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 .
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
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, 4-8, 11-16 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 claim 1, the recitation, “warm turbine” and “cold turbine” is indefinite for being relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to discern what temperature is and is not sufficient to be considered “warm” and what temperature is and is not sufficient to be considered “cold”. The applicant argues that the term should be interpreted as requiring that the fluid traversing the warm turbine is warmer than the fluid traversing the cold turbine (REM 7/23/2025, p. 7, para. 1). However, there is no support in the specification for this. Therefore, the rejection remains as there does not appear to be support for the interpretation alleged by the applicant. Further the same terms appear applied to boosters and turbines even though they clearly have fluids at different temperatures.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “in compressing” is indefinite for reintroducing compressing anew improperly and it is unclear if this is the same or other compressing that was previously recited and it is unclear which compressing is being referenced.
The recitation, “the warmed first part” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if this should be reciting the second return stream.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “warm turbine” is indefinite for being relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to discern what temperature is and is not sufficient to be considered “warm”. The applicant argues that the term should be interpreted as requiring that the fluid traversing the warm turbine is warmer than the fluid traversing the cold turbine (REM 7/23/2025, p. 7, para. 1). However, the specification never states this and therefore it is unclear where support for this interpretation is found. Therefore, the rejection remains as there does not appear to be support for the interpretation alleged by the applicant.
The recitation, “cold turbine” is indefinite for being relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to discern what temperature is and is not sufficient to be considered “cold”. The applicant argues that the term should be interpreted as requiring that the fluid traversing the cold turbine is colder than the fluid traversing the warm turbine (REM 7/23/2025, p. 7, para. 1). However, the specification never states this and therefore it is unclear where support for this interpretation is found. Therefore, the rejection remains as there does not appear to be support for the interpretation alleged by the applicant.
The recitation, “warm booster” and “cold booster” is/are indefinite for being relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to discern what temperature is and is not sufficient to be considered “warm” or “cold”. Further the same terms appear applied to boosters and turbines even though they clearly have fluids at different temperatures. The applicant argues that the term should be interpreted as requiring that the fluid traversing the warm booster is warmer than the fluid traversing the cold booster (REM 7/23/2025, p. 7, para. 1). However, in addition to the fact that the specification never states this interpretation, it is further noted that booster compressors warm the fluid flowing therethrough and therefore the fluid flowing through alleged “cold” booster compressor (116) after having passed through the booster compressor (114) would be warmer than the fluid flowing through the “warm” booster compressor (114) and therefore the alleged interpretation would be illogical.
The recitation, “the liquefied second part” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “the warmed first part” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if this should be reciting the second return stream. In regard to claim 15, the recitation, “a warm booster compressor” is indefinite since it is unclear if this is intending to reference the warm booster compressor previously recited in claim 8 or not.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “the compression system” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what is being referenced.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 4, 8, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobracki (US 4894076) in view of Beddome (US 5231835). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. See the rejection below for how the claims are interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Dobracki teaches a method for liquefying an industrial gas (column 1, line 5-10) comprising:
compressing the industrial gas, at a feed recycle compressor (at least 12, 18), to produce a first compressed gas portion (62) and a second compressed gas portion (26);
further compressing (via 30, 28) and dividing the second compressed gas portion (26) into a first part (to 80) and a second part (to 46);
turbo-expanding the first compressed gas portion (62), at a warm turbine (76; interpreted as a turbine having fluid that is at least warmer than other streams in the method, see warmer than stream 80 or 90), to form a first turbo-expanded gas portion (78);
warming the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) and forming a first return stream (at least part of 60), at a heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44), by countercurrent flow indirect heat exchange with the first part (to 80) and the second part (to 46),
feeding back the first return stream (at least part of 60) from the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44), to the feed recycle compressor (at least 12, both stages of 18), between a first compression stage (12) and a second compression stage (first stage of 18);
cooling the first part (to 80) and the second part (to 46) in the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44);
turbo-expanding the cooled first part (to 80), at a cold turbine (82 or 92; interpreted as a turbine having a fluid that is colder than at least some other streams in the method; see colder than 74 at least), to form a turbo-expanded first part (94);
warming the turbo-expanded first part (88 or 94), at the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44), to form a second return stream (84 or another part of 60), by indirect heat exchange with the second part (to 46), assisting in liquefying the second part (to 46);
separating (at 52) a gaseous portion (56) and a liquid portion (54) of the liquefied second part (46, 50);
warming the gaseous portion (56) is warmed at the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44) by countercurrent indirect heat exchange with the first part (to 80) and the second part (to 46) to assist in liquefying the second part (to 46);
combining the warmed gaseous portion (56 after heating) with the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) at the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44) to form the first return stream (at least part of 60); and
recovering the liquid portion (liquid part of 50) as a liquefied industrial gas (in 54).
Dobracki does not explicitly teach that the feed recycle compressor is a three stage compressor. However, it is ordinary and routine to provide more compressor stages as taught by Beddome. Beddome teaches a system for liquefying an industrial gas (column 4, line 34) having a feed gas compressor (9, 2) having at least three stages (column 5, line 15-40) providing compression with intercooling and thereby providing more efficient compression. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the feed recycle compressor of Dobracki with at least an additional stage compressor after compressor stage (18) to provide more efficient compression by staged compression.
In regard to claim 4, Dobracki teaches in the compressing the industrial gas (10), a warmed first part (part of 86 or another part of 60) is combined with an additional stream (some of 96) from an air separation plant (ASU) and the industrial gas (10) in the three-stage feed recycle compressor (12, 18, and added stage of modification after 18) between the second compression stage (18) and a third compression stage (added stage after 18)(due to mixing shown the identified streams are combined).
In regard to claim 16, Dobracki teaches that the cold turbine (92) is operatively coupled to and configured to drive the cold booster (28).
In regard to claim 8, Dobracki teaches a system (see whole disclosure including Fig. 3) for liquefying an industrial gas (column 1, line 5-10) comprising:
a compression system comprising a feed recycle compressor (at least 12, 18) for compressing the industrial gas (10) to produce a first compressed gas portion (62) and a second compressed gas portion (26), a warm booster compressor (28; interpreted as a compressor that has a fluid that is warmer than some other fluids in the system) and a cold booster compressor (30; ; interpreted as a compressor that has a colder fluid than some other fluids in the system) further compressing the second compressed gas portion (26), wherein the second compressed gas portion (26) is split into a first part (to 80) and a second part (to 46);
a warm turbine (76; interpreted as a turbine that has a fluid warmer than some other fluid in the system; see warmer than stream 80 or 90) for turbo-expanding the first compressed gas portion (62) to form a first turbo-expanded gas portion (78);
a heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44) for warming the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) by countercurrent flow indirect heat exchange with the first part (to 80) and the second part (to 46), forming a first return stream (at least part of 60) that is fed back between a first compression stage (12) and a second compression stage (18) of the feed recycle compressor (at least 12, 18), and cooling the first part (to 80) and the second part (to 46); and
a cold turbine (82 or 92; interpreted as a turbine having a fluid that is colder than some other streams in the system; see colder than 74 at least) for turbo-expanding the cooled first part (80) to form a turbo-expanded first part (84 or at least part of 94),
a liquid turbine (48) configured to expand a liquefied second part (46) and wherein a gaseous portion (56) and a liquid portion (54) of the expanded liquefied second part (50) are separated (via 52), and the gaseous portion (56) is warmed at the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44) by countercurrent indirect heat exchange with the first part (to 80) and the second part (to 46) to assist in liquefying the second part (46),
wherein the turbo-expanded first part (84 or at least part of 94) is warmed at the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44), to form a second return stream (84 or at least part of 94 after 34), by indirect heat exchange with the second part (to 46) to assist in liquefying the second part (46),
wherein the heat exchanger (34, 36, 40, 42, 44) is configured to combine the warm gaseous portion (56 after being heated) with the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) to form the first return stream (at least part of 60); and
wherein the liquid portion (54) is recovered as a liquefied industrial gas (54).
Dobracki does not explicitly teach that the feed recycle compressor is a three stage compressor. However, it is ordinary and routine to provide more compressor stages as taught by Beddome. Beddome teaches a system for liquefying an industrial gas (column 4, line 34) having a feed gas compressor (9, 2) having at least three stages (column 5, line 15-40) providing compression with intercooling and thereby providing more efficient compression. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the feed recycle compressor of Dobracki with at least three stages to provide more efficient compression by staged compression.
In regard to claim 11, Dobracki teaches the compression system combines a warmed first part (part of 86 or another part of 60) with an additional stream (some of 96) from an air separation plant (ASU) and the industrial gas (10) in the three-stage feed recycle compressor (12, 18, and added stage of modification after 18) between the second compression stage (18) and a third compression stage (added stage after 18)(due to mixing shown the identified streams are combined).
In regard to claim 12, Dobracki teaches that the first compressed gas portion (62) and the second compressed gas portion (26) are fully capable of having pressures of 320 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) (column 5, line 5-10, intermediate pressure 490 psia).
In regard to claim 13, Dobracki teaches that the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) are fully capable of having a pressure of 33 psia (column 5, line 10-15 90 psia).
In regard to claim 14, Dobracki teaches that the first return stream (at least part of 60) is fully capable of having a pressure of 30 psia (column 5, line 10-15 90 psia ).
In regard to claim 15, Dobracki teaches that the warm turbine (76) is operatively coupled to and configured to drive the warm booster (30).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobracki (US 4894076) in view of Beddome (US 5231835) and Prosser (WO 2021/126513).
It is rehearsed that the compression system of Dobracki is fully capable of providing the pressures recited.
In regard to claim 5, Dobracki teaches that the first compressed gas portion (62) and the second compressed gas portion (26) have pressures (column 5, line 5-10, intermediate pressure 490 psia), but does not teach that the pressure is 320 psia. However, it is well known to vary operational pressures depending on target temperatures desired as outlined by Prosser (para. 24-30). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pressure of the first compressed gas portion (62) and the second compressed gas portion (26) to be 320 psia in order to obtain an efficient pressure level for a desired target temperature and determining the pressure would require only routine experimentation.
In regard to claim 6, Dobracki teaches that the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) has a pressure (column 5, line 10-15 90 psia), but does not teach that the pressure of the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) is 33 psia. However, it is well known to vary operational pressures depending on target temperatures desired as outlined by Prosser (para. 24-30). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pressure of the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) to be 33 psia in order to obtain a desired target temperature and only routine experimentation would be required.
In regard to claim 7, Dobracki teaches that the first return stream (at least part of 60) has a pressure of 30 psia (column 5, line 10-15 90 psia), but does not teach that the pressure of the first return stream (at least part of 60) is 30 psia. However, it is well known to vary operational pressures depending on target temperatures desired as outlined by Prosser (para. 24-30). Further, it is routine to provide to have some small pressure drop through heat exchanger(s) as a natural part of flowing fluid therethrough. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the pressure of the first turbo-expanded gas portion (78) to be 33 psia in order to obtain a desired target temperature and to further modify the pressure of the first return stream portion (at least part of 60) to be 30 psia in order to provide sufficient heat exchange while maintaining pressure drop losses to 3 psia.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the claims require expanding the first part “only” in a cold turbine. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claims never recite “only” expanding as alleged.
Applicant's arguments (page ) are an allegation that the claims require the first compressed gas portion to only be expanded in the warm turbine. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claims never recite such exclusion (“only”).
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 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
November 4, 2025