Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-25 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “performs”, “pressurizes”, “heats” supplies” as well as “mixes” combusts”, “extracts”, are supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. The list here is not meant to be limiting or a complete representation of all of the perceived active steps as some may not be as obvious until amendment. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 2 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “pressurizes”, “heats”, “supplies” as well as “mixes” combusts”, “extracts”, are supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. The list here is not meant to be limiting or a complete representation of all of the perceived active steps as some may not be as obvious until amendment. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 3 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “performs”, “pressurizes”, “heats”, supplies” as well as “mixes” combusts”, “extracts”, are supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. The list here is not meant to be limiting or a complete representation of all of the perceived active steps as some may not be as obvious until amendment. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 4 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “performs”, “pressurizes”, “heats” supplies” as well as “mixes” combusts”, “extracts”, are supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. The list here is not meant to be limiting or a complete representation of all of the perceived active steps as some may not be as obvious until amendment. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 6 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “converts” and “is supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 10 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “separates”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 11 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “combusts”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 13 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “liquefies”, “subcools”, “decompresses”, “separates” as well as “causes”, “executes, however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. The list here is not meant to be limiting or a complete representation of all of the perceived active steps as some may not be as obvious until amendment. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 14 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “liquefies”, “subcools”, “extracts” however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. The list here is not meant to be limiting or a complete representation of all of the perceived active steps as some may not be as obvious until amendment. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 16 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “executes”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 16 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “heats” and “raises”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 17 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “absorbs” and “raises”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 19 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “converts” and “is supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 20 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “is supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 21 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “is supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 22 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “is supplied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 24 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “that executes”, “cooled, and liquefied”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claim 25 recites a series of limitation that appear to be active steps such as “is mixed”; however, the claim is recognized to be an apparatus claims and the various parts of the invention are for performing these steps and the claims are not interpreted as requiring active steps performed. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to make it clear that there are not steps being performed in the apparatus claim and it should be noted that how the claim is interpreted with respect to the prior art and what is required for the claimed invention to be present is not changed by the above objection.
Claims 5, 7-9, 12, 15, 18, 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a objected to claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11 and 25 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 11 recites “acid gas combustion device” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) for the use of the nonce term “device” with the function “acid gas combustion”; however, the written description fails to provide any specific structure, material or acts.
Claim 25 recites “a refrigerant vaporized by heat exchange with methane of the light hydrocarbon gas” which is considered new matter. While the methane that is in the light hydrocarbon gas does exchange in the liquefying unit, the light hydrocarbon gas is considered a separate component formed after the liquefaction process (ultimately the stream passed to 391 in Figure 1) and that stream does not undergo any heat exchange which results in this limitation being considered new matter as it lacks written description in the specification.
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 11 and 25 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 limitation “acid gas combustion device” 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 written description fails to provide any specific structure, material or acts 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 25 recites “wherein the carbon dioxide cycle power plant further includes a generator driven by the power generation turbine, the generator being electrically connected to the power consumption device” which is considered indefinite. The claims have already required a generator that is connected to a power turbine that supplies electric power to the power consumption device so it is unclear how this limitation further limits the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims beyond that the power consumption device is specifically part of the liquefaction refrigerant cycle.
Claim 25 recites “re-liquefy a refrigerant gas of a refrigerant vaporized by heat exchange with the methane of the light hydrocarbon gas” which is considered indefinite as the claims have not provided any previous heat exchange of a refrigerant or the methane of the light hydrocarbon gas being separate from the light hydrocarbon gas. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that the heat exchange is between the refrigerant and the fluid that ultimately becomes the light hydrocarbon gas upstream of where the light hydrocarbon gas is formed (in the liquefying unit 341).
Claim 25 recite “so that carbon dioxide separated from the natural gas undergoing liquefaction is mixed with the carbon dioxide fluid in the carbon dioxide cycle power plant, with the carbon dioxide including the carbon dioxide driving the power generation turbine” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear how this limitation relates to the rest of the claim as this limitation is drawn to the carbon dioxide connection and not what is happening to the carbon dioxide fluid. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not considered to further limit the claims beyond what is already claimed.
Claim 25 recites “to power reliquefying of the refrigerant” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how the power generation turbine powers the reliquefaction as reliquefaction is not an electrical based operation. For the purpose of examination, powering the reliquefying is understood to be that the compressor provides flow to the cycle.
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:
extraction facility in claims 1-4, understood to be a flow line,
power consumption device in claims 1, 2, 6 understood to be a motor,
mechanical energy consumption device in claims 3 and 4 understood to be a rotary device which in turn is understood to be a compressor,
pressurizing unit in claims 3 and 4 understood to be a compressor,
acid gas combustion device in claim 11,
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.
Acid gas removal unit, air separation unit, and the facilities referred to in claims 7, 8 and 9 are not considered to invoke 35 USC 112(f) because they are understood to have specific structure or are known specific terms in the art.
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, 3, 5-7, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington et al. (US PG Pub 20140250911), hereinafter referred to as Huntington and further in view of Brugerolle et al. (US PG Pub 20090178408) and Van Der Walt et al. (US PG Pub 20220065526), hereinafter referred to as Van Der Walt.
With respect to claim 1, Huntington (Figure 4) teaches a combined cycle natural gas processing system comprising:
a natural gas processing plant that produces liquefied natural gas from natural gas (natural gas is cooled from 370 in 416 to form LNG 372 with the cycle in 410, paragraphs 70, 81-82, 416 and the cycle of nitrogen is the plant effectively);
and a carbon dioxide cycle power plant that includes a power generation turbine using a carbon dioxide fluid as a driving fluid (gas turbine generator 302 which has expander turbine 322 which receives carbon dioxide in 314, paragraphs 58 and 72), and performs power generation using a carbon dioxide cycle that pressurizes and heats the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine and supplies the carbon dioxide fluid again to the power generation turbine (carbon dioxide would still be in 342 which is compressed in 344 where it would be compressed and heated and passed into combustor 310, paragraph 64),
the carbon dioxide cycle power plant includes: a combustor (302) that is provided on an inlet side of the power generation turbine, mixes the pressurized and heated carbon dioxide fluid with a light hydrocarbon gas containing methane as a main component (in combustor the gas would mix with fuel gas 308 which can be flash gas from the LNG, paragraph 72 which would be a light hydrocarbon containing gas which has methane as a main component) and an oxygen containing agas (air 306) and combusts the carbon dioxide fluid mixed with the light hydrocarbon gas and the oxygen containing gas to generate the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam (in combustor a hot exhaust gas which would be high pressure as it is later expanded is formed 314 that contains CO2 and water, paragraph 58, which is condensed out later, paragraph 62, which means it is high temperature and high pressure steam in the exhaust gas), the light hydrocarbon gas being by-produced when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant (formation of the stream from LNG flash is producing when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant);
a separator that cools the carbon dioxide fluid containing the steam, discharged from the power generation turbine and decompressed, to condense and separate the steam (though not shown in Figure 3, in the EGR cooler, water is condensed form the carbon dioxide that was decompressed in the turbine and removed from the stream passing through, paragraph 62, this can be seen in Figure 2, with the formation of 240 form 236);
and an extraction facility that extracts a carbon dioxide fluid exceeding a required circulation amount, determined according to electric power that needs to be obtained by the power generation, out of the carbon dioxide fluid from which moisture has been separated by the separator (flow line 346 is used to remove compressed diluent stream 312 which is the stream water has been removed from, continuously to maintain the combustion process, paragraph 65 which means it would be capable of doing so to maintain electric power generation, which means the limitation as claimed),
and electric power obtained by driving a generator (generator 326 receives power from the turbine).
Huntington does not teach wherein the natural gas processing plant includes an acid gas removal unit (AGRU) that separates carbon dioxide contained in the natural gas.
Van Der Walt teaches that when natural gas is passed for liquefaction (102) the first step is to remove the acid gases in an acid gas removal unit, specifically carbon dioxide (paragraphs 97-98).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Huntington have provided an acid gas removal unit based on the teaching of Van Der Walt upstream of the liquefaction step where acid gases including carbon dioxide are separated from the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby removing the carbon dioxide would as would be common knowledge in the art prevent it from freezing during the liquefaction step which could comprise the liquefaction heat exchanger.
Huntington does not teach a high-purity oxygen gas is used in the combustor.
Brugerolle teaches oxy-fuel combustion can be used to adapt existing facilities by and by using high purity oxygen in the combustion process generated from an air separation plant, flue gas with higher concentration of carbon dioxide can be produced which reduce the cost of carbon dioxide recovery (paragraph 5).
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 the teaching of Brugerolle to have instead of using air as the oxygen containing gas fed to the combustor of Huntington as modified to have used an air separation plant to produce high purity oxygen that is sent to the combustor to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the flue gas and increase the flue gas concentration of carbon dioxide in order to reduce the cost and difficulty of carbon dioxide recovery. While this would reduce the amount of available nitrogen for cooling in the natural gas plant of Huntington, Huntington already considers that additional refrigeration may be required for the LNG system (paragraph 85) so it would still be obvious to make this change for the benefit or reducing the cost and difficulty of the carbon dioxide recovery by producing a higher carbon dioxide concentration flue gas stream.
Huntington does not teach generator using the power generation turbine is supplied to a power consumption device provided in the natural gas processing plant.
Van Der Walt teaches in an LNG production facility, that a gas turbine can be used to drive an electric generator, which can then use the electric power to power at least one compressor within the liquefaction unit, which compressors are driven by an electric motor (paragraph 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have based on the teaching of Van Der Walt to have in Huntington provide electricity generated by the generator to drive an electric motor for a compressor (402) of the refrigeration cycle of Huntington as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that by using electrical power generated within the same system within the system (such as to power the compressors) it would reduce overall costs by reducing the need to use external power to drive a motor for the compressor.
Huntington as modified does not teach the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility and a carbon dioxide separation stream separated by the acid gas removal unit are supplied to a carbon dioxide reception facility capable of receiving carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide generated with production of the liquefied natural gas is not released to atmosphere.
Van Der Walt (Figure 1) teaches that acid gas which contains carbon dioxide removed from an acid gas unit and carbon dioxide removed from a flue gas turbine are removed from a gas turbine heat turbine are both passed to sequestration compression that they can be sent for off-site sequestration to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility such as in a storage tank (paragraphs 117-124).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt in Huntington as modified to have sent both the carbon dioxide fluid from acid gas removal unit and from the line (which is the extraction facility 346, ultimately removed as 352) for sequestration compression and storage in a storage tank (which would be carbon dioxide capture and storage) in order to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility.
With respect to claim 3, Huntington (Figure 4) teaches a combined cycle natural gas processing system comprising:
a natural gas processing plant that produces liquefied natural gas from natural gas (natural gas is cooled from 370 in 416 to form LNG 372 with the cycle in 410, paragraphs 70, 81-82, 416 and the cycle of nitrogen is the plant effectively);
and a carbon dioxide cycle plant that includes an energy conversion turbine configured to convert energy held by a driving fluid into mechanical energy using a carbon dioxide fluid as the driving fluid (gas turbine generator 302 which has expander turbine 322 which receives carbon dioxide in 314, paragraphs 58 and 72, which uses the mechanical energy from the turbine to drive a generator), and obtains the mechanical energy using a carbon dioxide cycle that pressurizes and heats the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the energy conversion turbine and supplies the carbon dioxide fluid again to the energy conversion turbine (carbon dioxide would still be in 342 which is compressed in 344 where it would be compressed and heated and passed into combustor 310, paragraph 64),
the carbon dioxide cycle power plant includes: a combustor (302) that is provided on an inlet side of the power generation turbine, mixes the pressurized and heated carbon dioxide fluid with a light hydrocarbon gas containing methane as a main component (in combustor the gas would mix with fuel gas 308 which can be flash gas from the LNG, paragraph 72 which would be a light hydrocarbon containing gas which has methane as a main component) and an oxygen containing agas (air 306) and combusts the carbon dioxide fluid mixed with the light hydrocarbon gas and the oxygen containing gas to generate the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam (in combustor a hot exhaust gas which would be high pressure as it is later expanded is formed 314 that contains CO2 and water, paragraph 58, which is condensed out later, paragraph 62, which means it is high temperature and high pressure steam in the exhaust gas), the light hydrocarbon gas being by-produced when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant (formation of the stream from LNG flash is producing when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant);
a separator that cools the carbon dioxide fluid containing the steam, discharged from the power generation turbine and decompressed, to condense and separate the steam (though not shown in Figure 3, in the EGR cooler, water is condensed form the carbon dioxide that was decompressed in the turbine and removed from the stream passing through, paragraph 62, this can be seen in Figure 2, with the formation of 240 form 236);
and an extraction facility that extracts a carbon dioxide fluid exceeding a required circulation amount, determined according to the mechanical energy that needs to be obtained by the energy conversion, out of the carbon dioxide fluid from which moisture has been separated by the separator (flow line 346 is used to remove compressed diluent stream 312 which is the stream water has been removed from, continuously to maintain the combustion process, paragraph 65 which means it would be capable of doing so to maintain electric power generation, which means the limitation as claimed),
and mechanical energy obtained by driving the energy conversion turbine is supplied (generator (generator 326 receives power from the turbine, which is a supplying of power).
