DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 7 is 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.
In re Claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "the value" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a value.
In re Claim 21, the claim recites the limitation "the second heat exchanger" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination: this phrase/term is interpreted as a second heat exchanger.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR101814439B1) in view of Jung (CN 214701458 U).
In re Claim 1, Lee discloses A method for reliquefying and returning boil-off (BOG) (Fig. 1: L5) to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) tank (1), comprising the steps of:
a) withdrawing BOG (L1) from the headspace of an LNG tank (top of 1);
b) compressing the BOG (L1) in a first compression stage (20) to and tapping of a first portion of this gas (portion going to customer 3);
c) further compressing a second portion of the gas from step b) (L2) in a final compression stage (30)
d) cooling at least part of the further compressed gas (cooled by 10) from step c)
e) expanding the gas from step d) (expanded by V2) to
f) separating the gas from step e) (separated by 40) into a liquid phase (liquid leaving bottom of 40) and a gaseous phase (gas leaving top of 40) to
f1) combine the gaseous phase (L3) with the tapped first portion of the gas from step c) (L6); and
f2) return the liquid phase (L5) to the LNG tank (1).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach,
a first pressure p1 between 8 and 18 bara
a second pressure p2 ≥120 bara;
a first temperature T1 between −20° C. and −100° C; and
a third pressure p3 between 8 and 20 bara.
On the other hand, Jung teaches a first pressure (Page 5 ¶6), a second pressure p2 ≥120 bara (additional compressor 170 may additionally compress the boil-off gas compressed by the boil-off gas compressor 110 to have a pressure of 150 to 170 bar); a first temperature T1(Page 5¶6 compressed BOG cooled to a temperature); a third pressure p3 (Page 7¶3-4: pressure after expansion that causes a pressure drop).
In the further alternative, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the first pressure, the first temperature and third pressure of modified Lee, and thus the claimed pressure ranges and temperature range cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where Huang teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lee and to have modified them by having
a first pressure p1 between 8 and 18 bara
a second pressure p2 ≥120 bara;
a first temperature T1 between −20° C. and −100° C; and
a third pressure p3 between 8 and 20 bara
as taught by Jung, in order to increase the temperature of the BOG and liquefy the BOG for reliquefication (See Jung Page 5¶5 and Page 7¶3-4:), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 3, Modified Lee teaches wherein the cooling in step d (cooled by 10) is carried out at least partly by heat exchange with cooling (cooled at 10) BOG from the headspace of the LNG tank (L1).
In re Claim 4, Modified Lee teaches wherein the cooling in step d (cooled by 10) is carried out at least partly by heat exchange with the gaseous phase from step f (gas leaving top of 40).
In re Claim 5, Modified Lee teaches wherein in step d a portion of the further compressed gas (L6) from step c is fed to a supply line (L3) for a high-pressure gas injection engine (2).
In re Claim 6, Modified Lee teaches wherein in step f the pressure p3 is monitored and controlled ( since the liquid must be transported from the gas-liquid separator to the storage tank without using the pump, the pressure in the gas-liquid separator is maintained, i.e., controlled) so that it has a value within a predetermined range (is maintained at a pressure range).
In re Claim 7, Modified Lee teaches wherein in step f a volume of the liquid phase (volume of L5 monitored by liquid sensor) is monitored in order to regulate the return quantity into the LNG tank (1) as a function of the value (the return line L5 may be provided with a fifth valve V5 for reducing the liquefied gas supplied to the storage tank 1 to atmospheric pressure).
In re Claim 8, Lee discloses An apparatus for reliquefying and returning boil-off gas (BOG) () into a liquefied natural gas (LNG) tank (1) comprising
a first heat exchanger (10) comprising
a line for passing through cooling fluid (line going into 10) and
a line for passing through compressed gas to be cooled (line leaving 30 into 10);
a multi-stage compressor (20) comprising at least a first compression stage (21a) and a final compression stage (21e),
the first compression stage (21a) being configured to compress BOG from the LNG tank (L1) and
wherein the final compression stage (21e) is configured to compress pre-compressed BOG (BOG compressed by 21a);
a branch line (L2) which is arranged downstream of the first compression stage (21a) in a fluid-conducting manner and which opens further downstream into at least one of a supply line (L6) for a low-pressure gas injection engine (3) and a gas combustion unit (2);
a return line (L4);
a first expansion unit (V3) configured to expand compressed gas (gas leaving 30)
a gas-liquid separator (40) configured to separate a liquefied gas portion (L5) for feeding back into the LNG tank (1) at a pressure p3 () and to feed a gaseous portion (gas leaving top of 40) into a bypass line (L3),
the bypass line (L3) opening into the branch line (L2);
wherein the multi-stage compressor (20) is connected upstream in a fluid-carrying manner to the headspace of the LNG tank (connected via L1 through the top of tank 1), and
wherein the multi-stage compressor (20)
is connected downstream in a fluid-carrying manner via the return line (L4) to the line of the first heat exchanger (10) for passing through compressed gas to be cooled1,
is connected further downstream to the first expansion unit (downstream V3), and
is connected still further downstream to the gas-liquid separator (downstream 40).
In the further alternative, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the first pressure, the first temperature and third pressure of modified Lee, and thus the claimed pressure ranges and temperature range cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where Huang teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Lee and to have modified them by having
a first pressure p1 between 8 and 18 bara
a second pressure p2 ≥120 bara;
a first temperature T1 between −20° C. and −100° C; and
a third pressure p3 between 8 and 20 bara
as taught by Jung, in order to increase the temperature of the BOG and liquefy the BOG for reliquefication (See Jung Page 5¶5 and Page 7¶3-4:), without yielding unpredictable results.
As a result of the modification the first expansion unit (V3) is configured to expand compressed gas (gas leaving 30) from a second pressure p2 to a third pressure p3 as taught by modified Lee.
In re Claim 11, Modified Lee teaches further comprising a second expansion unit (V5) configured to expand compressed gas (expand gas leaving 10 from 31) from the third pressure p3 to atmospheric pressure (V5 for reducing the liquefied gas supplied to the storage tank 1 to atmospheric pressure), wherein the second expansion unit (V5) is configured to conduct fluid between the liquid outlet of the gas-liquid separator (40) and the LNG tank (1).
In re Claim 12, Modified Lee teaches wherein the apparatus (Lee Fig. 1 as modified) is part of a fuel gas supply system (2,3) for supplying a high-pressure gas injection engine (2) with gas stored in the LNG tank (BOG in 1), additionally comprising an outlet which is arranged (outlet of 20) downstream of the second compression stage (21b) of the multi-stage compressor (20) in a fluid-conducting manner and further downstream into a supply line for a high-pressure gas injection engine (2), whereby the compressed gas (portion of L2), insofar as the quantity exceeds the fuel requirement of the high-pressure gas injection engine (2), can be fed to the return line (portion feed to L4).
In re Claim 13, Modified Lee teaches Modified Lee teaches wherein the gas-liquid separator (40) comprises a pressure sensor (P) to measure the pressure in the gas-liquid separator (40), and a controller (Page 7¶2: the fourth valve V4 is opened to transfer the flash gas to the re-supply line L4,) to actuate a valve (V4) arranged () between a gas outlet () of the gas-liquid separator (40) and the bypass line () as a function () of the measured pressure (Page 7¶2: If the size of the flash gas is greater than necessary, the fourth valve V4 is opened to transfer the flash gas to the re-supply line L4).
In re Claim 14, Modified Lee teaches wherein the gas-liquid separator (40) comprises a level sensor (L) and a controller (V2) to actuate a valve (V5) arranged between a liquid outlet of the gas-liquid separator (bottom outlet of 40) and the LNG tank (1) as a function of the measured level (measured from the pressure level. If the size of the flash gas is greater than necessary, the fourth valve V4 is opened to transfer the flash gas to the re-supply line L4, (Water level) is measured, the fifth valve (V5) is opened).
In re Claim 17, Modified Lee teaches wherein the cooling fluid (L1) is BOG (L1 is BOG) from an LNG tank (1).
In re Claim 18, Modified Lee teaches wherein the first heat exchanger (10) is configured for heat exchange between the line for passing through cooling fluid (L2) and the line for passing through compressed gas to be cooled in counterflow (L1).
In re Claim 19, Modified Lee teaches wherein the multi-stage compressor (20) is connected upstream in a fluid-carrying manner to the headspace of the LNG tank (1) via the line of the heat exchanger for passing through cooling BOG (L1).
Claims 2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR101814439B1) as modified by Jung (CN 214701458 U) further in view of Grefe (DE 10108905 A1).
In re Claim 2, Modified Lee does not explicitly teach, wherein in step f2) the liquid phase before being returned to the LNG tank is cooled to a temperature T2 between -140 and -161.
However, Grefe teaches the liquid phase (60) before being returned () to the LNG tank (T1) is cooled to a temperature T2 (the heat exchanger W4, the liquid hs fraction is subcooled to the condition according to process point 10).
In the further alternative, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the temperature T2 of modified Lee, and thus the claimed temperature range cannot be considered critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", where Huang teaches the general conditions of the claim in the prior art, including the same composition in all other respects and identical experimental data. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Modified Lee and to have modified them by having in step f2) of modified Lee the liquid phase before being returned to the LNG tank is cooled to a temperature T2 as taught by Grefe between -140 and -161 ° C of modified Lee, in order to subcool the compressed gas and return the gas without forming additional boiloff gas (See Grefe Page 6¶5-6), without yielding unpredictable results.
In re Claim 21, Modified Lee teaches wherein the second expansion unit (V5) is configured to conduct fluid for passing through compressed gas (gas from 10 leaving 31) to be cooled and the LNG tank (1).
However, modified Lee does not explicitly teach, a second heat exchanger for passing through compressed gas to be cooled and the LNG tank.
On the other hand, Grefe teaches wherein the second expansion unit (V5) is configured to conduct fluid between the line of a second heat exchanger (Grefe heat exchanger W4) for passing through compressed gas (gas from point 2) to be cooled and the LNG tank (T1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Modified Lee and to have modified them by having the second expansion unit of modified Lee configured to conduct fluid between the line of the second heat exchanger as taught by Grefe for passing through compressed gas to be cooled and the LNG tank of modified Lee, in order to subcool the compressed gas and return the gas without forming additional boiloff gas (See Grefe Page 6¶5-6), without yielding unpredictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 16, and 20 are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
As per claim 9-10, and 16, there are no prior art teachings that would otherwise supplement or substitute the teachings of Lee to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art fails to teach the arrangement of a second heat exchanger having a line for passing through cooling fluid and a line for passing through compressed gas to be cooled wherein in the second heat exchanger the line for passing through compressed gas to be cooled is arranged in a fluid-conducting manner between the liquid outlet of the gas-liquid separator and the LNG tank of Claim 9; further comprising a third heat exchanger the cooling line of which is part of the bypass line and the line to be cooled is part of the return line of Claim 10; and . Although other prior art teachings, such as Grefe and Yung provide support for having second and third heat exchangers said teachings fail to provide support for the specific arrangements of the lines passing through the heat exchangers.
It should also be noted that the intended purpose and operating principles of Lee require the specific arrangement of an apparatus for reliquefying and returning boil off gas as disclosed and described therein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any modifications to Lee to arrive at the claimed invention would be based on improper hindsight, and would render Lee inoperable for its intended purpose. Assuming arguendo, rearranging and/or replacing an apparatus for reliquefying and returning boil off gas of Lee would change the principles of operation thereof, since it would require completely redesigning the structure of apparatus for reliquefying and returning boil off gas (contrary to the modification supra). For instance, rearranging and/or reconfiguring the BOG extraction would consequently require completely redesigning the arrangement of the first and second heat exchangers, most likely resulting in unexpected and/or unintended results, which is evidence against a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, a preponderance of evidence supports the allowability of Claims 9, 10, 16 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 571-270-7740. 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.
/IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1 The recitation of "for passing through compressed gas to be cooled" recited in the claim has been considered a recitation of intended use. The prior art structure above is capable of performing as intended. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitation. (MPEP 2114).
Prosecution Insights