also does not explicitly teach that the liquid oxygen is pumped. However, official notice is taken that pumping liquid oxygen is routine and ordinary for moving liquid oxygen. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pump the liquid oxygen for the purpose of providing a desired delivery of the liquid oxygen to the CO2 liquefaction heat exchangers of Felbab and provide the cooling rate desired.
Summarily, it is noted that the combination as described provides a process for producing electric power (Smith-from the turbine), natural gas (Smith-vaporized natural gas from the LNG that is heated) and liquid carbon dioxide (LCO2, Felbab-para. 86-87).
In regard to claim 30, Felbab, as modified, teaches that said heat exchange of the step I) is an indirect heat exchange (see Smith-12) between said flow of expanded combusted gas (from gas turbine) and said pumped flow of liquefied natural gas (see pumped LNG as modified from Smith).
In regard to claim 34, Felbab, as modified, teaches that said pumped flow of liquid oxygen (LO2 pumped as described above) and said pumped flow of liquefied natural gas (LNG pumped as described above) are obtained from respective amounts of liquid oxygen and liquefied natural gas; further note that the liquids are liquefied using electric power available in excess (interpreted as using electrical power that is not used for other tasks and is therefore available as claimed).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felbab (US 2024/0019208) in view of Smith (US 3438216) and Darde (US 2014/0026611). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Felbab, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, including: cooling and separating as recited in the steps iva) and ivb), but does not explicitly teach compressing, further cooling and further separating as recited in the steps ivc), ivd), ive). However, such operations are routine and ordinary for liquefying CO2 as taught by Darde. Darde teaches iva) cooling a CO2 flow (1 to 13) in a heat exchanger (E2) of a CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3) obtaining a cooled CO2 flow (18), ivb) separating, from said cooled flow (18), a flow of liquid CO2 (P3) from a bottom of a first separator (P1) of the CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3) and a first CO2-rich gas phase (to C5) from a head (top) of said first separator (P1) of the CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3), ivc) compressing said first CO2-rich gas phase (to C5) in a first compressor (C5) of the CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3) obtaining a first compressed gas phase (after C5), ivd) further cooling said first compressed gas phase (after C5) in said CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3) in said heat exchanger (E2) obtaining a first further cooled gas phase (after E2 before P2), and ive) further separating (via P2), from said first further cooled gas phase (after E2 before P2), a flow of uncondensed gas (33) from a head (top) of a second separator (P2) of the CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3) and a CO2- rich liquid phase (36) from a bottom (bottom of P2), reunited, after expansion by an expansion valve (see valve on 36), with the cooled CO2 flow (18) obtained in the step iva).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the CO2 liquefaction process of Felbab with the semi-open refrigeration loop of Darde for the purpose of providing greater refrigeration to the CO2 liquefaction process and permit greater flexibility in the use of the liquid oxygen so that the liquid oxygen amount can be more suited to the gas turbine demands and yet obtaining some of the cooling demands for CO2 liquefaction therefrom. It is noted that the modification described results in the further cooling of said first compressed gas phase (after C5) in said CO2 liquefaction unit (Fig. 3) being provided at least in part by heat exchange with the pumped flow of liquid oxygen (of Felbab as described above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights