Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim 16 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 16 recites “once the desired cryogenic liquid storage temperature is reached” which is considered indefinite as there is no corresponding limitation of “the desired cryogenic liquid storage temperature” and as such the limitation lacks antecedent basis. It is clear from the claim amendments that this is in reference to a now deleted limitation, and the limitation is treated as not further limiting the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11, 14-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre et al. (US PG Pub 20170167785), hereinafter referred to as Pierre and further in view of Turney et al. (US PG Pub 20170038136), hereinafter referred to as Turney and Kennedy et al. (US PG Pub 20170227283), hereinafter referred to as Kennedy and further in view of Turner (US PG Pub 20110094262), hereinafter referred to as Turner.
With respect to claim 1, Pierre (Figure 4) teaches a method for natural gas liquefaction, comprising:
providing a clean gas stream (treated natural gas stream 402, paragraph 46) and a recycled gas stream at a first pressure (recycle refrigerant stream 404, paragraph 46, which has a pressure);
mixing the clean gas stream and the recycled gas stream to form a mixed gas stream *404 and 402 are mixed in 403, paragraph 46);
splitting the mixed gas stream into at least a first stream and a second stream (in 406 the mixed stream is split into a first and second stream, paragraph 46);
passing the first stream and the second stream through a heat exchanger (both streams pass through the heat exchanger 418 ultimately at least in part as 414 and 410, paragraph 46);
wherein the heat exchanger cools the first stream to form a first liquefied stream by cross exchanging with one or more refrigeration streams (410 is liquefied in 418 to form first liquefied stream 436, paragraph 46), wherein the one or more refrigeration streams comprise:
a warm expander refrigeration stream (416 which has been expanded in 417, paragraph 46);
a cold expander refrigeration stream (428 is formed of expanded stream 422 and used to cool in 418, paragraph 46);
wherein the heat exchanger cools the second stream to obtain a cooled gas stream (414 which is formed of the split stream is cooled in 418, paragraph 418);
splitting the second stream into a first split stream and a second split stream (second stream from 406 is split in 408 in 414 and 412);
passing the first split stream through a warm turbo-expander to form the warm expander refrigeration stream (412 is passed to 417, which as it is used to drive a compressor is a turbo-expander paragraph 47);
passing the second split to cold turbo-expander to form a cooled split stream (414 is sent to 422 where it is expanded in a turbo-expander as the expansion drives a compressor, paragraph 47);
passing the cooled split stream through a cold separator to separate the cooled split stream into a second liquefied stream and the cold expander refrigeration stream (expanded stream 424 is sent to 426 to form a liquid stream and a vapor stream 428, paragraph 46);
combining the second liquefied stream with the first liquefied stream to form a third liquefied stream (the liquid stream from 426 is combined with 426 to form 438, paragraph 46);
passing the warm expander refrigeration stream and the cold expander refrigeration stream through the heat exchanger (both the expanded streams pass through the heat exchanger);
wherein the warm expander refrigeration stream and the cold expander refrigeration stream are combined in or after exiting the heat exchanger to form a combined stream (in 440 both expanded streams are combined to form 442, paragraph 47);
compressing and cooling the combined stream using one or more additional compressor and one or more cooler to form the recycled gas stream at pressure Precycle (the combined stream is compressed in 444, 446 and 448 and cooled in 454, paragraph 47 which brings it to the pressure of 404);
and recycling the one or more refrigeration streams through the system (the cooling is provided in order to produce the liquefied natural gas, which means the refrigeration streams are continualy recycled while LNG is being produced).
Pierre does not teach a secondary refrigeration stream;
generating a slipstream from the first liquefied stream which is used to form the secondary refrigeration stream,
passing the secondary refrigeration stream through the heat exchanger to form a secondary refrigeration return gas stream;
compressing the secondary refrigeration return gas stream using a first compressor to form a compressed secondary refrigeration return gas stream.
combining the compressed secondary refrigeration return gas steam with the combined stream to form a second combined stream upstream of the one or more additional compressor such that it is the second combined stream that is compressed.
Turney (Figure 4) teaches that a portion of a liquid nitrogen product is split (51) and recycled back through the heat exchanger used for liquefying the nitrogen (40) before being compressed (15) and mixed with the rest of the refrigerant and compressed again (410) (paragraphs 123-124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Turney taken a portion of the liquid stream (somewhere along 436) of Pierre and formed it into a slipstream and recycled it back through the heat exchanger (418) before compressing it and combining it with the expanded streams (442) which are then all compressed together since it has been shown that combining prior art methods to yield predictable results is obvious whereby recycling a portion of the liquid stream would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of increasing the amount of available refrigeration in the heat exchanger while also providing control of exactly how much product is produced by the system.
Pierre as modified does not teach combining the slipstream with a boil off gas stream from liquid natural gas storage to form the secondary refrigeration stream.
Kennedy (Figure 2) teaches after liquefaction the LNG can be split into two streams, one passed to storage (108 to 110) and one (158) that is mixed with boil-gas from storage (156) before being and recycled back through the system to provide cooling (paragraph 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 Kennedy to have when using a slipstream of the LNG of Pierre as modified to have sent to the non-slipstream to storage (stream 438) and when using the slipstream to provide cooling in the heat exchanger (418) to have mixed it first with boil-off gas from storage since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby recovering the boil-off gas and using it for cooling would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a way to use the boil-off gas to increase the refrigeration available while also being able to recover it for reliquefaction to prevent it being wasted.
Pierre as modified does not teach the first and second split stream are formed from splitting the cooled gas stream such that the heat exchangers cools the second stream to obtain a cooled gas stream; after passing the second stream through the heat exchanger and obtaining the cooled gas stream, the cooled gas stream is split into the first split cooled gas stream and a second split cooled gas stream, which are the stream passed to the turbo-expanders.
Turney (Figure 2) teaches that to form a warm expander stream (refrigerant sent to turbine booster stream 25) and a cold expander stream (refrigerant sent to turbine booster 20) that the stream can be first cooled in the heat exchanger with a portion of cooled stream being split and removed to be sent to the first turbine and the remaining stream being cooled and sent to the second turbine before both streams are used for cooling (paragraphs 122, see Figure 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Turney to have instead of providing the split of the refrigerant stream upstream of the heat exchanger of Pierre (at 408) to have passed the entirety of the streams for expansion into the heat exchanger (418) and then in the heat exchanger split the stream into the one sent to the warm turbine (417) and cold turbine (422) respectively with the latter being further cooled since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (split upstream of the heat exchanger) for another (split within the heat exchanger) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the split in the heat exchanger would allow what would be common knowledge in the art of further cooling of the streams which would allow for an increase in the cooling capability of the streams if additional refrigeration was desired from those streams. This change would move the split from upstream at 408 to inside the heat exchanger in the way as seen in Turney to feed 417 and 422 such that after passing through the heat exchanger (it passes in part thus meeting the limitation), a cooled gas stream is formed in the heat exchanger, which is then split into the two streams, one of which is passed to the warm expander and the other of which is continued to be passed through the heat exchanger to form the stream sent to the cold expander.
Pierre as modified does not teach reducing a pressure of the third liquefied stream to form a liquefied product stream.
Turner teaches that upstream of storage of LNG (42) to have provide a valve (40) to regulate the pressure of the LNG process stream into the storage tank (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 based on the teaching of Turner to have prior to sending the non-slipstream (438) of LNG to storage to have expanded it since it based on the teaching of Pierre since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it is common knowledge in the art that expanding the product stream would allow for the stream to be brought to a desired storage pressure and thus desired storage condition.
With respect to claim 2, Pierre as modified teaches wherein the clean gas stream is free of or reduced in impurities that tend to freeze at cryogenic temperatures ((impurities such as water, heavy hydrocarbons and sour gas are removed, paragraph 41, which would be components that would freeze).
With respect to claim 3, Pierre as modified teaches wherein the first stream is a product gas stream (the first stream is the one used to form the liquefied stream).
With respect to claim 5, Pierre as modified teaches wherein the first stream is cooled by the heat exchanger to a cryogenic temperature (the first stream is LNG, and is thus at cryogenic temperature).
With respect to claim 6, Pierre as modified teaches wherein the first liquefied stream is a liquefied natural gas product (the first stream is LNG).
With respect to claim 11, Pierre as modified teaches wherein one or more of the compressing steps is performed using work extracted at the warm turbo-expander and the cold turbo-expander (the two turbo-expanders are used to provide compression work for the combined compression, paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 14, Pierre as modified does not teach expanding, decreasing the pressure of, and/or cooling one or more stream by way of one or more Joule-Thompson valve(s).
Pierre does teach expansion of the first liquid stream can be by other-pressure reducing device than a turbine, paragraph 46). Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known that a variety of pressure reducing devices are known for expanded pressurized liquid stream and that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when expanding the liquid stream to have used a Joule-Thompson valve for the expansion as it is a known and reliable way of achieving a predictable level of expansion to bring a liquid stream to a desired temperature and pressure. Applicant has not timely traversed this official notice and as such it is considered admitted prior art.
With respect to claim 15, Pierre as modified teaches further comprising after passing the first liquefied stream through the Joule-Thompson valve(s):
The first liquefied stream is an LNG stream provided to storage (as modified the first liquefied stream is passed as the third stream to storage as LNG, which is after expansion).
Pierre as modified does not teach the step of generating the slipstream that mixes with the boil off gas to form the secondary refrigerant stream is done after the Joule-Thompson valve.
Turney teaches that the slipstream (15) of liquefied fluid is formed after expansion (V4, paragraph 123).
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 Turney to have when forming the slipstream in Pierre as modified to have formed it downstream of the of the expansion (after valve at 437 as modified) since it has been shown that choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious whereby as the slipstream can only be taken from either upstream or downstream of the expansion, it would have been obvious as shown by Turney to have taken it from after expansion with a reasonable expectation of success which would be common knowledge in the art of providing the stream under desired conditions for heat exchange during the stream being cycled back through the heat exchangers.
With respect to claim 16, Pierre as modified teaches further comprising delivering the liquefied product stream to a storage container once the desired cryogenic liquid storage temperature is reached (as modified the liquefied LNG stream is sent to storage).
With respect to claim 19, Pierre as modified teaches wherein work extracted at the warm turbo-expander and/or the cold turbo-expander are used in compressing the secondary refrigeration return gas stream (the secondary refrigeration return gas stream is part of the combined stream that is compressed using energy from the turbo-expanders, paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 20, Pierre as modified teaches wherein the secondary refrigeration return gas stream is boosted in pressure by way of a low-pressure compressor (the initial compression can be considered a low-pressure compression as it is compressed further).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre/Turney/Kennedy/Turner and further in view of Coward (US PG Pub 20100101272).
With respect to claims 12-13, Pierre does not teach monitoring the further comprising monitoring gas temperature and adjusting one or more of flow rate of warm expander refrigeration stream or the cold expander refrigeration stream based on the monitoring.
Coward teaches that an optimization tool can be used to provide optimization of a process train such that when there is a decrease in the amount of needed to be produced a process control detects the lower temperature in the main heat exchanger and compensates by adjusting the supply of the refrigerant (paragraph 45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having skill in the art at the time the invention to have based on the teaching of Coward to have in Pierre providing an optimization tool such that when there is a decrease in production of the natural gas in the heat exchanger, a temperature of the flow path of the natural gas through the heat exchanger (which would be a gas temperature) is measured by a detector and a decrease in the supply (which would be flow rate) of the refrigerant is provided (which would be either of the refrigerant streams of Pierre as modified) in order to maintain efficient operation of the process.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre/Turney/Kennedy/Turner and further in view of and Allam (US Patent No. 6484533), hereinafter referred to as Allam.
With respect to claim 17, Pierre as modified does not teach wherein the warm turbo-expander, cold turbo-expander, and one or more compressor are part of a single system coupled via a bull gear and pinions.
Allam teaches in a refrigeration cycle an integral gear machine (Figure 4) comprising a driver (drive shaft 13), a bull gear (12), and at least three pinions (10, 11, 15) arranged to drive the two or more refrigerant compression stages (each pinion shaft has a compressor attached) and/or for receiving work produced by the turbines/expanders (expanders 16 and 14 are tied directly to the compressors C3/C4) (Column 13, lines 13-36).
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 Allam provided a bull gear with the warm and cold turbo-expanders and the one or more compressors of Pierre attached via pinions since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this would provide the predictable result of a what would be common knowledge in the art of a method of providing the compression energy by having each turbine contribute to the overall driving of the compressors which would minimize the need for external energy for compression.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre/Turney/Kennedy/Turner/Allam and further in view of Christiansen (WO2010036121), hereinafter referred to as Christiansen.
With respect to claim 18, Pierre as modified does not teach wherein a single motor provides all all external power to the bull gear.
Christiansen teaches that in a common gearbox with multiple compressors that a steam turbine or electric motor is provided to drive the gear box (Page 5, lines 30-32, Figure 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Christiansen to have provided an electric motor in Jin Pierre as modified to provide additional energy to bull gear since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing an electric motor for such drive operations would provide what is common knowledge in the art of a suitable device capable of providing the necessary energy not provided by the turbines/expanders. As it is the only other component attached to the bull gear as modified It is the only source of external power.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierre and further in view of Turney.
With respect to claim 22, Pierre (Figure 4) teaches a method for natural gas liquefaction, comprising:
providing a gas stream (treated natural gas stream 402, paragraph 46) and a recycled gas stream at a first pressure (recycle refrigerant stream 404, paragraph 46, which has a pressure);
mixing the gas stream and the recycled gas stream to form a mixed gas stream *404 and 402 are mixed in 403, paragraph 46);
splitting the mixed gas stream into at least a first stream and a second stream (in 406 the mixed stream is split into a first and second stream, paragraph 46);
passing the first stream and the second stream through a heat exchanger (both streams pass through the heat exchanger 418 ultimately at least in part as 414 and 410, paragraph 46) comprising:
a warm expander refrigeration stream (416 which has been expanded in 417, paragraph 46);
a cold expander refrigeration stream (428 is formed of expanded stream 422 and used to cool in 418, paragraph 46);
wherein the heat exchanger cools the first stream to form a first liquefied stream (410 is liquefied in 418 to form first liquefied stream 436, paragraph 46),
wherein the heat exchanger cools the seconds stream by passing it through the heat exchanger to formed a cooled gas stream (414 which is formed of the split stream is cooled in 418, paragraph 418),
the second stream is split into and first and second split stream (second stream from 406 is split in 408 in 414 and 412);
the first split stream is passed a cold-turbo-expander to provide the cold expander refrigeration stream (414 is sent to 422 where it is expanded in a turbo-expander as the expansion drives a compressor, paragraph 47);
the second split stream is passed through a warm turbo-expander to provide the warm expander refrigeration stream (412 is passed to 417, which as it is used to drive a compressor is a turbo-expander paragraph 47);
wherein the one or more warm expander refrigeration stream and the cold expander stream are compressed one or more times together to provide the recycle stream (in 440 both the expanded stream are combined to form 442 and they are compressed and cooled in 444, 446, 448, 454m paragraph 47 to form the recycle stream).
Pierre does not teach the heat exchanger comprising a secondary refrigeration stream wherein the first liquefied stream is split to form to provide the secondary refrigeration stream and a stream of liquefied natural gas where the secondary refrigeration stream is compressed and provide as part of the recycled gas stream.
Turney (Figure 4) teaches that a portion of a liquid nitrogen product is split (51) and recycled back through the heat exchanger used for liquefying the nitrogen (40) before being compressed (15) and mixed with the rest of the refrigerant and compressed again (410) (paragraphs 123-124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Turney taken a portion of the liquid stream (somewhere along 436) of Pierre and formed it into a slipstream and recycled it back through the heat exchanger (418) before compressing it and combining it with the expanded streams (442) which are then all compressed together since it has been shown that combining prior art methods to yield predictable results is obvious whereby recycling a portion of the liquid stream would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art of increasing the amount of available refrigeration in the heat exchanger while also providing control of exactly how much product is produced by the system.
Pierre does not teach wherein the split of the second stream happens after the second stream is cooled in the heat exchanger such that after passing the second stream through the heat exchanger and forming the cooled gas stream, then the cooled gas stream is split into a first split cooled gas stream and a second split cooled gas stream and the first split cooled gas stream is passed through a heat exchanger before the respective streams are sent to their turbines.
Turney (Figure 2) teaches that to form a warm expander stream (refrigerant sent to turbine booster stream 25) and a cold expander stream (refrigerant sent to turbine booster 20) that the stream can be first cooled in the heat exchanger with a portion of cooled stream being split and removed to be sent to the first turbine and the remaining stream being cooled and sent to the second turbine before both streams are used for cooling (paragraphs 122, see Figure 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Turney to have instead of providing the split of the refrigerant stream upstream of the heat exchanger of Pierre (at 408) to have passed the entirety of the streams for expansion into the heat exchanger (418) and then in the heat exchanger split the stream into the one sent to the warm turbine (417) and cold turbine (422) respectively with the latter being further since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (split upstream of the heat exchanger) for another (split within the heat exchanger) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the split in the heat exchanger would allow what would be common knowledge in the art of further cooling of the streams which would allow for an increase in the cooling capability of the streams if additional refrigeration was desired from those streams. This change would move the split from upstream at 408 to inside the heat exchanger in the way as seen in Turney to feed 417 and 422 such that the stream would cooled, be split inside the heat exchanger and the first stream would be further cooled in the heat exchanger before being passed to the cold expander while the second stream would pass to the warm expander.
With respect to claim 23, Pierre (Figure 4) teaches a system for natural gas liquefaction, comprising:
a heat exchanger (18, paragraph 46) comprising:
a warm expander refrigeration stream (416, paragraph 46);
a cold expander refrigeration stream (428, paragraph 46);
and wherein one or more of the heat exchangers comprise one or more inputs to receive one or more mixed gas streams from a natural gas stream and a recycled gas stream (the heat exchange has an input for 410 and 414 both formed of a mix of 402 and 404, paragraph 46);
wherein one or more of the heat exchangers is configured to cool the mixed gas streams and provide a first liquefied stream and a cooled gas stream therefrom (the heat exchanger cools 414 and 410 to form two streams including a liquefied stream 436 and a cooled stream sent to 422, paragraph 46);
at least one warm turbo-expander configured to receive a gas stream (412 is received by 417)
at least one cold turbo-expander configured to receive a cooled gas to provide the cold expander refrigeration stream for input into one or more of the heat exchangers (cooled stream from 414 is expanded in expander 422 which as is used to provide compression energy is a turbo-expander, paragraphs 46-47);
wherein one or more of the heat exchangers comprises one or more inputs to receive one or more or all of the warm expander refrigeration stream, the cold expander refrigeration stream (the expanded streams are passed back to the heat exchanger, paragraph 46),
one or more compressors with one or more inputs for receiving one or more or all of the warm expander refrigeration stream, the cold expander refrigeration stream which compressor(s) provide the recycled gas stream as an output (after passing through the heat exchanger the expanded streams are combined and compressed in 444, 446, 448 and used to form the recycle stream 404, paragraphs 46-47).
Pierre does not teach the heat exchanger produces a cooled gas stream of which a portion is sent to the warm and cold turbo-expanders respectively such that the warm turbo-expander is configured to receive a first portion of the cooled gas stream from the heat exchanger and the cold turbo-expander is configured to receive a second portion of the cooled gas stream from the heat exchanger.
Turney (Figure 2) teaches that to form a warm expander stream (refrigerant sent to turbine booster stream 25) and a cold expander stream (refrigerant sent to turbine booster 20) that the stream can be first cooled in the heat exchanger with a portion of cooled stream being split and removed to be sent to the first turbine and the remaining stream being cooled and sent to the second turbine before both streams are used for cooling (paragraphs 122, see Figure 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention as filed to have based on the teaching of Turney to have instead of providing the split of the refrigerant stream upstream of the heat exchanger of Pierre (at 408) to have passed the entirety of the streams for expansion into the heat exchanger (418) and then in the heat exchanger split the stream into the one sent to the warm turbine (417) and cold turbine (422) respectively with the latter being further since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element (split upstream of the heat exchanger) for another (split within the heat exchanger) to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the split in the heat exchanger would allow what would be common knowledge in the art of further cooling of the streams which would allow for an increase in the cooling capability of the streams if additional refrigeration was desired from those streams. This change would move the split from upstream at 408 to inside the heat exchanger in the way as seen in Turney to feed 417 and 422 such that each expander would receive a portion of the cooled gas from the heat exchanger.
Pierre does not teach storage configured to receive all or a portion of the first liquefied stream.
Turney teaches that liquefied product (52) can be sent for storage (paragraph 118).
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 Turney to have provided storage to receive the first liquefied stream of Pierre since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing storage would provide what would be common knowledge in the art allow for holding of the liquid product until use or for transport.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues page 8-9 that no prima facie case of obviousness has been provided showing Pierre and Turney teach of suggest all of the claimed features; however, there is no specific argument made here how a prima facie case has not been made and such there is no argument to respond to in this regard.
Applicant argues, page 9 that the claim amendments to “after passing the second stream through the heat exchanger and obtaining the cooled gas stream, splitting the cooled gas stream into a first split cooled gas stream and a second split gas stream” is not taught by Pierre or Turney as Pierre only has the stream pass through the heat exchanger once before being expanded at 422. This is not persuasive.
The claim only require the stream to pass through the heat exchanger they do not require that it leaves the heat exchanger, once the stream has been passed through any point of the heat exchanger it can be said to have passed through the heat exchanger as the limitation of “passing through” does not passing through the entirety of the heat exchanger as applicant argues, and as such, the combination of Pierre with Turney teaches the limitation as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763