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. Drawings 1. The drawings are objected to because: In Fig. 1, the top left box should read -- Turn on -- as opposed to “Turns on” It is recommended that Applicant review Fig. 1 in its entirety to ensure that no other errors are present Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 2 . The claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of Claim s 1-7, only the first letter of the first word should be capitalized. Correct the capitalization in each of Claims 1-7. Claims 1-7 are replete with claim elements that do not have proper antecedent basis. Provide proper antecedent basis for each claim element that is introduced for the first time. For example, in Claim 1 change “the system inlet pressure” to -- system inlet pressure -- and in Claim 4 change “the expected ‘startup’ time” to -- an expected “startup” time --. Appropriate correction is required throughout Claims 1-7. In Claim 1, line 1, change “METHOD OF CONTROLLING FLARE GAS RECOVERY SYSTEM, characterized by comprising the steps of: ” to -- A method of controlling a flare gas recovery system, comprising steps of: -- In Claim 1, change “Adjustment of” to -- adjusting -- In Claims 2-7, change “METHOD, according to” to -- The method according to -- In Claim 7, change “parallel to the steps discussed A) and B)” to -- parallel to steps A) and B) -- Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-7 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “ Monitoring the system inlet pressure and Adjustment of compressor request ” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear if “compressor request” is referring to a request to or from the established “main compressor” or if “compressor request” is referring to a request to or from an additional, distinct compressor. Note that the specification discloses the presence and use of a plurality of different possible compressors and fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of Claim 1 are consequently unclear. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 1. Claim 2 recites the limitation “ METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized by controlling flare gas recovery systems in: ” and proceeds to list a variety of different scenarios. It is unclear if “gas recovery systems” is referring to the singular system established in Claim 1, to the system established in Claim 1 in addition to one or more additional systems, to a plurality of distinct systems, or to something else altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. Claim 3 has two different recitations of “optionally” each proceeded by additional limitations. It is unclear if the additional limitations proceeding each instance of “optionally” are actually required by the claim or not. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. Note that the specification fails to clarify this issue. For the purpose of expediting prosecution, the additional limitations proceeding each instance of “optionally” will be interpreted as limitations that are only optional and not actually required by the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation “ METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that Step A) initially considers an accumulation of volume to enter a steady state at the expected "startup" time, wherein the initial suction pressure is recognized at the point where it is high enough for the final discharge pressure to reach an adequate value, ensuring a steady state, within X seconds after starting the compressor, applying the real gas equation PV = n ZRT within the stipulated parameters ” which is considered indefinite . It is unclear, inter alia , what constitutes “the stipulated parameters” as claimed and, in practice of actually using the method as claimed, how many seconds constitutes “X seconds”. Thus, it is unclear when exactly the “real gas equation” is to be applied. Moreover, it is unclear what variable is being solved for in the “real gas equation” as claimed and what is to be done with the solution thereafter. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. Claim 5 recites the limitation “ METHOD, according to claim 4, characterized in that in Step A) once the flare gas recovery system is connected, it is checked whether there is a compressor determined as the main compressor” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear from the limitation “once the flare gas recovery system is connected” what element(s) flare gas recovery system is to be connected to. Furthermore, Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the method sequentially leads to the closure of the flare valves, with the flare gas recovery system subjected to control already in operation” which is considered indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes “control already in operation” in the context claimed and if said “control” is referring to a control part of the existing method (and if so which part), to a control operation occurring before implementation of the method, or to something else altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify these issues. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. Claim 6 recites the limitation “METHOD, according to claim 1, characterized in that in Step B) after closing the flare valve in step A), the method leads to monitoring the pressure” which is considered indefinite because “closing the flare valve” did not occur is step A) (or in any other claimed step) given Claim 1 on which Claim 6 depends. It is consequently unclear if this limitation is attempting to establish that a flare valve is closed after step A), if step A) is to additionally include closing of a flare valve or something else altogether. Note that the specification fails to clarify th is issue. The metes and bounds of the claim are consequently unclear. 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. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. ( CN 114659125 A) (hereinafter “Lin”) (see attached original document and translation for reference). Regarding Claim 1, to the extent that Claim 1 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Lin teaches of a method of controlling a flare gas recovery system (the system of Figs. 1-2), comprising steps of: - Step A) i nitialization and v erification of a main compressor (upper most compressor (36) relative to Fig. 1) availability (see at least [0003], [0014]-[0016] and Figs. 1-2 and note that controller (8) initializes and verifies the a main compressor by (at least) verifying the need to run the compressor, turning the compressor on and then monitoring the system performance via “feedforward multi-loop optimizing control” of element (8)) , and - Step B) m onitoring system inlet pressure ( via “pressure gauge 40” ) and adjusting compressor request ( via at least the “feedforward multi-loop optimizing control” of element (8)) ) (see at least [0012], [0014]-[0016] and Figs. 1-2) . Regarding Claim 3, to the extent that Claim 3 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Lin also teaches of acting in the control of at least one gas compression system ( such as the system of Figs. 1-2 ) composed of liquid ring type compressors ( elements (36) that are of the “liquid ring compressor” type ) and their sealing accessory and three-phase separation systems ( as is shown in Fig. 1 ) ( see at least [0006], [0014]-[0015] and Figs. 1-2 ). Regarding Claim 5, to the extent that Claim 5 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Lin also teaches that in Step A) once the flare gas recovery system is connected, it is checked whether there is a compressor (36) determined as the main compressor ( e.g., the first of the plurality of compressors (36) as shown in Fig. 1 ) , so that if there is no compressor determined as the main one, the method invites the user to define a main compressor ( e.g., any one of the plurality of compressors (36) shown in Fig. 1 ) , and if a main compressor has already been determined, the method leads to the filling of the system referring to the two compressors ( the first two compressors (36) as shown in Fig. 1 ) , by the formation of the liquid ring of the compressors ( “liquid ring” compressors (36) ) (see at least [0006], [0014]-[0015] and Figs. 1-2) , wherein the method sequentially leads to the closure of flare valves ( at least valves (20) ) , with the flare gas recovery system subjected to control already in operation ( see at least [0013]-[0015] and Figs. 1-2 ) . Regarding Claim 7, to the extent that Claim 7 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Lin also teaches that additionally and in parallel to the steps discussed A) and B), the method performs a stop control of the flare gas recovery system in a predictive way ( via at least the “safety interlock” and the “feedforward multi-loop optimizing control” of element (8))) (see at least [0012], [0014]-[0016] and Figs. 1-2) , wherein if it is identified that system depressurization is not supported by recovery, the system is forcibly stopped ( see at least [0015] and Figs. 1-2 - “If the limit is still exceeded after the alarm, a safety interlock will be activated to ensure safety. The flow control and shut-off valve 20 of the gas holder 10 will be automatically closed, and the gas holder outlet regulating shut-off valve 33 will be opened to cool the flare gas.” ) ( see at least [0012], [0014]-[0016] and Figs. 1-2 ) . 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. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0018695 A1) (hereinafter “Huang”). Regarding Claim 4, to the extent that Claim 4 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, Lin teaches the method of Claim 1 (see the rejection for Claim 1) also teaches that Step A) initially considers an accumulation of volume (via at least “flow meter” (34), (39)) to enter a steady state at an expected "startup" time (such as the beginning of operation), wherein the initial suction pressure is recognized at the point where it is high enough for the final discharge pressure to reach an adequate value, ensuring a steady state (via at least the “feedforward multi-loop optimizing control” of element (8)) (see at least [0012], [0016] and Figs. 1-2). Lin fails to explicitly teach of, after starting the compressor, applying “ the real gas equation PV = n ZRT within the stipulated parameters ” . Huang discloses a relatable flare gas system (Fig. 4) and method for using the same that comprises a control device (204, 504) that controls “actuators” of the system and in turn all functions of the system (see at least [0022], [0028], [0034], [0038] and Fig. 4). Huang teaches that after the system is pressurized, applying the real gas equation (see at least [0034] and Fig. 4 - “The predetermined algorithm can include an AGA10 method and/or Ideal Gas Law. AGA10 can be used for hydrocarbons in the natural gas industry (e.g., from alkane group (C—C), such as methane or ethane). AGA10 can take alkane gas compositions as inputs. Flare gases are products of various chemical processes in refineries and petrochemical plants and their compositions can be very complex. Besides gases from the alkane group, flare gas can include gases from the alkene group (C ═ C), such as ethylene or propylene. In some implementations, the molecular-weight based algorithm is a preferred algorithm for flare application because it can cover a much wider range of gases. The Ideal Gas Law can be used when process pressure is very close to ambient pressure.”). Thus, using the real gas equation (“Ideal Gas Law”) is an ideal way to determine system parameters when (at least) process pressure is close to ambient pressure (see at least [0022], [0034] and Fig. 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method taught by Lin by configuring the method to include applying “the real gas equation” after the system is pressurized via the existing compressor based on the teachings of Huang. Doing so would have provided means for determining system parameters. Note that such modification would have necessarily resulted in the invention as claimed as it is presently understood. Allowable Subject Matter 6 . Dependent Claim s 2 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding dependent Claim 2: To the extent that Claim 2 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, no known prior art anticipates or renders obvious the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 2 which requires, inter alia , four distinct “scenarios” that each require different operating states of two distinct compressors at differing times. While Lin teaches of a plurality of compressors (36), in addition to starting, stopping and normal operation, Lin fails to teach of operating two of the available compressors at the specific times/instances claimed to achieve each of the specific scenarios. Thus, Lin fails to anticipate Claim 2 and no known motivation would have existed to have modified the functional method taught by Lin to include the combination of method steps claimed in Claim 2. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 2 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, the exact scope of Claim 2 is unclear. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time. Note that this indication of allowable subject matter is subject to change depending on any change in the scope of the claim that may result from amendment (or otherwise). Regarding dependent Claim 6 : To the extent that Claim 6 is understood in light of the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office Action, no known prior art anticipates or renders obvious the combination of limitations claimed in Claim 6 which requires, inter alia , a distinct “main compressor”, “backup compressor” and “switch mode” in addition to a plurality of method steps for using the same at specific times. While Lin teaches of a plurality of compressors (36), in addition to method steps for using the same, Lin fails to teach of operating two of the available compressors at the specific times/instances claimed to achieve the specific combination of method steps claimed in Claim 6. Thus, Lin fails to anticipate Claim 6 and no known motivation would have existed to have modified the functional method taught by Lin to include the combination of method steps claimed in Claim 6. Therefore, the subject matter of Claim 6 is considered to be allowable over the known prior art. However, the exact scope of Claim 6 is unclear. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (as is presented above in this Office Action) and is consequently not in condition for allowance at this time. Note that this indication of allowable subject matter is subject to change depending on any change in the scope of the claim that may result from amendment (or otherwise). Conclusion 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art is considered relevant to this application in terms of structure and use: Salu et al. (US 2022/0357034 A1) Blackwell (US 2018/0179894 A1) Schneider et al. (US 2012/0116589 A1) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BENJAMIN W JOHNSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8523 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 7:30-5:00 PM . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steve McAllister can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6785 . 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. /BENJAMIN W JOHNSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762 3/ 7 /2026 /STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762