DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election dated 12/9/2025 of Group I (claims 1-15), species 1 (Fig. 1) without traverse is acknowledged as well as the Applicant’s election of subspecies A, D, G, K with traverse in the same reply. Claims 12, 13, 16-53 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, species, or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement for election did not show that a search for the subspecies would create a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the varied subspecies would require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. It is considered immediately apparent that a search for freeze out devices would be a different field of search from a search for an adsorption system and prior art applicable to one these would not likely be applicable to the other. Likewise, a search for the alternative mixing arrangements would require a different field of search and would lead to prior art not applicable to each other. Likewise, a search for the alternative two purifiers versus a combined purifier would require a different field of search and would lead to prior art not applicable to each other. These differences were described in the election requirement as being the same reasons for applicable to all of the identified species of the election.
The traversal is further an allegation that all of the claims are generic to the identified subspecies and therefore there would be no search burden. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive. An election of species requirement is founded on the disclosed alternatives. The search burden is in view of a search for such and not only in consideration of just what is presently claimed but what a search for the disclosed subspecies features would require.
The traversal is further an allegation that the election requirement is “cumulative” and contrary to MPEP 2120. The applicant is in error. MPEP 2120 concerns rejection of claims in view of prior art and has no provision concerning the election of species, much less any provision that an election of species is improper merely because the application presents a large number of alternatives. In fact, the opposite is the case, MPEP requires that “the examiner may require restriction of claims to not more than a reasonable number of species” MPEP 806.04.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Specification
The amendment filed 12/9/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The processing of stream 194 by a knockout drum, pressure swing adsorption device, thermal swing adsorption device or membrane system.
Splitting the stream 187 to provide fluid to both 132 and 133 and such being dependent on the exit temperature from the freeze-out device.
Cooling provided from a low-pressure refrigerant 141, an intermediate-pressure refrigerant 151, or another source.
The freeze-out regeneration feed 195 consisting of hydrogen or helium.
The freeze-out device being a brazed aluminum heat exchanger, tubular heat exchanger and incorporating a filter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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(s) 1-11, 14, 15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claims 1-11, 14, 15, the recitation, “compression system”, “first refrigerant separation device”, “refrigerant purifier”, “interstage separation device”, “mixing device”, “simultaneous heat and mass transfer control system”, and “primary refrigerant expansion device” are indefinite for the reasons below related to 112 sixth paragraph below.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “such that the molecular weight of the mixture” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the molecular weight” and for “the mixture”.
The recitation, “refrigerant warming passage” is unclear as it is not clear if the recitation encompasses plural passages or only a single passage. The wording of the recitation is to a single passage, however, the claim recites the refrigerant warming passage being in fluid communication with a number of structures and it is unclear how the passage is more than one passage if it is recited as merely one passage.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “in fluid communication with the compression system” is unclear since it is unclear what structure is included and not included in the recited compression system.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “low-pressure” and “intermediate-pressure” are indefinite inasmuch as the recitations are interpreted to require a particular pressure. Relative terms have no absolute meaning and are only definite in relation to something. There is no absolute meaning of the term “low”. It can only be discernible in relation to something else and it is unclear what the pressures must be compared with.
The recitation, “a mixing vessel valve having a valve inlet configured to receive fluid from the interstage separation device liquid outlet and the high pressure accumulator liquid outlet and a valve outlet configured to direct fluid to the third inlet of the mixing device when the mixing vessel valve is open” is indefinite as it is unclear how these limitations are consistent with the limitations of claims 2 and 3 that the liquid outlets are in fluid communication with the compression system.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “the refrigerant purifier is …an adsorbent” is indefinite since it is unclear how merely an adsorbent could provide the full function recited including inlets and outlets.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “is removed from the liquefaction process” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and for being entirely without structure and there is no way to determine what structure is included in the recited process.
The recitation, “rejecting it” is unclear as there is no way to discern what “it” refers to and is unclear what structure the system must have to perform the recited “rejecting”. Further the recitation, “recycling it” is unclear what “it” references.
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.
Claim limitation “compression system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is encompassed by the recited system and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any compressor is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “first refrigerant separation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is encompassed by the recited device and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any structure that separates refrigerant into more than one stream is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “refrigerant purifier” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is sufficient to satisfy the recited purifier and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any structure that removes any impurity in any manner from the refrigerant is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “an interstage separation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is sufficient to satisfy the recited device and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any separator that performs a separation of refrigerant is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “mixing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is sufficient to satisfy the recited device and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any structure that can provide mixing of more than one entered stream is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “simultaneous heat and mass transfer control system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is sufficient to satisfy the recited system and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any structure that can influence the temperature of fluid within the mixing device as interpreted above is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “a primary refrigerant expansion device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description of what structure is sufficient to satisfy the recited device and therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, any expander that performs a pressure reduction of the refrigerant is considered within the scope of the term.
Claim limitation “freeze out device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See spec. para. 9 where such is defined as a device that removes at least an impurity or impurities by selectively freezing a particular component or components.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beddome (US 3992167). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Beddome teaches a system for cooling a feed stream (10) including hydrogen or helium (column 4, line 30-35, hydrogen) with a mixed refrigerant (column 4, line 40-45, mixed gas) comprising:
a. a pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20 or 14, 20, 29) having a feed stream cooling passage (13), a first refrigerant cooling passage (13), a second refrigerant cooling passage (19) and a refrigerant warming passage (86, 85);
b. a compression system (at least 89, 93) having an inlet (to 89) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (85, 86) and configured to receive and increase a pressure of a refrigerant vapor stream (column 4, line 40-45, column 9, line 15-25) comprised of hydrogen and/or helium mixed with at least one other refrigerant such that the molecular weight of the mixture is greater than 6 kg/kgmol. (column 4, line 40-45; column 9, line 55-65), said compression system (at least 89, 93) having an outlet (of 93) in fluid communication with the first refrigerant cooling passage (13);
c. a first refrigerant separation device (15) configured to receive fluid from the first refrigerant cooling passage (13) in the pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20), said first refrigeration separation device (15) having a liquid outlet (to 52) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (85, 86) and a vapor outlet (to 16);
d. a refrigerant purifier (5 and/or 6) having a purifier inlet (thereof) in fluid communication with the vapor outlet (to 16) of the first refrigerant separation device (15) and an outlet (from 5, 6) in fluid communication with the second refrigerant cooling passage (19), said second refrigerant cooling passage (19) having an outlet (thereof) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (86, 85 via other components).
In regard to claim 8, Beddome teaches that the refrigerant purifier (5, 6) is an adsorbent (column 5, line line 2-25 “adsorbent”).
In regard to claim 9, Beddome teaches a first refrigerant purifier regeneration stream (through one bed; column 5, line 35) is recycled (via line 17; column 5, line 45-50) to the compression system (at least 89, 93).
In regard to claim 10, Beddome teaches a second refrigerant purifier regeneration stream (through other bed) is removed after a second refrigerant purifier (other bed) by recycling upstream of the feed stream cooling passage (13; see entry of 17 is upstream of where 10 intersects with 11) of the pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20).
In regard to claim 11, Beddome teaches that the pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20, 29) has at least one supplemental refrigerant cooling passage (43) and at least one supplemental refrigerant warming passage (68 or 48).
In regard to claim 15, Beddome teaches a primary refrigerant expansion device (80, 83) operating below ambient temperature, said primary refrigerant expansion device (80, 83) configured to receive primary refrigerant from the liquid outlet (to 52) of the first refrigerant separation device (15), reduce temperature and pressure of the received primary refrigerant so that an expanded primary refrigerant (after 80, 83) is provided and to direct the expanded primary refrigerant to the refrigerant warming passage (86, 85).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beddome (US 3992167) in view of Cardella (US 2018/0347897). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Beddome teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach an insulating cold box having an interior and an exterior wherein the pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20) is positioned within the interior of the cold box and the compression system (at least 89, 93) is positioned exterior to the cold box. However, Cardella teaches that providing an insulating cold box for a precooling heat exchanger is routine and ordinary (para. 95, 101 see precooling cold box 78 having a precooling heat exchanger and further see compressors are outside thereof). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Beddome with an insulating cold box having an interior and an exterior wherein the pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20) is positioned within the interior of the cold box and the compression system (at least 89, 93) is positioned exterior to the cold box for the purpose of providing insulation to the pre-cooling heat exchanger to prevent unwanted heat leak and improved thermal efficiency and keeping the compressors outside thereof to provide easy ambient cooling in the aftercoolers.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beddome (US 3992167) in view of Ducote (US 2017/0010043) and Brostow (US 2016/0327335). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Beddome teaches many of the claim limitations as explained above, including a low-pressure refrigerant warming passage (86) and an intermediate pressure refrigerant warming passage (85), a high pressure accumulator (15), a mixed gas compressor (89), a mixed gas aftercooler (90), an first interstage compressor (93), a first interstage aftercooler (94), with respective inlets and outlets (thereof), but does not explicitly teach a mixing device with first, second, third inlets, a vapor outlet, and an a liquid outlet, mixing valve, and pump, as well as an interstage separation device, a second interstage compressor, a second interstage aftercooler, pump, and heating coil as claimed.
However, Ducote teaches a mixed refrigerant system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 6) comprising a mixed gas compressor (701) followed by a mixed gas aftercooler (between 710 and 720), leading to a mixing device (800), the mixing device (800) having a first inlet (fed with 720) and a third inlet (990), a vapor outlet (to 855), a liquid outlet (to 880), the vapor outlet (to 855) feeds to a first interstage compressor (702), followed by a first interstage aftercooler (730C) and a high pressure accumulator (900), a pump (880P) feeds fluid from the liquid outlet (to 880) of the mixing device (800).
In addition, Brostow teaches a mixed refrigerant system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 6) having three compressors comprising at least two compressors (see two stages of compression in 612) with a third compressor (613) and teaches that it is routine to provide a mixing device (660) with a first, second, and third inlet when providing such three stages of compression (para. 112) and teaches providing interstage separation devices (678, 630) after the aftercoolers (626, 680) and teaches a mixing valve (652) that aides in controlling a composition of the fluid in the mixing device (660).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Beddome with a mixing device with first, second, third inlets, a vapor outlet, a liquid outlet, a mixing valve, pump, and an interstage separation device, a second interstage compressor, a second interstage aftercooler, as claimed in view of the teachings of Ducote and Brostow for the purpose of providing greater control of the components of the mixed refrigerant and to provide three stages of compression, aftercooling, and separation to provide greater efficiency of compression. Lastly, official notice is taken that providing a heating coil to a separator is well known for providing greater flexibility in temperature control of the separator. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the mixer with a heating coil for the purpose of providing greater range of heating control to the mixer thereby providing controllability.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN (CN 113959175) provided by the applicant on 1/10/2024 having 23 pages in view of Beddome (US 3992167). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Sun teaches a system for cooling a feed stream (S100) including hydrogen or helium (page 15, hydrogen) with a mixed refrigerant (page 15 “mixed refrigerant”) comprising:
a. a pre-cooling heat exchanger (at least part of EX10) having a feed stream cooling passage (see passage with CA10), a first refrigerant cooling passage (from S207 to S207A), a second refrigerant cooling passage (from S212 and S210 towards TU31 and TU32) and a refrigerant warming passage (feeding towards SP20);
b. a compression system (at least CP20) having an inlet (thereof) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (towards SP20) and configured to receive and increase a pressure of a refrigerant vapor stream (vapor of the mixed refrigerant) comprised of hydrogen and/or helium mixed with at least one other refrigerant (page 19 C1-C5 alkanes), said compression system having an outlet in fluid communication with the first refrigerant cooling passage;
c. a first refrigerant separation device (SP23) configured to receive fluid from the first refrigerant cooling passage (from S207 to S207A) in the pre-cooling heat exchanger (at least part of EX10), said first refrigeration separation device (SP23) having a liquid outlet (to S207C) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (to S207C) and a vapor outlet (to S207B);
d. a refrigerant purifier (AD20 and ME20) having a purifier inlet (into AD20) in fluid communication with the vapor outlet (to S207B) of the first refrigerant separation device (SP23) and an outlet (from AD20) in fluid communication with the second refrigerant cooling passage (from S212 and S210 towards TU31 and TU32), said second refrigerant cooling passage (from S212 and S210 towards TU31 and TU32) having an outlet (to TU31 and TU32) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (towards SP20).
Sun does not explicitly teach that the mixture a molecular weight of a refrigerant mixture is greater than 6 kg/kgmol. However, Beddome teaches it is routine to employ a mixed refrigerant with a molecular weight of a refrigerant mixture is greater than 6 kg/kgmol (column 4, line 40-45; column 9, line 55-65; column 2, line 30-35) for the purpose of providing a mixed refrigerant that can more easily and affordably compressed by rotary equipment (column 1; column 3, line 5-10; column 2, line 30-35). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sun with a refrigerant mixture having a molecular weight that is greater than 6 kg/kgmol for the purpose of making it possible to use rotary compression systems more affordably and more practically in such liquefaction and refrigeration systems of hydrogen or helium (column 1).
In regard to claim 2, Sun teaches that the compression system (at least CP20) includes a first interstage compressor (first part of CP20) having an inlet (thereto) in fluid communication with the refrigerant warming passage (to SP20) and an outlet (therefrom), a first interstage aftercooler (CL21) having an inlet (thereto) configured to receive fluid from the first interstage compressor (first part of CP20) and an outlet (therefrom), a high-pressure accumulator (SP22) having an inlet (thereto) in fluid communication with the first interstage aftercooler outlet (CL21 therefrom), said high-pressure accumulator (SP22) having a vapor outlet (to S207) and a liquid outlet (to S208), said vapor outlet (to S207) in fluid communication with the first refrigerant cooling passage (from S207 to S207A) and said liquid outlet (to S208) in fluid communication with the compression system (at least CP20 via some components).
In regard to claim 3, Sun teaches an interstage separation device (SP21) having an inlet (thereto) in fluid communication with the first interstage aftercooler outlet (therefrom CL21) having a vapor outlet (to S203) in fluid communication with the high-pressure accumulator (SP22 via other components) and a liquid outlet (to S204) in fluid communication with the compression system (at least CP20 via some components).
In regard to claim 8, Sun teaches that the refrigerant purifier (ME20, AD20) is an adsorbent (page 19, adsorber).
In regard to claim 9, Sun does not explicitly teach a first refrigerant purifier regeneration stream (through one of the beds) is recycled to the compression system (at least CP20). However, Beddome teaches that such is ordinary and routine. Beddome teaches a first refrigerant purifier regeneration stream (through one bed; column 5, line 35) is recycled (via line 17; column 5, line 45-50) to the compression system (at least 89, 93). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sun with the regeneration teachings of Beddome for the purpose of providing reuse of the adsorbent in one of the beds in a manner that permits gainful recycling.
In regard to claim 10, Sun does not explicitly teach a second refrigerant purifier regeneration stream is removed after a second refrigerant purifier by recycling upstream of the feed stream cooling passage of the pre-cooling heat exchanger. However, Beddome teaches a second refrigerant purifier regeneration stream (through other bed) is removed after a second refrigerant purifier (other bed) by recycling upstream of the feed stream cooling passage (13; see entry of 17 is upstream of where 10 intersects with 11) of the pre-cooling heat exchanger (14, 20). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sun with the regeneration operations of Beddome for the purpose of providing reuse of the second bed of adsorbent in a manner that recycles some of the fluid.
In regard to claim 11, Sun teaches that the pre-cooling heat exchanger has at least one supplemental refrigerant cooling passage (from S204 to S204A) and at least one supplemental refrigerant warming passage (portion of passage to SP20).
In regard to claim 15, Sun teaches a primary refrigerant expansion device (at least VL35) operating below ambient temperature, said primary refrigerant expansion device (VL23) configured to receive primary refrigerant from the liquid outlet (to S207C) of the first refrigerant separation device (SP23), reduce temperature and pressure of the received primary refrigerant so that an expanded primary refrigerant is provided and to direct the expanded primary refrigerant to the refrigerant warming passage (to SP20).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUN (CN 113959175) provided by the applicant on 1/10/2024 having 23 pages in view of Beddome (US 3992167) and Cardella (US 2018/0347897). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Sun, as modified, does not appear to explicitly teach an insulating cold box having an interior and an exterior wherein the pre-cooling heat exchanger is positioned within the interior of the cold box and the compression system is positioned exterior to the cold box. However, Cardella teaches that providing an insulating cold box for a precooling heat exchanger is routine and ordinary (para. 95, 101 see precooling cold box 78 having a precooling heat exchanger and further see compressors are outside thereof). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sun with an insulating cold box having an interior and an exterior wherein the pre-cooling heat exchanger is positioned within the interior of the cold box and the compression system is positioned exterior to the cold box for the purpose of providing insulation to the pre-cooling heat exchanger to prevent unwanted heat leak and improved thermal efficiency and keeping the compressors outside thereof to provide easy ambient cooling in the aftercoolers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to remove 112 issues and consider combining the subject matter of claims 1-7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
JFPIII
January 9, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763