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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/29/2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 14-33 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13-23, 26-30 of copending Application No. 18276846 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims of the co-pending application completely encompass those of the present claims. The claims are rejected as follows:
Present claims Co-Pending Claims
14 13
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 17
19 18
20 19
21 20
22 21
23 22
24 23
25 13
26 13
27 13
28 13
29 26
30 27
31 28
32 29
33 30
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 14-33 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a cycle gas comprising at least one of the following: helium, hydrogen or neon” and the claim also recites “wherein the cycle gas comprise a mixture of at least 50% helium, and or/ has a molecular weight less than or equal to 20.18 mol which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are interpreted that the cycle has only has to have at least helium, hydrogen or neon as the additional limitations are improperly narrowing the claim language, by either specifically requiring helium from the group, or specifically requiring the overall refrigerant to have a specific molecular weight.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the assembly of motor(s) comprises multiple motors for driving the compression stages; however, claim 14 has already required an assembly of motor(s) with a set of shafts which would be understood to already be requiring a plurality of motors rendering the limitation indefinite.
Claim 26 recites “the rotational speed of compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have a respective cooling member disposed between said compression stage is kept at a speed lower than rotation speed of compression stages that are each provided at their outlet with their respective cooling member” which is considered indefinite. Claim 14 requires the presence of three compression stages, two of which do not have a cooling member between them, which creates the condition in which one of the stages does not have any cooling member between them but has a cooling member after which would appear to read on both limitations of what compressor has a lower speed. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be that the rotation speed is lower for the compression stage that is either the first compression stage and has a cooler after or a compressor which has both a cooler before and after it.
Claim 30 recites “wherein the cycle gas has a molar mass less than 30 g/mol” which is considered indefinite because the claims already have a possible configuration in which the gas would have a molar mass less than 20.18 g/mol so it is unclear if this is broadening such limitation or if this is only referring to the configuration where the mixture is at least 50% helium. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is only considered to apply to the condition when the mixture has is at least 50% helium.
Claim 33 recites first “a compression mechanism comprising a plurality of compression stages arranged in series” and then later recites “wherein the compression mechanism includes at least two compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have a member for cooling the cycle gas between them” and then later recites “such that the at least two compression stages arranged successively in series without an inter-stage cooling member located therebetween operate at a slower rotational speed as compared to the compression stages disposed before and/or after” which last limitation is indefinite. The claims initially only require a plurality of compression stages, but then the last limitation appears to require three or more compression stages, which is a narrower limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further the claims first require that the two compression stages without an a cooler between them operate at a lower speed than a compression stage disposed before and/or after but the claims do not require an additional compression stage, so it is unclear under what condition would be required when only two compression stages are present which is all that is positively required by the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered that the compression stage which has no cooler after it is required to be operated at a speed lower than a compression stage which has a cooler after it under the condition when there are only two compression stages present.
Claims 15-16, 18-25, 31-32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
While claims 19 and 20 use the terms “attached to the outlet” and “attached to the inlet” it is understood that this does not mean a direct attachment between the bypass pipe and the outlet/inlet of the compression stage, only that the bypass pipe provides attachment from and to the outlet of the compressor and the inlet of the compressor respectively.
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:
member for collecting in claim 14 understood to be a store (which is understood to be any kind of storage),
expansion mechanism in claim 14 understood to be a turbine,
member for cooling in claim 23 understood to be a heat exchanger,
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.
Compression mechanism is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided.
Cooling member is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as sufficient structure is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14-18, 25, 27, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US PG Pub 20220221220), hereinafter referred to as Thomas and further in view of Marcuccilli et al. (US PG Pub 20230160632), hereinafter referred to as Marcuccilli and Cardella et al. (US PG Pub 20180347897), Cardella.