Huntington does not teach wherein the natural gas processing plant includes an acid gas removal unit (AGRU) that separates carbon dioxide contained in the natural gas.
Van Der Walt teaches that when natural gas is passed for liquefaction (102) the first step is to remove the acid gases in an acid gas removal unit, specifically carbon dioxide (paragraphs 97-98).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Huntington have provided an acid gas removal unit based on the teaching of Van Der Walt upstream of the liquefaction step where acid gases including carbon dioxide are separated from the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby removing the carbon dioxide would as would be common knowledge in the art prevent it from freezing during the liquefaction step which could comprise the liquefaction heat exchanger.
Huntington does not teach a high-purity oxygen gas is used in the combustor.
Brugerolle teaches oxy-fuel combustion can be used to adapt existing facilities by and by using high purity oxygen in the combustion process generated from an air separation plant, flue gas with higher concentration of carbon dioxide can be produced which reduce the cost of carbon dioxide recovery (paragraph 5).
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 the teaching of Brugerolle to have instead of using air as the oxygen containing gas fed to the combustor of Huntington as modified to have used an air separation plant to produce high purity oxygen that is sent to the combustor to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the flue gas and increase the flue gas concentration of carbon dioxide in order to reduce the cost and difficulty of carbon dioxide recovery. While this would reduce the amount of available nitrogen for cooling in the natural gas plant of Huntington, Huntington already considers that additional refrigeration may be required for the LNG system (paragraph 85) so it would still be obvious to make this change for the benefit or reducing the cost and difficulty of the carbon dioxide recovery by producing a higher carbon dioxide concentration flue gas stream.
Huntington as modified does not teach the mechanical energy obtained by driving the energy conversion turbine is supplied to a mechanical energy consumption device provided in the natural gas processing plant.
Van Der Walt teaches in an LNG production facility, that a gas turbine can be mechanically coupled to a compressor within the liquefaction unit (paragraph 132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have based on the teaching of Van Der Walt to have in Huntington provided a mechanical coupling between the gas turbine and the compressor (402) of the refrigeration cycle since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that by using a gas turbine within the system to generate mechanical energy used for providing driving to a compressor somewhere else within the system it would reduce overall costs by reducing the need to use external power to drive a motor for the compressor. This would mean that in addition to the electrical generator or instead of, the turbine would provide mechanical energy to the compressor which is a rotary device that consumes mechanical power and the turbine is still generating mechanical energy.
Huntington as modified does not teach the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to a carbon dioxide reception facility capable of receiving carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide generated with production of the liquefied natural gas is not released to atmosphere.
Van Der Walt (Figure 1) teaches that acid gas which contains carbon dioxide removed from an acid gas unit and carbon dioxide removed from a flue gas turbine are removed from a gas turbine heat turbine are both passed to sequestration compression that they can be sent for off-site sequestration to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility such as in a storage tank (paragraphs 117-124).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt in Huntington as modified to have sent both the carbon dioxide fluid from acid gas removal unit and from the line (which is the extraction facility 346, ultimately removed as 352) for sequestration compression and storage in a storage tank (which would be carbon dioxide capture and storage) in order to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility.
With respect to claim 5, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the mechanical energy consumption device is a rotary device provided in the natural gas processing plant, and the energy conversion turbine is a drive turbine configured to drive the rotary device (a compressor is a rotary device, and as the turbine is driving the compressor it can be considered a drive turbine).
With respect to claim 6, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide cycle plant further includes a power generation turbine that converts the energy held by the driving fluid into electrical energy (the cycle produces steam 332 using an HRSG which drives a turbine which in turn provides energy to an electric generator to generate additional electricity).
Huntington does not teach electric power obtained by driving a generator using the power generation turbine is supplied to a power consumption device provided in the natural gas processing plant.
Van Der Walt teaches in an LNG production facility, that a turbine that produces electricity using a generator can then use the electric power to power at least one compressor within the liquefaction unit, which compressors are driven by an electric motor (paragraph 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have based on the teaching of Van Der Walt to have in Huntington provide electricity generated by the generator to drive an electric motor for a compressor (402) of the refrigeration cycle of Huntington as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that by using electrical power generated within the same system within the system (such as to power the compressors) it would provide another way to drive the compressor to ensure compressor operations as desired.
With respect to claim 7, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to the carbon dioxide reception facility that is a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility (the combination of the sequestration compressors and the tank in which the carbon dioxide is captured and stored are a CCS).
With respect to claim 16, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide cycle includes a heat exchange unit that heats a heating medium by heat exchange between the carbon dioxide fluid at a high temperature flowing in the carbon dioxide cycle and the heating medium (HRSG 304 which boils water against the hot exhaust gas which includes the carbon dioxide), the heat exchange unit raises a temperature of a fluid to be heated (water), which flows through a device (the steam is provided to a steam turbine).
Huntington as modified does not teach the device is a device that requires heat that is part of the natural gas processing plant where the heat medium which flows through the device requiring a heat source provided in the natural gas processing plant, in a heating unit, and then, is supplied again to the heat exchange unit in a state of being lowered in temperature.
Van Der Walt (Paragraph 115) teaches that a waste heat recovery unit can be used to heat up a medium such as hot oil to provide additional heat where required such as in amine or dehydration regeneration (paragraph 114).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt in Huntington provided oil to be heated by the heat recovery system (instead of steam) so that it can be provided to an amine regeneration system since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the waste heat in this way would allow for it to be utilized advantageously to aid in in the acid gas removal unit (paragraph 115 of Van Der Walt). The regeneration step would be a heating unit where heat is given up.
Further, while Huntington as modified by Van Der Walt does not teach the hot oil is passed back to the heat recovery system in a lowered temperature examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known that using a closed cycle where after use a hot oil is recycled back for heating would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in order to allow for recycle of the hot oil and thus a more cost efficient system by not requiring new oil after every usage.
With respect to claim 21, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to the carbon dioxide reception facility that is a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility (the carbon dioxide is captured and stored in a tank, which can be considered a CCS).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 12, 18-20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington and further in view of Brugerolle and Van Der Walt and further in view of Tomomi et al. (WO2008139536), hereinafter referred to as Tomomi.
With respect to claim 2, Huntington (Figure 4) teaches a combined cycle natural gas processing system comprising:
a natural gas processing plant that produces liquefied natural gas from natural gas (natural gas is cooled from 370 in 416 to form LNG 372 with the cycle in 410, paragraphs 70, 81-82, 416 and the cycle of nitrogen is the plant effectively);
and a carbon dioxide cycle power plant that includes a power generation turbine using a carbon dioxide fluid as a driving fluid (gas turbine generator 302 which has expander turbine 322 which receives carbon dioxide in 314, paragraphs 58 and 72), and performs power generation using a carbon dioxide cycle that pressurizes and heats the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine and supplies the carbon dioxide fluid again to the power generation turbine (carbon dioxide would still be in 342 which is compressed in 344 where it would be compressed and heated and passed into combustor 310, paragraph 64),
the carbon dioxide cycle power plant includes: a combustor (302) that is provided on an inlet side of the power generation turbine, mixes the pressurized and heated carbon dioxide fluid with a light hydrocarbon gas containing methane as a main component (in combustor the gas would mix with fuel gas 308 which can be flash gas from the LNG, paragraph 72 which would be a light hydrocarbon containing gas which has methane as a main component) and an oxygen containing agas (air 306) and combusts the carbon dioxide fluid mixed with the light hydrocarbon gas and the oxygen containing gas to generate the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam (in combustor a hot exhaust gas which would be high pressure as it is later expanded is formed 314 that contains CO2 and water, paragraph 58, which is condensed out later, paragraph 62, which means it is high temperature and high pressure steam in the exhaust gas), the light hydrocarbon gas being by-produced when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant (formation of the stream from LNG flash is producing when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant);
a separator that cools the carbon dioxide fluid containing the steam, discharged from the power generation turbine and decompressed, to condense and separate the steam (though not shown in Figure 3, in the EGR cooler, water is condensed form the carbon dioxide that was decompressed in the turbine and removed from the stream passing through, paragraph 62, this can be seen in Figure 2, with the formation of 240 form 236);
and an extraction facility that extracts a carbon dioxide fluid exceeding a required circulation amount, determined according to electric power that needs to be obtained by the power generation, out of the carbon dioxide fluid from which moisture has been separated by the separator (flow line 346 is used to remove compressed diluent stream 312 which is the stream water has been removed from, continuously to maintain the combustion process, paragraph 65 which means it would be capable of doing so to maintain electric power generation, which means the limitation as claimed),
and electric power obtained by driving a generator (generator 326 receives power from the turbine).
Huntington does not teach wherein the natural gas processing plant includes an acid gas removal unit (AGRU) that separates carbon dioxide contained in the natural gas.
Van Der Walt teaches that when natural gas is passed for liquefaction (102) the first step is to remove the acid gases in an acid gas removal unit, specifically carbon dioxide (paragraphs 97-98).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Huntington have provided an acid gas removal unit based on the teaching of Van Der Walt upstream of the liquefaction step where acid gases including carbon dioxide are separated from the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby removing the carbon dioxide would as would be common knowledge in the art prevent it from freezing during the liquefaction step which could comprise the liquefaction heat exchanger.
Huntington as modified does not teach a pressurizing unit that pressurizes a carbon dioxide separation stream separated by the acid gas removal unit; and a carbon dioxide supply line that causes the carbon dioxide separation stream pressurized in the pressurizing unit to join the carbon dioxide fluid flowing in the carbon dioxide cycle.
Tomomi teaches (Figure 4) that carbon dioxide which has been separated from natural gas and liquefied can be mixed into a compressor that compresses feed air entering a combustor in order to cool the air in the compressor in order to increase the flow rate of the working fluid and provide cooling to the air which can allow the turbine to operate under overload with reduced cost (paragraph 41-43).
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 Tomomi have liquefied the separated carbon dioxide from Huntington and then passed that liquefied carbon dioxide into a compressor for the oxygen containing gas that is passed into the combustor of Huntington before passing the combined carbon dioxide/oxygen containing gas into the turbine in order to allow the turbine to be operated in overload with a reduced cost. As the carbon dioxide in the cycle is also introduced into the combustor, then they together are joined after the pressurizing unit that is the compressor when they enter the combustor.
Huntington does not teach a high-purity oxygen gas is used in the combustor.
Brugerolle teaches oxy-fuel combustion can be used to adapt existing facilities by and by using high purity oxygen in the combustion process generated from an air separation plant, flue gas with higher concentration of carbon dioxide can be produced which reduce the cost of carbon dioxide recovery (paragraph 5).
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 the teaching of Brugerolle to have instead of using air as the oxygen containing gas fed to the combustor of Huntington as modified to have used an air separation plant to produce high purity oxygen that is sent to the combustor to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the flue gas and increase the flue gas concentration of carbon dioxide in order to reduce the cost and difficulty of carbon dioxide recovery. While this would reduce the amount of available nitrogen for cooling in the natural gas plant of Huntington, Huntington already considers that additional refrigeration may be required for the LNG system (paragraph 85) so it would still be obvious to make this change for the benefit or reducing the cost and difficulty of the carbon dioxide recovery by producing a higher carbon dioxide concentration flue gas stream.
Huntington does not teach generator using the power generation turbine is supplied to a power consumption device provided in the natural gas processing plant.
Van Der Walt teaches in an LNG production facility, that a gas turbine can be used to drive an electric generator, which can then use the electric power to power at least one compressor within the liquefaction unit, which compressors are driven by an electric motor (paragraph 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have based on the teaching of Van Der Walt to have in Huntington provide electricity generated by the generator to drive an electric motor for a compressor (402) of the refrigeration cycle of Huntington as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that by using electrical power generated within the same system within the system (such as to power the compressors) it would reduce overall costs by reducing the need to use external power to drive a motor for the compressor.
Huntington as modified does not teach the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility and a carbon dioxide separation stream separated by the acid gas removal unit are supplied to a carbon dioxide reception facility capable of receiving carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide generated with production of the liquefied natural gas is not released to atmosphere.
Van Der Walt (Figure 1) teaches that acid gas which contains carbon dioxide removed from an acid gas unit and carbon dioxide removed from a flue gas turbine are removed from a gas turbine heat turbine are both passed to sequestration compression that they can be sent for off-site sequestration to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility such as in a storage tank (paragraphs 117-124).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt in Huntington as modified to have sent both the carbon dioxide fluid from acid gas removal unit and from the line (which is the extraction facility 346, ultimately removed as 352) for sequestration compression and storage in a storage tank (which would be carbon dioxide capture and storage) in order to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility.
With respect to claim 4, Huntington (Figure 4) teaches a combined cycle natural gas processing system comprising:
a natural gas processing plant that produces liquefied natural gas from natural gas (natural gas is cooled from 370 in 416 to form LNG 372 with the cycle in 410, paragraphs 70, 81-82, 416 and the cycle of nitrogen is the plant effectively);
and a carbon dioxide cycle plant that includes an energy conversion turbine configured to convert energy held by a driving fluid into mechanical energy using a carbon dioxide fluid as the driving fluid (gas turbine generator 302 which has expander turbine 322 which receives carbon dioxide in 314, paragraphs 58 and 72, which uses the mechanical energy from the turbine to drive a generator), and obtains the mechanical energy using a carbon dioxide cycle that pressurizes and heats the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the energy conversion turbine and supplies the carbon dioxide fluid again to the energy conversion turbine (carbon dioxide would still be in 342 which is compressed in 344 where it would be compressed and heated and passed into combustor 310, paragraph 64),
the carbon dioxide cycle power plant includes: a combustor (302) that is provided on an inlet side of the power generation turbine, mixes the pressurized and heated carbon dioxide fluid with a light hydrocarbon gas containing methane as a main component (in combustor the gas would mix with fuel gas 308 which can be flash gas from the LNG, paragraph 72 which would be a light hydrocarbon containing gas which has methane as a main component) and an oxygen containing agas (air 306) and combusts the carbon dioxide fluid mixed with the light hydrocarbon gas and the oxygen containing gas to generate the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam (in combustor a hot exhaust gas which would be high pressure as it is later expanded is formed 314 that contains CO2 and water, paragraph 58, which is condensed out later, paragraph 62, which means it is high temperature and high pressure steam in the exhaust gas), the light hydrocarbon gas being by-produced when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant (formation of the stream from LNG flash is producing when the liquefied natural gas is produced in the natural gas processing plant);
a separator that cools the carbon dioxide fluid containing the steam, discharged from the power generation turbine and decompressed, to condense and separate the steam (though not shown in Figure 3, in the EGR cooler, water is condensed form the carbon dioxide that was decompressed in the turbine and removed from the stream passing through, paragraph 62, this can be seen in Figure 2, with the formation of 240 form 236);
and an extraction facility that extracts a carbon dioxide fluid exceeding a required circulation amount, determined according to the mechanical energy that needs to be obtained by the energy conversion, out of the carbon dioxide fluid from which moisture has been separated by the separator (flow line 346 is used to remove compressed diluent stream 312 which is the stream water has been removed from, continuously to maintain the combustion process, paragraph 65 which means it would be capable of doing so to maintain electric power generation, which means the limitation as claimed),
and mechanical energy obtained by driving the energy conversion turbine is supplied (generator (generator 326 receives power from the turbine, which is a supplying of power).
Huntington does not teach wherein the natural gas processing plant includes an acid gas removal unit (AGRU) that separates carbon dioxide contained in the natural gas.
Van Der Walt teaches that when natural gas is passed for liquefaction (102) the first step is to remove the acid gases in an acid gas removal unit, specifically carbon dioxide (paragraphs 97-98).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Huntington have provided an acid gas removal unit based on the teaching of Van Der Walt upstream of the liquefaction step where acid gases including carbon dioxide are separated from the natural gas since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby removing the carbon dioxide would as would be common knowledge in the art prevent it from freezing during the liquefaction step which could comprise the liquefaction heat exchanger.
Huntington as modified does not teach a pressurizing unit that pressurizes a carbon dioxide separation stream separated by the acid gas removal unit; and a carbon dioxide supply line that causes the carbon dioxide separation stream pressurized in the pressurizing unit to join the carbon dioxide fluid flowing in the carbon dioxide cycle.
Tomomi teaches (Figure 4) that carbon dioxide which has been separated from natural gas and liquefied can be mixed into a compressor that compresses feed air entering a combustor in order to cool the air in the compressor in order to increase the flow rate of the working fluid and provide cooling to the air which can allow the turbine to operate under overload with reduced cost (paragraph 41-43).
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 Tomomi have liquefied the separated carbon dioxide from Huntington and then passed that liquefied carbon dioxide into a compressor for the oxygen containing gas that is passed into the combustor of Huntington before passing the combined carbon dioxide/oxygen containing gas into the turbine in order to allow the turbine to be operated in overload with a reduced cost. As the carbon dioxide in the cycle is also introduced into the combustor, then they together are joined after the pressurizing unit that is the compressor when they enter the combustor.
Huntington does not teach a high-purity oxygen gas is used in the combustor.
Brugerolle teaches oxy-fuel combustion can be used to adapt existing facilities by and by using high purity oxygen in the combustion process generated from an air separation plant, flue gas with higher concentration of carbon dioxide can be produced which reduce the cost of carbon dioxide recovery (paragraph 5).
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 the teaching of Brugerolle to have instead of using air as the oxygen containing gas fed to the combustor of Huntington as modified to have used an air separation plant to produce high purity oxygen that is sent to the combustor to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the flue gas and increase the flue gas concentration of carbon dioxide in order to reduce the cost and difficulty of carbon dioxide recovery. While this would reduce the amount of available nitrogen for cooling in the natural gas plant of Huntington, Huntington already considers that additional refrigeration may be required for the LNG system (paragraph 85) so it would still be obvious to make this change for the benefit or reducing the cost and difficulty of the carbon dioxide recovery by producing a higher carbon dioxide concentration flue gas stream.
Huntington as modified does not teach the mechanical energy obtained by driving the energy conversion turbine is supplied to a mechanical energy consumption device provided in the natural gas processing plant.
Van Der Walt teaches in an LNG production facility, that a gas turbine can be mechanically coupled to a compressor within the liquefaction unit (paragraph 132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have based on the teaching of Van Der Walt to have in Huntington provided a mechanical coupling between the gas turbine and the compressor (402) of the refrigeration cycle since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that by using a gas turbine within the system to generate mechanical energy used for providing driving to a compressor somewhere else within the system it would reduce overall costs by reducing the need to use external power to drive a motor for the compressor. This would mean that in addition to the electrical generator or instead of, the turbine would provide mechanical energy to the compressor which is a rotary device that consumes mechanical power and the turbine is still generating mechanical energy.
Huntington as modified does not teach the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to a carbon dioxide reception facility capable of receiving carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide generated with production of the liquefied natural gas is not released to atmosphere.
Van Der Walt (Figure 1) teaches that acid gas which contains carbon dioxide removed from an acid gas unit and carbon dioxide removed from a flue gas turbine are removed from a gas turbine heat turbine are both passed to sequestration compression that they can be sent for off-site sequestration to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility such as in a storage tank (paragraphs 117-124).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt in Huntington as modified to have sent both the carbon dioxide fluid from acid gas removal unit and from the line (which is the extraction facility 346, ultimately removed as 352) for sequestration compression and storage in a storage tank (which would be carbon dioxide capture and storage) in order to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from the facility.
With respect to claim 12, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the natural gas processing plant includes a light hydrocarbon gas supply line configured to supply a boil-off gas as the light hydrocarbon gas to the combustor (as modified flash gas is passed from the tank to the combustor, paragraph 72).
Huntington as modified does not explicitly teach that the flash gas is vaporized in a storage tank storing the liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Van Der Walt teaches that boil-off (also know as flash gas) sent for fuel conditioning for a gas turbine comes from a storage tank (paragraphs 133-135).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt to have when providing flash gas back to the combustor of Huntington for it to have came from a storage tank where the LNG generated is stored since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that removing boil-off gas from a storage tank for use is prevents over pressurization in the tank while also allowing for recovery of valuable gases in the boil-off.
With respect to claim 18, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the mechanical energy consumption device is a rotary device provided in the natural gas processing plant, and the energy conversion turbine is a drive turbine configured to drive the rotary device (a compressor is a rotary device, and as the turbine is driving the compressor it can be considered a drive turbine).
With respect to claim 19, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide cycle plant further includes a power generation turbine that converts the energy held by the driving fluid into electrical energy (the cycle produces steam 332 using an HRSG which drives a turbine which in turn provides energy to an electric generator to generate additional electricity).
Huntington does not teach electric power obtained by driving a generator using the power generation turbine is supplied to a power consumption device provided in the natural gas processing plant.
Van Der Walt teaches in an LNG production facility, that a turbine that produces electricity using a generator can then use the electric power to power at least one compressor within the liquefaction unit, which compressors are driven by an electric motor (paragraph 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have based on the teaching of Van Der Walt to have in Huntington provide electricity generated by the generator to drive an electric motor for a compressor (402) of the refrigeration cycle of Huntington as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that by using electrical power generated within the same system within the system (such as to power the compressors) it would provide another way to drive the compressor to ensure compressor operations as desired.
With respect to claim 20, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to the carbon dioxide reception facility that is a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility (the carbon dioxide is captured and stored in a tank, which can be considered a CCS).
With respect to claim 22, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to the carbon dioxide reception facility that is a carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) facility (the carbon dioxide is captured and stored in a tank, which can be considered a CCS).
Claim(s) 8, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt and further in view of Briglia et al. (US Patent No. 9746233), hereinafter referred to as Briglia.
With respect to claim 8, Huntington as modified does not teach wherein a carbon dioxide capture and storage facility is formed by the carbon dioxide reception facility, the CCS facility configured to receive the carbon dioxide separation stream separated by the acid gas removal unit and the carbon dioxide fluid extracted form the extraction facility, the CCS facility configured to pressurize the receive carbon dioxide separation stream and join the received carbon dioxide fluid with the pressured carbon dioxide separation stream into a joined fluid which is stored by the CCS facility.
Huntington (Figure 1) as modified does not teach the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to the CCS facility which is the carbon dioxide reception facility where they are stored, and joins the pressurized carbon dioxide separation stream, and the joined carbon dioxide fluid and the carbon dioxide separation stream are stored together. Huntington does teach combining the carbon dioxide, but not after the carbon dioxide stream from the acid gas removal system is pressurized before the combining.
Briglia teaches that when two stream are combined to be removed one can be first compressed (43) in C2 before being combined with the other (35) mixed into the compressor with the already compressed first stream (intermediate point of C2) before they are both removed from the system (Column 5, lines 1-5).
