Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
a heat exchange unit configured to heat 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 flowing between the carbon dioxide cycle and the natural gas processing plant, and the heating medium heated by the heat exchange unit adapted to raise a temperature of a fluid to be heated, which flows through a device requiring a heat source provided in the natural gas processing plant, in a heating unit, and then, is further adapted to be supplied again to the heat exchange unit in a state of being lowered in temperature
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 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 1, lines 24-26 recites “a separator configured to condense and separate the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid to achieve moisture by cooling the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine” which is considered indefinite. The claims previously recite that the discharged fluid is cooled and liquefied by a cooler so it unclear with respect to that limitation where the separator is located. Further a separator in this context cannot provide any cooling but it is only where the separation takes place so it is unclear how the separator would provide condensing before separation. It is also unclear what is meant by “to achieve moisture” and it is unclear if “the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid” is meant to be the same fluid as the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is cooling of the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam which is then configured to be separated in the separator to produce moisture and a carbon dioxide fluid from which the moisture has been separated and then that stream is passed to the cooler that is configured to cool and liquefy the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “is supplied” in line 33 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “are supplied” in line 36 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “is not released” in line 40 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to not be released.
Claim 2, lines 27-29 “a separator configured to condense and separate the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid to achieve moisture by cooling the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine” which is considered indefinite. The claims previously recite that the discharged fluid is cooled and liquefied by a cooler so it unclear with respect to that limitation where the separator is located. Further a separator in this context cannot provide any cooling but it is only where the separation takes place so it is unclear how the separator would provide condensing before separation. It is also unclear what is meant by “to achieve moisture” and it is unclear if “the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid” is meant to be the same fluid as the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is cooling of the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam which is then configured to be separated in the separator to produce moisture and a carbon dioxide fluid from which the moisture has been separated and then that stream is passed to the cooler that is configured to cool and liquefy the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “is supplied” in line 36 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “are supplied” in line 39 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “is not released” in line 42 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to not be released.
Claim 3, lines 27-29 “a separator configured to condense and separate the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid to achieve moisture by cooling the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine” which is considered indefinite. The claims previously recite that the discharged fluid is cooled and liquefied by a cooler so it unclear with respect to that limitation where the separator is located. Further a separator in this context cannot provide any cooling but it is only where the separation takes place so it is unclear how the separator would provide condensing before separation. It is also unclear what is meant by “to achieve moisture” and it is unclear if “the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid” is meant to be the same fluid as the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is cooling of the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam which is then configured to be separated in the separator to produce moisture and a carbon dioxide fluid from which the moisture has been separated and then that stream is passed to the cooler that is configured to cool and liquefy the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “is supplied” in line 36 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “are supplied” in line 39 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “is not released” in line 42 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to not be released.
Claim 4, lines 5-10 provide a limitation that is repeated afterward with more specific of the amended claim and as such results in the claim language being indefinite; however, it is clear when reading the claims that intention of the claims was that this is the previously filed limitation and is erroneously still present unamended and for the purpose of examination, it is treated as not being present and only the amended limitation in line 11-18 is considered to be positively recited in the claims.
Claim 4, lines 36-38 “a separator configured to condense and separate the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid to achieve moisture by cooling the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine” which is considered indefinite. The claims previously recite that the discharged fluid is cooled and liquefied by a cooler so it unclear with respect to that limitation where the separator is located. Further a separator in this context cannot provide any cooling but it is only where the separation takes place so it is unclear how the separator would provide condensing before separation. It is also unclear what is meant by “to achieve moisture” and it is unclear if “the steam of the carbon dioxide fluid” is meant to be the same fluid as the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is cooling of the carbon dioxide fluid containing high-temperature and high-pressure steam which is then configured to be separated in the separator to produce moisture and a carbon dioxide fluid from which the moisture has been separated and then that stream is passed to the cooler that is configured to cool and liquefy the carbon dioxide fluid discharged from the power generation turbine.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “is supplied” in line 45 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “are supplied” in line 48 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to be supplied.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of “is not released” in line 51 renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be configured to not be released.
Claim 16, lines 4-5 recites “the carbon dioxide fluid at a high temperature” which is considered indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear from the recitation as claimed where this carbon dioxide fluid would be present. No high-temperature carbon dioxide is described and for the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be any carbon dioxide in the system that can be considered at high-temperature.
Claim 16 recites “a heating unit” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the heating unit of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the heating units are not considered to be the same heating unit.
Claims 5-15, 17-25 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art is that provided in the previous rejection. Based on the amendments made and applicant’s arguments made, see pages 27-30 of the remarks dated 7/28/2026, address how the previously applied prior art of Huntington, Brugerolle and Van Der Walt do not apply to the amended claims because of the liquefying of carbon dioxide within the cycle and as such the limitations as best understood are considered to contain allowable subject matter. Huntington is considered the closest prior art to the specifics of using a carbon dioxide cycle power plant as claimed along with a natural gas processing system, but does not teach the liquid features as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 22-31, filed 7/28/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-25 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 112(b) which is not addressed by the arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M KING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights