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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 as 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
“expander loop”
“condensate loop”
“pressure control system”
“control system”
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.
While the drawings provides components that could be considered the above listed components, the specification and drawings do not clearly show what components fit within the respective loops or control systems. These limitations are treated and interpreted broadly as effectively being anything that meets these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a control system configured to coordinate operation of the first and second compression services” which is considered new matter as it is not supported in the specification. The specification clearly defines that there are two separate control systems a “capacitive control system” and a “pressure control system” and that they “work in tandem” or “work together” and that they are explicitly “separate control systems” (see paragraphs 55-56 of the instant specification). As such, there is no support for a single control system which operates both services. Further, while “work together” and “work in tandem” could read as “coordinate operation” it is possible that those operations can happen without coordinating operation.
Claim 1 recites “an expander loop comprising at least one turboexpander and associated piping” which is considered new matter as it is not supported in the specification. The specification repeatedly recites “expander loop” but does not make it clear to what component or components are part of the expander loop resulting in this limitation lacking support in the specification.
Claim 1 recites “a control system” but has previously recited “a pressure control system” and it is unclear if they are the same or separate systems. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be separate components.
Claim 9 recites “coordinating operation of the first and second compression services” which is considered new matter as it is not supported in the specification. The specification clearly defines that there are two separate control systems a “capacitive control system” and a “pressure control system” and that they “work in tandem” or “work together” and that they are explicitly “separate control systems” (see paragraphs 55-56 of the instant specification). As such, there is no support for a single control system which means they are not coordinated and further while “work together” and “work in tandem” could read as “coordinate operation” it is possible that those operations can happen without coordinating operation.
Claim 17 recites “a control system configured to coordinate operation of the first and second compression services” which is considered new matter as it is not supported in the specification. The specification clearly defines that there are two separate control systems a “capacitive control system” and a “pressure control system” and that they “work in tandem” or “work together” and that they are explicitly “separate control systems” (see paragraphs 55-56 of the instant specification). As such, there is no support for a single control system which operates both services. Further, while “work together” and “work in tandem” could read as “coordinate operation” it is possible that those operations can happen without coordinating operation.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-20 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 recites “at least one turboexpander” in line 8 which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if it’s related to or the same as the previously recited at least one turboexpander. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the turboexpanders can be the same.
Claim 1 recites “an expander loop comprising at least one turboexpander and associated piping” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear from this recitation what would qualify as “associated piping”. The specification has not clearly defined what qualifies as “associated piping” or the boundaries of what the “expander loop” are resulting in it being unclear what qualifies as associated piping. For the purpose of examination, the expander loop is considered to at a minimum including at least one turbo expander and at least some piping connected to said turbo expander.
Claim 1 recites “the second compression service is capacitive-controlled” in lines 17 which is considered indefinite as the claims have already recited that the second compression service is capacitive controlled so it is unclear how this limitation further limits the claims or if it is a repetitive limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered to be repetitive.
Claim 1 recites “actively transfer” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear what is required for active transferring of the hydrogen from the turbo expander loop for the limitation to be met. For the purpose of examination, as long as some form of transfer is made from a loop that includes a turbo expander to a feed stream the limitation is met.
Claim 5 recites “the compressed hydrogen” which is considered indefinite as the claims have no recited any compressed hydrogen and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to hydrogen that is being cooled in the system that has been compressed.
Claim 6 recites “the compressed hydrogen” which is considered indefinite as the claims have no recited any compressed hydrogen and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to hydrogen that is being cooled in the system that has been compressed.
Claim 9 recites “the second compression services is capacitive-controlled” in lines 113-14 which is considered indefinite as the claims have already recited that the second compression service is via capacitive control so it is unclear how this limitation further limits the claims or if it is a repetitive limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered to be repetitive.
Claim 12 recites “the second compression service is achieved through compressor suction valves” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how a compression service is achieved through compressor suction valves. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the capacitive control of the second compression service uses control suction valves.
Claim 14 recess “the compressed hydrogen” which is considered indefinite as the claims have no recited any compressed hydrogen and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to hydrogen that is being cooled in the system that has been compressed.
Claim 17 recites “the second compression service is capacitive-controlled” in line 14 which is considered indefinite as the claims have already recited that the second compression service is via capacitive control so it is unclear how this limitation further limits the claims or if it is a repetitive limitation. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered to be repetitive.
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all issues in regard to 35 USC 112 in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, it may not be possible to indicate every issue in regard to 35 USC 112 and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding issues in regard to 35 USC 112. The applicant is also requested to proof-read any future amendments for any potential issues in regard to 35 USC 112 that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first compression service in claim 17 is understood to be a compressor;
second compression service in claim 17 is understood to be a compressor;
control system in claims 1, 6 and 17 understood to be any number of components include valves, controllers, sensors;
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.
Pressure regulator is interpreted to mean any component that can regulate pressure.
Intermediate pressure is understood to be from 1-3 bar or 0.5-4 bar, as that is the pressure at which the flash drum is recited as operating (paragraph 61 of the instant specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam (US Patent No. 7559213), hereinafter to as Allam and Ishimura (US PG Pub 20140053598), hereinafter referred to as Ishimura and Hase et al. (US Patent No. 6287083), hereinafter referred to as Hase and Rizzi et al. (US PG Pub 20180023412), hereinafter referred to as Rizzi.
With respect to claim 1, Allam teaches (Figure 1) a system for hydrogen gas liquefaction, the system comprising:
a first compression service comprising a compressor fluidically connected to at least one turbo expander, (compressor 76 which is fed in part by one of the two turbines 38, column 11, lines 21-25, Column 12, lines 14-16, the turbine can be a centrifugal turbine, Column 11, line 40-41, which is a turboexpander),
a second compression service comprising a compressor (compressor 64, Column 12, line 9),
an expander loop comprising at least one turboexpander and associated piping (the same turboexpander 38, with the loop beginning just upstream of 38 and ending upstream of 76 at 75)
a condensate loop configured to receive hydrogen from an expander loop and actively hydrogen from the expander loop into the condensate loop thereby maintaining the overall condensate loop at a substantially constant pressure while changing pressure levels within the expander loop (expanded stream 40 is passed through the heat exchanger to provided refrigeration duty for the hydrogen and is then passed to compressor 76, Column 11, lines 21-25, Column 12, lines 14-16 where the expander, where the condensate loop can be considered the point between the outlet of 76 and where the expander loop begins which as there is no direct pressure changes on that loop can be considered to have substantially constant pressure whereas the expander causes a change in pressure in the expander loop);
an intermediate flash drum configured to capture flash gas at an intermediate pressure (separator 54 separates flash gas, Column 11, lines 64-65, which is at 0.1 MPa, Column 11, lines 35).
Allam does not teach wherein the at least one turbo expander is configured to maintain a constant pressure ratio such that the transfer of hydrogen into the condensate loop is under control of a pressure control system.
Rizzi teaches that an adjustment parameter can be provided to allow for maintaining a constant pressure ratio between and inlet and outlet of a turbine can allow for greater efficiency in input conditions for the thermodynamic cycle of the plant when input conditions differ from nominal conditions such as a change in upstream pressure (paragraph 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided control of the expansion turbine of Allam as modified such that a constant pressure ratio is maintained regardless of input conditions based on the teaching of Rizzi since it has been shown that combining to be able to maintain efficiency of the system whereby maintaining a constant pressure ratio would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of ensuring the necessary pressure drop to provide the predictable result of a desired cooling of the fluid as it cycles through the expansion turbines. As the constant pressure is maintained there can be said to be a pressure control system or equivalent present otherwise the ratio would not be able to be maintained.
Allam does not teach the second compression controlled via capacitive control.
Hase teaches that a control system which controls a compressor can operate on capacitive control (Column 5, lines 21-27).
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 Hase to have provide capacitive control to the compressor (64) of Allam since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a capacitive control to the compressor would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of allowing the pressure of the recycled hydrogen to be controlled in order to maintain a desired constant pressure of the compressor in order to maintain the operations as desired.
Allam as modified does not teach control system configured to coordinate operation of the first and second compression services, wherein the first compression services is pressure controlled and the second compression service is capacitive controlled.
Ishimura (Figure 3) teaches that a controller can be provided (10) which is connected to compressors and expansion turbines in a liquefaction system and based on measurement values of process data provide control to the compressors and turbines including setting pressure operations of a compressor (paragraphs 55-56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a controller in Ishimura that is connected to each of the compressors and expanders of the liquefaction system in order to control the operations of the components including pressure control of the compressor that is part of the first compression service since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is common knowledge in the art of providing a controller that is able to modify the compressors and other components of a system would allow or a more efficient operation as it would enable maintaining operations as desired as well as modifying operations to match load required conditions. Providing such a controller would meet the limitation as claimed of coordinated control with a control system, and would modify the first compression service to be operated based on the teaching of Ishimura as no specific control is shown to taught for that compressor as modified as the other compressor has already been modified for capacitive control.
With respect to claim 2, Allam as modified teaches wherein the first compression service comprises a reciprocating compressor (the compressor can be a reciprocating machine, Column 12, lines 50-51).
With respect to claim 3, Allam as modified teaches wherein the second compression service comprises a reciprocating compressor (the compressor can be a reciprocating machine, Column 12, lines 50-51).
With respect to claim 4, Allam as modified teaches wherein the at least one turbo expanders is arranged in a series configuration, when more than one turbo expander is present (the turbine 38 can be multiple centrifugal turbines in series, Column 11, lines 39-40).
With respect to claim 5, Allam as modified teaches wherein the system further Is configured to cool that cools the compressed hydrogen to a temperature below its boiling point (compressed hydrogen at 20 is ultimately liquefied at 48, Column 11, lines 30-32 using the heat exchangers 24 and 46).
With respect to claim 6, Allam as modified teaches wherein the system further comprises a second control system that regulates the pressure of the compressed hydrogen (the expander 50 is a second control system that regulates the pressure of the compressed hydrogen, as it expands compressed hydrogen at 48 to 52, Column 11, lines 33-36, which expander can be considered equivalent to valve that controls pressure as it performs the same function).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam/Ishimura/Hase/Rizzi and further in view of Ducote et al. (US PG Pub 20230366620), hereinafter referred to as Ducote.
With respect to claim 7, Allam does not teach wherein the system further comprises a section of catalyst for converting para-hydrogen into ortho-hydrogen.
Ducote teaches that a recycle stream of hydrogen can be passed over a para-ortho conversion catalyst to take advantage of extra cooling provided by the conversion (paragraph 31).
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 Ducote to have provided para-ortho conversion catalyst along a recycle line of hydrogen in Allam as modified to be able to increase the cooling capability of the recycle stream.
With respect to claim 8, Allam as modified teaches does not teach wherein the system further comprises a recycle compressor that compresses the hydrogen that has not been liquefied.
However, Allam already teaches a recycle compressor as claimed (compressor 76 compresses non-liquefied hydrogen and acts as a recycle compressor) but the claims are interpreted to require an additional one. As such further comprising another recycle compressor would be considered a duplication of parts and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included an additional recycle compressor (either up or downstream of 76) in Allam since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced, whereby providing an additional compressor would allow for an increase in overall capacity, provide a back-up for the already present compressor, and/or allow to smaller compressors to be used to achieve the same result in conditions where that may be desirable.
Claim(s) 9, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam and further in view of Ishimura and Hase.
With respect to claim 9, Allam teaches (Figure 1) a method for liquefying hydrogen gas, the method comprising: providing a first compression service comprising a compressor fluidically connected to a turbo expander loop (compressor 76 which is fed in part by turbine 38, column 11, lines 21-25, Column 12, lines 14-16, the turbine can be a centrifugal turbine, Column 11, line 40-41, which is a turboexpander forms a loop from the expander to the compressor and then from the compressor back to the expander);
providing a second compression service comprising a compressor (compressor 64, Column 12, line 9),
transferring hydrogen from the turbo expander loop into a feed stream, thereby changing pressure levels within the turbo expander loop (the expanded stream 40 is passed through the heat exchanger to provide refrigeration duty for condensing the hydrogen and is passed to the compressor 76, Column 11, lines 21-25, Column 12, lines 14-16 which would change the pressure level of the stream as it is heated and after it is compressed);
maintaining the condensate loop at a constant pressure while the pressure level of an expander loop is changed (the stream that is being cooled, the portion not removed to form 26 and 24 is not changed in pressure as it is being cooled and condensed to form 48, and the expander changes the pressure of the expanded stream);
capturing flash gas at an intermediate pressure in an intermediate flash drum (separator 54 separates flash gas, Column 11, lines 64-65, which is at 0.1 MPa, Column 11, lines 35);
Allam does not teach wherein the turbo expander loop is controlled via pressure coordinating the operation of the first and second compression services such that the first compression service is pressure-controlled.
Ishimura (Figure 3) teaches that a controller can be provided (10) which is connected to compressors and expansion turbines in a liquefaction system and based on measurement values of process data including pressure provide control to the compressors and turbines including setting pressure operations of a compressor (paragraphs 55-56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a controller in Ishimura that is connected to each of the compressors and expanders of a liquefaction system based on measured values including pressure in order to control the operations of the components including pressure control since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is common knowledge in the art of providing a controller that is able to modify the compressors and turbines of a system would allow or a more efficient operation as it would enable maintaining operations as desired as well as modifying operations to match load required conditions. Providing such a controller would meet the limitation as claimed done in coordination as well as controlling the turbo expander and the first compressor via pressure as the controller receives pressure values to make a determination of how to operate the components.
Allam does not teach the second compression service controlled via capacitive control.
Hase teaches that a control system which controls a compressor can operate on capacitive control (Column 5, lines 21-27).
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 Hase to have provide capacitive control to the compressor (64) of Allam since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a capacitive control to the compressor would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of allowing the pressure of the recycled hydrogen to be controlled in order to maintain compressor at a desired speed in order to maintain the operations as desired. As modified this would result in the coordinating having the second compression service capacitive controlled.
With respect to claim 13, Allam as modified teaches wherein the method further comprises a heat exchanger that exchanges heat between the compressed hydrogen and a coolant fluid (in the heat exchangers the compressed hydrogen is cooled against heating the expanded fluid).
With respect to claim 14, Allam as modified teaches wherein the method further comprises regulating the pressure of the compressed hydrogen (as modified there is a controller in claim 9 which controls the operations and thus the pressure of the compressors and as such can be considered to regulate the pressure of the compressed hydrogen).
With respect to claim 15, Allam as modified does not teach wherein the system further comprises a recycle compressor that compresses the hydrogen that has not been liquefied.
However, Allam already teaches a recycle compressor as claimed (compressor 76 compresses non-liquefied hydrogen and acts as a recycle compressor) but the claims are interpreted to require an additional one. As such further comprising another recycle compressor would be considered a duplication of parts and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included an additional recycle compressor (either up or downstream of 76) in Allam since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new an unexpected result is produced, whereby providing an additional compressor would allow for an increase in overall capacity, provide a back-up for the already present compressor, and/or allow to smaller compressors to be used to achieve the same result in conditions where that may be desirable.
With respect to claim 16, Allam as modified teaches wherein the intermediate flash drum operates at a pressure of between about 1 and 3 bar (the fluid fed to the separator is at 0.1 MPa which is 1 bar).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam/Ishimura/Hase and further in view of Lee (US PG Pub 20180320637), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
With respect to claim 10, Allam as modified does not teach wherein the capacitive control of the second compression service is achieved through a variable frequency drive.
Lee teaches that a variable frequency drive control can be provided to a compressor to determine what the discharge pressure of the compressor is (paragraphs 11-12).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when providing capacitive control to the compressor (64) of Allam as modified to have used a variable frequency drive based on the teaching of Lee since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that variable frequency drives are an old, well known and suitable structure useable to provide flow control to a compressor.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam/Hase/Ishimura and further in view of Karode (US PG Pub 20230221067), hereinafter referred to as Karode.
Allam as modified does not teach wherein the capacitive control of the second compression service is achieved through variable clearance pockets.
Karode teaches that flow control for a compressor can be provided by variable clearance pockets (Paragraph 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when providing capacitive control to the compressor (64) of Allam as modified to have used variable clearance pockets based on the teaching of Karode since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that variable clearance pockets are an old, well known and suitable structure useable to provide flow control to a compressor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam and further in view of Choi (US Patent No. 7614251), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
With respect to claim 12, Allam as modified does not teach the second compression service is achieved through controlled compressor suction valves.
Choi teaches that the flow path through a compressor can controlled through suction valves mounted at ends of pistons of the compressor (Column 2, lines 60-61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when providing capacitive control to the compressor (64) of Allam as modified to have used compressor suction valves based on the teaching of Choi since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing one having common knowledge in the art would recognize that compressor suction valves are an old, well known and suitable structure useable to provide flow control to a compressor.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allam and further in view of Hase and Ishimura and Ducote.
With respect to claim 17, Allam as modified teaches (Figure 1) an apparatus for liquefying hydrogen comprising:
a first compression service-connected fluidically to a turbo expander (compressor 76 which is fed in part by turbine 38, column 11, lines 21-25, Column 12, lines 14-16, the turbine can be a centrifugal turbine, Column 11, line 40-41),
a second compression service (compressor 64, Column 12, line 9),
an expander loop comprising the turbo expander (from just upstream the inlet of the expander to the feed stream to just downstream of the compressor 76) and a condensate loop configured to receive hydrogen from the expander loop and transfer the hydrogen into a feed stream, thereby changing pressure levels within the expander loop (the expanded stream 40 is passed through the heat exchanger to provide refrigeration duty for condensing the hydrogen and is passed to the compressor 76, Column 11, lines 21-25, Column 12, lines 14-16 which would change the pressure level of the stream as it is expanded and heated and it passes from the beginning of the loop ultimately to the condensate loop);
an intermediate flash drum configured to capture flash gas at an intermediate pressure (separator 54 separates flash gas, Column 11, lines 64-65, which is at 0.1 MPa, Column 11, lines 35);
wherein the apparatus is configured to operate within a temperature range of -150°C to -253°C and a pressure range of 1 bar to 50 bar (the system produces hydrogen at 0.1 MPa and -253 C, Column 11, line 35 and thus it operates within that range).
Allam does not teach the second compression service controlled via capacitance control.
Hase teaches that a control system which controls a compressor can operate on capacitive control (Column 5, lines 21-27).
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 Hase to have provide capacitive control to the compressor (64) of Allam since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing a capacitive control to the compressor would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of allowing the pressure of the recycled hydrogen to be controlled in order to maintain a desired constant pressure of the compressor in order to maintain the operations as desired.
Allam does not teach a catalyst section configured to convert para-hydrogen into ortho-hydrogen.
Ducote teaches that a recycle stream of hydrogen can be passed over a para-ortho conversion catalyst to take advantage of extra cooling provided by the conversion (paragraph 31).
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 Ducote to have provided para-ortho conversion catalyst along a recycle line of hydrogen in Allam as modified to be able to increase the cooling capability of the recycle stream.
Allam as modified does not teach the turbo expander loop is controlled via pressure and the control system configured to coordinate operation of the first and second compression service, wherein the first compression service is pressure controlled.
Ishimura (Figure 3) teaches that a controller can be provided (10) which is connected to compressors and expansion turbines in a liquefaction system and based on measurement values of process data including pressure provide control to the compressors and turbines including setting pressure operations of a compressor (paragraphs 55-56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided a controller in Ishimura that is connected to each of the compressors and expanders of a liquefaction system based on measured values including pressure in order to control the operations of the components including pressure control since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is common knowledge in the art of providing a controller that is able to modify the first compressor and turbines of the system would allow or a more efficient operation as it would enable maintaining operations as desired as well as modifying operations to match load required conditions. Providing such a controller would meet the limitation as claimed done in unison as well as controlling the turbo expander and compressor via pressure as the controller receives pressure values to make a determination of how to operate the components, which would result in the turbo expander loop also being controlled via pressure.
With respect to claim 18, Allam as modified teaches wherein the changing pressure levels within the expander loop are achieved through the use of a pressure regulator (the compressor is a pressure regulator).
With respect to claim 19, Allam as modified teaches wherein the first compression service comprises a reciprocating compressor (the compressor can be a reciprocating machine, Column 12, lines 50-51).
With respect to claim 20, Allam as modified teaches wherein the second compression service comprises a reciprocating compressor (the compressor can be a reciprocating machine, Column 12, lines 50-51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Some of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been resolved by the amendments, but not all have been properly addressed and due to the amendments additional rejections have been made.
Applicants arguments, page 11- page 12, paragraph 1 are moot as they are only describing the invention as claimed and not making any arguments as to patentability with respect to the prior art.
Applicant argues, page 12, paragraph 2- page 13, paragraph 1 that Ishimura teaches “a single controller” to manage multiple components, rather than a “control system configured to coordinate operation of the first and second compression services, wherein the first compression service is pressure-controlled, and the second compression service is capacitive controlled” which teaching in Ishimura provides “no indication… of two independent control means operating in unison. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It has been shown by Hase that it would be obvious to have controlled the second compression service via capacitive control. Ishimura then teaches that a single overall controller (which is a control system as best understood in view of the specification) can be used to provide overall control to the compressors and turbo expanders of the system. Thus as modified Allam would have one compressor controlled via pressure control by the single controller and as the second controller is both capacitive controlled and controlled by the single controller to have had the second compressor be controlled as claimed. The claims do not require “independent control means operating in unison” but a single “control means configured to coordinate operation” which would be met by the presence of a single controller which provides overall operation to the system. It should also be noted as above, that “a control system configured to coordinate operation” is not supported by the specification which clearly states that the two control systems are separate (paragraph 56 if the instant specification).
Applicants remaining argument page 13-14 is moot as it does not take into account the rejection above which provides the teaching of Rizzi which shows it obvious to have provided a control system to specifically control the turbo expander to maintain the constant pressure ratio. Further, as the condensate loop recives hydrogen from the expander loop under control of the pressure control system (the pressure control system which controls the constant ratio), the limitations is met of “maintaining the overall condensate loop at a substantially constant pressure while changing pressure levels within the expander loop” as the structure is the same within the control architecture as claimed the limitation is met. Further, it should be noted, that the claims do not appear to cite a dual control architecture as argued, but an unclear number of controllers as claimed.
Applicant argues page 14, that Allam does not teach a second compression service where “there is no teaching or suggestion as to how the pressures can be adjusted, since the low pressure and the feed pressure are both fixed, especially considering the mixing and in-series configuration” and “Allam teaches pressure that are predetermined and not independently variable” and is “silent as to how the pressure of the condensate can be maintained independently of the feed or tank”. This is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Allam alone does not teach how the pressure can be adjusted, this is provided by the additional prior art which is not addressed in the above argument. Further, there is no requirement in the claim that “the pressures can be adjusted” or “pressures of the condensate can be maintained independently of the feed or tank” only that there is a control system which controls the pressures, and “maintains the overall condensate loop at a substantially constant pressure while chanting pressure levels within the expander loop” which does not require any actual adjustment as argued, but only requires that the constant pressure is maintained and that there is a change in pressure level within the expander loop as well as a substantially constant pressure in the condensate loop which as shown in the rejection above is obvious.
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