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 the teaching of Briglia to have in Huntington as modified first compressed the carbon dioxide stream from the AGRU in the sequestration compressor and then combined it with the carbon dioxide fluid being also being passed to the sequestration compressor at a middle inlet of the sequestration compressor prior to sequestration since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that when mixing two fluids one can be compressed prior to mixing with the other in order to ensure they are at the same pressure.
With respect to claim 23, Huntington as modified does not teach wherein a carbon dioxide capture and storage facility is formed by the carbon dioxide reception facility, the CCS facility configured to receive the carbon dioxide separation stream separated by the acid gas removal unit and the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility, the CCS facility configured to pressurize the receive carbon dioxide separation stream and join the received carbon dioxide fluid with the pressured carbon dioxide separation stream into a joined fluid which is stored by the CCS facility.
Huntington (Figure 1) as modified and the carbon dioxide fluid extracted from the extraction facility is supplied to the CCS facility which is the carbon dioxide reception facility, and joins the pressurized carbon dioxide separation stream, and the joined carbon dioxide fluid and the carbon dioxide separation stream are stored together. Huntington does teach combining the carbon dioxide, but not after the carbon dioxide stream from the acid gas removal system is pressurized before the combining.
Briglia teaches that when two stream are combined to be removed one can be first compressed (43) in C2 before being combined with the other (35) mixed into the compressor with the already compressed first stream (intermediate point of C2) before they are both removed from the system (Column 5, lines 1-5).
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 the teaching of Briglia to have in Huntington as modified first compressed the carbon dioxide stream from the AGRU in the sequestration compressor and then combined it with the carbon dioxide fluid being also being passed to the sequestration compressor at a middle inlet of the sequestration compressor prior to sequestration since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that when mixing two fluids one can be compressed prior to mixing with the other in order to ensure they are at the same pressure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt and Felbab (US PG Pub 20180265283), hereinafter referred to as Felbab.
With respect to claim 9, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the natural gas processing plant includes an air separation unit (ASU) configured to separate air into an oxygen gas and a nitrogen gas to produce the oxygen gas to be supplied to the combustor (as modified there is an air separation unit which would produce oxygen and nitrogen and is providing the oxygen to the combustor).
Huntington as modified does not teach a nitrogen gas use facility, wherein the air separation unit includes a nitrogen gas supply line configured to supply the obtained nitrogen gas a facility that supplies a blanket gas to a storage tank.
Felbab teaches that nitrogen gas provided by a nitrogen generator can be provided as a blanket gas to an oil storage tank (paragraph 73).
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 the teaching of Felbab as modified to have used nitrogen produced in the air separation plant of Felbab as Huntington as modified to be sent for providing a blanket gas in an oil storage tank since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the gas as a blanket gas would allow what is common knowledge in the art of using it in order to provide safer storage of the fluid in the tank.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt/Felbab and further in view of Mak (US PG Pub 20110056238), hereinafter referred to as Mak.
With respect to claim 10, Huntington as modified does not teach wherein the natural gas processing plant includes a nitrogen gas separation unit that separates a nitrogen gas from the light hydrocarbon gas that is supplied to the combustor and contains the methane as the main component.
Mak teaches that when desired boil-off gas can be liquefied and then a separator can be provided to separate the nitrogen from the boil-off gas to provide a lean boil-off gas (paragraph 21).
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 the teaching of Mak taken the flash gas of Huntington as modified and liquefied it and passed it to a separator prior to passing it to the combustor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby first removing nitrogen from the flash gas (thus producing a nitrogen stream) would allow for control of the source of fuel sent to the combustor which would allow for additional temperature control to the burner as well as a reduction in nitrous oxides produced by the combustion process by reducing the amount of nitrogen in the combustion.
Huntington does not teach the nitrogen gas separated by the nitrogen gas separation unit joins nitrogen in the nitrogen gas supply line and is used in the nitrogen gas use facility.
Van Der Walt teaches that multiple similar fluids can be combined (See Figure 1) for use together (paragraph 105-107).
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 the teaching of Van Der Walt to have when producing two separate nitrogen streams in Huntington as modified (one from the air separation, the other from boil-off gas separation) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that similar streams generated from different methods in a system can be combined to increase the total product for use together.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt and further in view of Dean et al. (US PG Pub 201600003527), hereinafter referred to as Dean.
With respect to claim 15, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the power consumption device includes a drive motor of a compressor that executes compression of a refrigerant to compress the refrigerant (the power consumption device is an electric motor for the compressor of the refrigerant).
Huntington as modified does not the compressor compressed the refrigerant after the refrigerant used in the natural gas processing plant for cooling the natural gas is vaporized by heat exchange with the natural gas wherein the refrigerant is subsequently cooled, and liquefied in a refrigeration cycle.
Dean teaches that to liquefy natural gas nitrogen can be in a cycle where liquid nitrogen is vaporized in a cold box (heat exchanger) against the natural gas being liquefied and then reliquefied and sent back to form a closed loop (paragraphs 24-27).
Therefor 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 the teaching of Dean provided the nitrogen in the cycle of Huntington as modified such that it liquefies and is then vaporized by cooling of the natural gas and then after being used is reliquefied whereby it is common knowledge in the art that using liquid nitrogen would allow the natural gas to be brought to a lower temperature, increasing the amount of sub-cooling which can reduce the amount of natural gas lost to flash. As the compressor is in the cycle, such operation can be considered to happen either before or after compression as it is a loop.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt and further in view of Asaka et al. (US PG Pub 20190128599)
With respect to claim 17, Huntington as modified teaches the heating unit is for fluid to be heated is the absorbing liquid (as modified regeneration heat is provided for an amine solution which is an absorbing liquid by the heating unit).
Huntington as modified does not teach wherein the acid gas removal unit includes: an absorption column which absorbs an acid gas containing the carbon dioxide contained in the natural gas using a gas absorbing liquid; a regeneration column which regenerates the gas absorbing liquid; and a reboiler which raises a temperature of the gas absorbing liquid in the regeneration column and desorb the absorbed acid gas, and the heating unit is a reboiler, and the fluid to be heated is the gas absorbing liquid in the regeneration column.