With respect to claim 14, Thomas teaches a device for refrigeration or liquefaction of a fluid that liquefies below 0°C, the device comprising (Figure 1 of Thomas which is for liquefying hydrogen, which is a gas that liquefies below 0 C):
a circuit for fluid that is to be cooled, having an upstream end intended to be connected to a source of gaseous fluid and a downstream end intended to be connected to a member for collecting the fluid when cooled or liquefied (hydrogen feed gas stream 100, paragraph 26, would come from a source as it enters the system and is cooled and ultimately collected in storage tank 392, paragraph 36);
an assembly of heat exchanger(s) in a heat exchange relationship with the circuit for fluid that is to be cooled (heat exchangers 302 and 325, paragraph 29-32);
and a refrigerator in a heat exchange relationship with at least part of the assembly of heat exchanger(s) (Nitrogen Brayton cycle with two expanders in series is used for cooling the BOG, paragraph 37), the refrigerator being of the type performing a refrigeration cycle on a cycle gas comprising helium or hydrogen (a refrigerant cycle that can be just hydrogen or helium is used in one of the heat exchangers, paragraph 32) wherein said refrigerator comprises the following, disposed in series in a cycle circuit:
a compressing mechanism for compressing the cycle gas (multi-stage compressor including 382, 384, paragraph 35)
at least one cooling member for cooling the cycle gas one of the air coolers 378 or 380, paragraph 44), an expansion mechanism for expanding the cycle gas (expander 9, paragraph 36) and at least one member for heating the expanded cycle gas (expander 377, paragraph 34, which as it drives 375 would be a turbine),
wherein the at least one cooling member comprises at least one heat exchanger disposed at the outlet of at least one compression stage in a heat exchange relationship with the cycle circuit (378 or 380 are at an outlet of a compression stages), said at least one heat exchanger being cooled by a heat transfer fluid (air is the heat exchange fluid used in 378 and 380, paragraph 35),
wherein the cycle gas comprises has a molecular weight less than or equal to 20.18 g/mol (the gas can be just helium, which means it would have a molecular weight of less than 20.18 g/mol).
Thomas does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises at least three compression stages in series that are composed of an assembly of compressor(s) of centrifugal type, the compression stages being mounted on a set of shafts driven in rotation by an assembly of motor(s).
Marcuccilli teaches that in a refrigeration device for a working circuit of refrigerant fluid that there can be three compressors (14, 16, 18) and each compressor can be a centrifugal compressor (paragraph 28).
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 Marcuccilli for the compression mechanism of Thomas to have been centrifugal compressors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art centrifugal compressors are known to be suitable for a cryogenic refrigeration system as they have a high reliability that operate efficiently.
Further it would have been obvious to have had three centrifugal compressors in Thomas as modified instead of the two stages, as it has been shown that a mere duplication of parts (having one more compressor) has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby having four compressors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of either reducing size of the compressors used to provide the final compression or allowing for a higher pressure for the refrigerant
Further, Marcuccilli teaches that each compressor has a separate motor driven by a shaft between them (20, 22, 24 driving 14, 16, 18) (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for each compressor of Thomas to have been driven by a separate motor via a shaft since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing separate motors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the ability to provide more control to the cooling system by allowing each compressor to be individually adjusted by its respective dedicated motor which could provide for more efficient operation.
Thomas does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises at least two compression stages that are disposed successively in series and do not have any cooling members therebetween.
Cardella teaches that a compressor can be designed without gas intercoolers and aftercoolers with reduces the capital cost (paragraph 136).
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 Cardella to have designed at least one of the compressors of Thomas without an aftercooler (278 or 280) to reduce the overall capital cost of the system. While this is not a specific teaching of which aftercooler to remove, a teaching has been provided both that aftercoolers are known and it is known to not use them. As such, having an aftercooler missing between two of the compression stages would have been obvious to try as it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby based on the teachings of Cardella and Thomas as modified f it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have not had an aftercooler between two of the compression stages since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
With respect to claim 15, Thomas does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises four compression stages in series.
Marcuccilli teaches that while three compressors are shown, more generally any number of compressor stages are may be used (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had four compressors instead of three in Thomas based on the teaching of Marcuccilli as it has been shown that a mere duplication of parts (having even one more compressor) has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby having four compressors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of either reducing size of the compressors used to provide the final compression or allowing for a higher pressure for the refrigerant.
Thomas as modified further does not teach the at least one cooling member comprising three cooling heat exchanges that are disposed respectively at the outlet of three of the four compression stages, such that the device is configured to provide cooling to only three of said four compression stages.
It has previously been established that it is known by Thomas as modified and Cardella (see teaching of Cardella in the rejection of claim 1) respectively that it is known to both have and not have aftercoolers after compressors and as such it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when having four compressors in Thomas as modified to have based on the teaching of Cardella to have had one of the compressors not have an aftercooler since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression. Thus as only one compressor does not have an aftercooler, three compressors would, which would provide cooling to only three compression stages.
With respect to claim 16, Thomas does not teach wherein the at least one cooling member is disposed solely between every second pair of compression stages in series.
It has previously been established that it is known by Thomas as modified and Cardella (see teaching of Cardella in claim 1) respectively that it is known to both have and not have aftercoolers after compressors and as such it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when having three compressors in Thomas as modified to have based on the teaching of Cardella to have had an aftercooler only after the second compressor in series of Thomas since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
With respect to claim 17, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the assembly of motor(s) comprises multiple motors for driving the compression stages (as modified multiple motors are present).
With respect to claim 18, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the assembly of motor(s) comprises a separate respective motor for each compression stage (as modified each compression stage has a separate motor attached).
With respect to claim 25, Thomas as modified teaches a method of refrigeration or liquefaction of a fluid using the refrigeration device as claimed in Claim 14, the method including the steps of: providing the refrigeration device as claimed in Claim 14; circulating a fluid in the circuit for fluid that is to be cooled; and cooling said fluid via the cold produced by the refrigerator (Figure 1 of Thomas as modified teaches this, where the refrigeration device is present and the hydrogen is cooled by the refrigerant).
With respect to claim 27, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the fluid is hydrogen (the fluid in Thomas being cooled is hydrogen).
With respect to claim 30, Thomas modified teaches wherein the fluid comprises hydrogen (as modified the fluid in Thomas is hydrogen).
Claim(s) 19-20, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas/Marcuccilli/Cardella and further in view of Durand (FR3072428A1), hereinafter referred to as Durand.
With respect to claim 19, Thomas does not teach wherein at least one of the motors is cooled by a flow of cycle gas via at least one bypass pipe for a fraction of the flow of cycle gas supplying the compression mechanism, the bypass pipe comprising an upstream end attached to the outlet of at least one of the compression stages for drawing off a fraction of the flow of cycle gas.
Durand (Figure 1) teaches that on the outlet line from a first compressor (1) that a pipe can be connected which does not pass to the second compressor but cooling first to a first motor and then to a second motor (5 and 6) before the fluid passing through the motors is returned back to the inlet of the first compressor (1) (Page 5, lines 185-212).
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 Durand to have in Thomas provide a bypass line which takes a portion of the compressed refrigerant from the first compressor and passes it through the motors to provide cooling to the motors before it is passed back to the inlet of the compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a cooling line through the motors would as would be recognized by one having common knowledge in the art ensure that the motors remain cooled while not having to provide a second source of refrigerant.
With respect to claim 20, Thomas as modified teaches wherein a downstream end of at least one bypass pipe is attached to the inlet of a compression stage after it passes and exchanges heat with at least one motor (as modified the flow line that goes from the compressor through the motors returns back to the inlet of the compressor so the bypass pipe would be attached to the inlet of a compression stage).
With respect to claim 23, Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the at least one bypass pipe comprises at least one member for cooling the cycle gas.
Durand teaches that between motors that a heat exchanger (13) can be used to cool the flow of refrigerant used to cool the second motor (Page 5, line 205-207).
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 Durand to have on the flow line between two motors for the refrigerant of Thomas as modified provided a heat exchanger to cool the refrigerant upstream of the second motors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a heat exchanger between the motors would as would be recognized by one having common knowledge in the art cool the stream to provide it with a sufficient temperature to cool the motor.
With respect to claim 24, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the at least one member for cooling the cycle gas of the at least one bypass pipe comprises a cooling heat exchanger (a heat exchanger is the member as modified).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas/Marcuccilli/Cardella/Durand and further in view of Sun et al. (US PG Pub 20140345311), hereinafter referred to as Sun.
With respect to claims 21-22, Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the at least one bypass pipe comprises, between its upstream end and its downstream end, a subdivision into at least two separate branches respectively supplying separate motors in order to cool them wherein the at least two separate branches formed by the subdivision of a bypass pipe have a downstream junction with a common line portion of the bypass line.
Sun teaches two examples of cooling components with a motor cooling line (20) where in one configuration (Figure 1D) the components being cooled are in series where the flow enters the system (at 20) passes through and then into the suction of the compressor (paragraph 22) and another (Figure 1E) in which the flow is split into separate flow lines which can be within or outside a compressor before providing cooling and then are both passed to the suction port of the compressor.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of passing through the motor in series to have in Thomas as modified based on the teaching of Sun had the line cooling line for the motor split into two and pass through the motors separately before recombining and then passing to the suction line (which would be a junction of a common line of the bypass line) of the compressor since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions is obvious whereby as there are two configurations (parallel and series) it would have been obvious to choose from them and one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that it is obvious whereby as they are both known ways of providing cooling to multiple components before the fluid is passed to the compressor it would have been obvious to have provided parallel as opposed to series flow which would as would be common knowledge in the art allow for the same temperature fluid to be passed to all of the motors so a heat exchange is not needed to cool the flow after the first motor.
Claim(s) 26, 28, 30, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas/Marcuccilli/Cardella and further in view of Ueda et al. (US PG Pub 20180087809), hereinafter referred to as Ueda.
With respect to claim 26 Thomas as modified does not teach controlling the rotational speed of the at least two compression stages in accordance with independent speeds, wherein, during at least one determined operating phase, the rotational speed of the compression stages that are disposed successively in series and that do not have a respective cooling member cooling member deposed between said compression stages is kept at a speed lower than the rotational speed of the compression stages that are each provided at their outlet with their respective cooling member.
Ueda teaches that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158).
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 Ueda to have the individual compressors as controlled by the motors of Thomas operated at unique motor rotation speeds (which would be the rotational speed of the compressor) to save energy and improve the performance of the refrigerator. While there is a not a specific teaching of any compressor having a higher or lower speed than any other as they are operated at unique speeds at least two compressors would be operating at a lower speed than two other compressors. Further, as there are only three compressors present it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the compression stages which do not have an aftercooler between them to operate at a lower speed than the compression stages which has an aftercooler both before and after or the first compressor if there is a cooler after it as it has been held obvious to try whereby choosing between a finite number of predictable solutions is obvious. As there are only three compressors all of which are shown to be obvious to operate at rotational speeds, determining which compressors operate at the higher and lower speeds respectively would be limited to only the conditions of: the compressor where the compressors without an aftercooler between them operate at a higher speed than a compressor with an aftercooler after it and a compressor before it or the first compressor with a cooler after it, the compressor where the compressors without an aftercooler between them operate at a lower speed than a compressor with an aftercooler after it and a compressor before it or the first compressor with a cooler after it, or the compressor with an aftercooler after it operates at a speed between the compressors which do not have an aftercooler between them. Thus, choosing between the three conditions would have been obvious and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in operating the compressors with the speeds in the configuration as claimed if that resulted in the optimal conditions of operation to maximizes refrigerating performance.
With respect to claim 28, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the compression mechanism comprises a greater number of compression stages than the expanding mechanism comprises expansion turbines (there are 3 compressors in Thomas as modified but only two expanders in the refrigeration cycle).
With respect to claim 30, Thomas as modified teaches wherein the cycle gas has a molar mass less than 30 g/mol (the refrigerant is helium or hydrogen which has a molar mass less than 30 g/mol).
With respect to claim 31, Thomas as modified teahces wherein the cycle gas is made up of pure helium (the cycle gas can be helium, which would be understood to be just helium).
With respect to claim 32, Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the compression mechanism comprises four compression stages in series.
Marcuccilli teaches that while three compressors are shown, more generally any number of compressor stages are may be used (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had four compressors instead of three in Thomas based on the teaching of Marcuccilli as it has been shown that a mere duplication of parts (having even one more compressor) has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced whereby having four compressors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of either reducing size of the compressors used to provide the final compression or allowing for a higher pressure for the refrigerant.
Thomas further does not teach the cooling members are disposed solely at the outlet of the first, second and fourth compression stages.
It has previously been established that it is known by Thomas as modified in view of Cardella (see teaching of Cardella in the rejection of claim 1) respectively that it is known to both have and not have aftercoolers after compressors and as such it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when having four compressors in Thomas as modified to have based on the teaching of Cardella to have had third compressor not have an aftercooler since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between the third and fourth stage would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas and further in view of Cardella, Marcuccilli and Ueda.
With respect to claim 33, Thomas teaches (Figure 1) a method for refrigerating or liquefying a fluid, the method comprising:
circulating the fluid in a fluid circuit configured to be cooled, wherein the fluid comprises hydrogen (hydrogen feed gas stream 100, paragraph 26, would come from a source as it enters the system and is cooled and ultimately collected in storage tank 392, paragraph 36);
cooling said fluid in the fluid circuit via cold produced by a refrigerator, the refrigerator operating a refrigeration cycle on a cycle gas of helium or hydrogen, wherein the cycle gas has a molecular weight less than or equal to 20.18 g/mol (a refrigerant cycle that can be just hydrogen or helium is used in one of the heat exchangers, paragraph 32, both of which have a molar mass of less than 10 g/mol),
compressing the cycle gas in a compression mechanism comprising a plurality of compression stages arranged in series (multi-stage compressor including 382, 384, paragraph 35)
cooling the cycle gas at an outlet of at least one of the compression stages with at least one outlet heat exchanger (one of the air coolers 378 or 380, paragraph 44 would cool the cycle gas after compression), said outlet heat exchanger being cooled by a heat transfer fluid (air is the heat exchange fluid used in 378 and 380, paragraph 35).
Thomas does not teach the compression stages are centrifugal compression stages.
Marcuccilli teaches that in a refrigeration device for a working circuit of refrigerant fluid that each compressor can be a centrifugal compressor (paragraph 28).
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 Marcuccilli for the compressors of Thomas to have been centrifugal compressors since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art centrifugal compressors are known to be suitable for a cryogenic refrigeration system as they have a high reliability that operate efficiently.
Thomas as modified does not teach the compression stages being mounted on a set of shafts rotationally driven by a set of motors.
Further, Marcuccilli teaches that each compressor has a separate motor driven by a shaft between them (20, 22, 24 driving 14, 16, 18) (paragraph 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art for each compressor of Thomas to have been driven by a separate motor via a shaft since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing separate motors would provide what is common knowledge in the art of the ability to provide more control to the cooling system by allowing each compressor to be individually adjusted by its respective dedicated motor which could provide for more efficient operation.
Thomas as modified does not teach wherein the compression mechanism includes at least two compression stages arranged successively in series without any inter-stage cooling member located therebetween.
Cardella teaches that a compressor can be designed without gas intercoolers and aftercoolers with reduces the capital cost (paragraph 136).
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 Cardella to have designed at least one of the compressors of Thomas without an aftercooler to reduce the overall capital cost of the system. While this is not a specific teaching of which aftercooler to remove, a teaching has been provided both that aftercoolers are known and it is known to not use them. As such, having an aftercooler missing between two of the compression stages would have been obvious to try as it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby based on the teachings of Cardella and Thomas it would have been obvious to have after coolers after all of the compressors, none of the compressors or only some of the compressors. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have not had an aftercooler between two of the compression stages since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby not having an aftercooler between two of the compression stages would be common knowledge in the art as a way to reduce the overall cost of the system if the cooling was not needed after compression.
Thomas as modified does not teach controlling a rotational speed of the compression stages according to independent speeds, such that the at least two compression stages are arranged successively in series without any inter-stage cooling member located therebetween operate at a slower rotation speed as compare to the compression stages disposed before and/or after.
Ueda teaches that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158). A controller is provided (60) which monitors the operation of the motor for the compressors (paragraph 119).
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 Ueda to have the individual compressors as controlled by the motors of Thomas as modified operated at unique motor rotation speeds (which would be the rotational speed of the compressor) with a controller to monitor the compressors to save energy and improve the performance of the refrigerator. While there is a not a specific teaching of any compressor having a higher or lower speed than any other as they are operated at unique speeds at least two compressors would be operating at a lower speed than two other compressors. Further, as there are only two compressors present it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the compression stage which does not have a cooler after them to operate at a lower speed than the compression stage which has a cooler after it as it has been held obvious as it has been held obvious to try whereby choosing between a finite number of predictable solutions is obvious. As there are only two compression stages all of which are shown to be obvious to operate at rotational speeds, determining which compressors operate at the higher and lower speeds respectively would be limited to only the conditions of: the compression stage without a cooler after it operates at a higher speed than a compressor with a cooler after it, the compression stage without an aftercooler after it operates at a lower speed than a compressor with a cooler after it. Thus, choosing between the two conditions would have been obvious and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in operating the compressors with the speeds in the configuration as claimed if that resulted in the optimal conditions of operation to maximizes refrigerating performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to the claim did not resolve the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as the condition still exists where a compression stage can both be part of a series of stage where there is no inter-stage cooler between the stages and where it has a cooler after it which would read on both conditions as claimed.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of applicants amendments of the molar mass of the cycle gas being less than 10 g/mol, Rummelhoff is no longer used in the rejection and instead Thomas is provided above; however, the teachings of the references Ueda, Cardella as well as the other rejections used in the previous rejections are maintained to show obviousness of the limitations not taught by Thomas and as such any arguments which address such references will be addressed, while any arguments against Rummelhoff alone are considered moot.
Applicant argues page 9, which corresponds to point 8 of the accompanying declaration, in regard to the expert analysis of trade-offs does not specifically address the rejection and only makes an argument without supporting evidence as to why the approach as claimed would not work for nitrogen mixtures; however, in view of the amendment’s, the prior art used, specifically Thomas, does not teach the use of nitrogen mixture. Further, even in view of applicant’s declaration, applicant’s own specification appears to counter applicant’s arguments that heavier gases cannot be used as applicant provides a wide range of molar masses that are available, including gases with molar mass less than 30 g/mol (page 7, line 8 of the instant specification) and the specification explicitly considers the use of a gas which is at least 50% nitrogen (page 5, lines 12-13) which appears to run counter to such argument and although the specification does refer to a mixture of helium and nitrogen as “heavy” this also does not preclude the use of a gas such as neon being present.
Applicant argues page 10, that a person having ordinary skill in the art would “intuitive attempt to run that stage at a higher speed to maintain mass flow or compensate for resulting higher temperatures” and that “intentionally maintaining a lower rotation speed for uncooled stages relative to cooled stages” is “contrary to routine optimization” which corresponds to point 9 in the accompanying declaration. This is not persuasive.
First, applicant has provided no evidence that of such attempt being intuitive and the approach of the claimed invention being counterintuitive. “It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence” and while opinion testimony, which is what appears to be provided in the declaration is “entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion as issue” MPEP 716.01(c) it is not found persuasive in this case. Here, it is established by Ueda that that two compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds and thereby can be operated at optimum operational conditions to save energy and improve refrigerating performance (paragraph 158). As it is thus established that compressors in series can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds, there are only a finite number of combinations that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider trying to achieve save energy and improve refrigerating performance, and a such, as it has been separately established obvious to not have some compressors without after coolers, choosing among those compressor to have a lower speed than other compressors, would have been separately obvious rendering the limitation as claimed obvious.
Applicant’s argument page 11 in regard to molar mass criticality are moot as Rummelhoff is not used in the rejection above.
Applicant’s argument page 10, and related declaration arguments, points 12-13, in regards to the argument for “technical departure from Prior Art” and “Efficiency is only for Expansion” are moot as Rummelhoff is not used in the rejection above in the view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument page 11 and page 12 regarding, and related declaration arguments, point 13, in regards to “Teaching Away and Frustration of Purpose” are moot as they are drawn specifically to Rummelhoff which is not used in the rejection above.
Applicnat argues page 13 that one having ordinary skill in the art would not “’predictably’ remove a cooler from a centrifugal string because it risk immediate mechanical failure of the aerodynamic profile” which risk does not exist in Cardella and that the declaration states that removing coolers would increase cycle gas temperatures and exergy losses. This is not persuasive.
Applicant has not provided any factual evidence of such an unexpected result; however, as stated above “It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence” and while opinion testimony, which is what appears to be provided in the declaration is “entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion as issue” MPEP 716.01(c). Cardella’s teaching alone is enough to suggest that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have removed some of the coolers of any type of multi-stage compressor. Applicant has provided no evidence that removing the removing such coolers would cause the failure as such, or would be expected to and further applicant’s arguments are ultimately drawn to Rummelhoff which is not used in the rejection above in this regard. In response to applicant's argument that doing so would have caused failure, 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).
Applicant’s remaining arguments page 13 are moot as Rummelhoff is not used in the rejection of the claims above.
Applicant argues page 14 that the invention results in unexpected results and that based on the testimony in the Roig Declaration that the efficiency benefits are not predictable “but are unexpectedly specific to a critical molar mass range” and that this method cannot be applied to a heavier mixture utilized in the cited art and as such “the invention represents a non-obvious discovery of a specific physical property rather than a matter of routine optimization”. This is not persuasive.
Applicant has not provided any factual evidence of such an unexpected result; however, as stated above “It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence” and while opinion testimony, which is what appears to be provided in the declaration is “entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion as issue” MPEP 716.01(c) it is not found persuasive in this case. Thomas teaches the use of a refrigerant with a molar mass less than 10 g/mol and based on the teachings of Cardella and Ueda it is clear that choosing specific operating conditions in regards to both placement of after coolers and choosing specific operating speeds for motors and in turn compressors would result in a showing of the limitation as claimed to be obvious as there are only a finite number of predictable solutions and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would consider the conditions as claimed obvious to try in determining what the optimal operating conditions for the compressors and motors is.
Applicant argues page 15 that for “standard centrifugal compression practice a PHOSITA seeking to optimize a system where a cooling member has been omitted would intuitive attempt to run that stage at a higher speed to maintain the mass flow or compensate for resulting higher temperatures” which is contrary to optimization and no prior at links these “unique” speeds to the presence or absence of a cooling member in the “counter-intuitive manner claimed’ and that further “defining this solution within this specific molar mass range” results in a “new and unexpected result”. This is not persuasive.
No evidence has been provided that the result was nonobvious or new an unexpected. Evidence must be provided to show that an unexpected result has been provided (MPEP 716.02(a)). Thomas above teaches the use of a helium or hydrogen refrigerant, which would be a refrigerant with a molar mass of less than 10 g/mol. In the case of the combination of Cardella it is shown that it is old and well known that compressors can have intercoolers or aftercoolers but also are not required to have intercoolers or aftercoolers as it can reduce the capital cost (paragraph 136). This shows that it would be obvious, to have had aftercoolers or intercoolers after some compressors but that it would be equally obvious to have them only when necessary, and thus while one having ordinary skill in the art would consider placing them after each compressor, the choice of not having one after a compressor would be obvious, and as there are only a limited number of compressors, a combination of having them after some but not others would be obvious. Further, Ueda provides a teaching that when compressors are operated together, they can be operated at unique motor rotation speeds to achieve optimal performance conditions and save energy (paragraph 158). Thus, as there are a limited number of operating compressors, which have been shown to be obvious to not all have coolers after them, there are a limited number of combinations that are possible and thus it would have been obvious having ordinary skill in the art to achieve the result as claimed when trying to determine ideal operating performance for the overall configuration. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that an adjustment of the speeds would result in a beneficial result and thus would have considered it obvious to have achieved the configuration as claimed as it is one of the identified predictable solutions.
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