Asaka (Figure 2) teaches that an amine absorption column (901) with an amine compound is used to remove acid gas component from natural gas and that the absorption solution with the absorbed acid gas is heated by the reboiler (903) of an amine regeneration column (902) to separate the acid gas from the amine liquid so that the amine liquid can be recycled back to the amine absorption column.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the acid gas removal unit of Huntington as modified to have had the acid gas removal unit included an amine absorption column which absorbs an acid gas containing the carbon dioxide contained in the natural gas using a gas absorbing liquid (amine solution); a regeneration column which regenerates the gas absorbing liquid; and a reboiler which raises a temperature of the gas absorbing liquid in the regeneration column and desorb the absorbed acid gas, where the heating unit is a reboiler heats the gas absorbing liquid in the regeneration column since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing this configuration is common knowledge in the art of way to have a high recovery of acid gases from the natural gas stream.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt/Tomomi and further in view of Dean.
With respect to claim 24, Huntington as modified teaches wherein the power consumption device includes a drive motor of a compressor that executes compression of a refrigerant to compress, cool the refrigerant (the power consumption device is an electric motor for the compressor of the refrigerant).
Huntington as modified does not the compressor compressed the refrigerant after the refrigerant used in the natural gas processing plant for cooling the natural gas is vaporized by heat exchange with the natural gas wherein the refrigerant is subsequently cooled, and liquefied in a refrigeration cycle.
Dean teaches that to liquefy natural gas nitrogen can be in a cycle where liquid nitrogen is vaporized in a cold box (heat exchanger) against the natural gas being liquefied and then reliquefied and sent back to form a closed loop (paragraphs 24-27).
Therefor 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 the teaching of Dean provided the nitrogen in the cycle of Huntington as modified such that it liquefies and is then vaporized by cooling of the natural gas and then after being used is reliquefied whereby it is common knowledge in the art that using liquid nitrogen would allow the natural gas to be brought to a lower temperature, increasing the amount of sub-cooling which can reduce the amount of natural gas lost to flash. As the compressor is in the cycle, such operation can be considered to happen either before or after compression as it is a loop.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huntington/Brugerolle/Van Der Walt and further in view of Seitter et al. (US PG Pub 20160061516), hereinafter referred to as Seitter.
With respect to claim 25, Huntington as modified teaches so that the carbon dioxide separated from the natural gas undergoing liquefaction is mixed with the carbon dioxide fluid in the carbon dioxide cycle power plant - with the carbon dioxide fluid including the carbon dioxide driving the power generation turbine (as modified the carbon dioxide streams are mixed, where the stream from 346 is the stream from the power generation turbine),
wherein the carbon dioxide cycle power plant further includes a generator driven by the power generation turbine (generator 326), wherein the liquefaction refrigerant cycle includes the power consumption device such that the generator is electrically connected to the power consumption device of the liquefaction refrigerant cycle, such that the power generation turbine powers re-liquefying of the refrigerant used and vaporized during liquefaction of the natural gas (as modified the compressor is driven by the generator through an electric connection and is a refrigerant compressor).
Huntington as modified does not teach wherein the natural gas processing plant performs refrigerant liquefaction using a liquefaction refrigerant cycle configured to compress, cool, and re-liquefy a refrigerant gas of a refrigerant vaporized by heat exchange with the methane of the light hydrocarbon gas.
Seitter (Figure 1) teaches that to liquefy natural gas (stream 120) that a cycle is used in which refrigerant is compressed (160 in 74/76, paragraph 76) and then cooled and condensed (refrigerant vapor is condensed, paragraphs 86-87) before it is used to liquefy the natural gas (120 to 122, paragraph 38) which vaporizes the refrigerant (176 becomes 160 against 120, paragraph 77).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the refrigeration cycle of Huntington as modified to have been one in which a liquefaction refrigerant is circulated in a cycle where the refrigerant is a liquid which is vaporized against the methane in the natural gas and is compressed, cooled and reliquefied in the cycle based on the teaching of Seitter since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is common knowledge in the art that a cycle in which liquid refrigerant is vaporized, compressed and reliquefied would be a suitable cycle for providing the necessary cooling for liquefaction of natural gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant (page 24) argues that Huntington relies on the nitrogen produced for the refrigeration process for the LNG and that it would destroy the primary function of the refrigeration system by applying Brugerolle’s oxy-combustion system and as such one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to make the modification and further that examiner’s reference to “supplementary refrigeration” as justification is an overreach because supplementary is not mean to be a replacement and further that such modification is made with impermissible hindsight. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that it would have not been obvious to use the oxy-combustion system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case based on the combined teachings of Huntington one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the oxy-combustion system of Brugerolle could be used in place of air being passed into Huntington and although referred to as supplementary does show that Huntington does contemplate that additional refrigeration could be provided. Further, though not used in the rejection, Brugerolle does teach that nitrogen is produced which one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using air produced from an air separation unit would result in nitrogen being available for use as Brugerolle already uses nitrogen. Further it has been held that “given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine” MPEP 2143.0 which such modification would have advantages and disadvantages which would not render it any less obvious.
Further in regards to claim 25, the prior art can be clearly shown that the generator provided by the carbon dioxide cyclic power plant would have been obvious to provide power to a power consumption device (a compressor) of a liquefaction refrigerant cycle as shown obvious by Van Der Walt.
Allowable Subject Matter
While claim 11 is not rejected in view of prior art, a determination of allowable subject matter with respect to claim 11 cannot be made until the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) are resolved.
Claims 13 and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. While the relationship between temperature and boil-off gas or flash amount is known: Sheng (US PG Pub 20150204603) teaches that lower temperature of refrigerant lowers the flash gas amount (Paragraph 49) and the relationship between amount of boil-off gas and need for use is known Baek (US PG Pub 20140352331) (Paragraph 44) neither of these provide a teaching of adjusting the temperature of the final LNG product to increase the amount of boil-off gas based on a combustion need.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights