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.
Drawings
Replacement drawings received on 8/12/2024. These drawings are not acceptable as they add new matter. The original system did not have the lines highlighted in the figure below. There is insufficient support for the connections as drawn in combination with the rest of the features of Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
693
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The amendment filed 8/12/2024 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 entire added portion to para. 68 is new matter. There is no support for sending the secondary refrigeration stream 68 through 51, through compressor 31 and through compressor 32 in the example of figure 5. There is no support for mixing the boil off gas with the secondary refrigeration stream prior to the heat exchanger 51. And there is no support for the mixed gas stream to go to the compressor 31 and then to compressor 32. 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 8-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “prior to compressing the cleaned gas stream,” (line 28) is new matter as there is no compressing of the cleaned gas stream (see elected species Fig. 5 at location B where there is cleaned gas before the claimed splitting). Note that the compressing of the product stream recited in the next recited step is not a compressing of the cleaned gas stream but a compressing of the “product stream” as presently recited.
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) 8-12, 14-16 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 8, the recitation, “prior to compressing the cleaned gas stream,” (line 28) is indefinite as there is no compressing of the cleaned gas stream (see elected species Fig. 5 at location B where there is cleaned gas before the claimed splitting) and there is no way to determine what compressing is being referenced and it is not consistent with the later recited compressing of “the product stream”.
The recitation, “(iii) exiting the process through an outlet.” is indefinite since the recitation does not make clear what must exit the process.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “after inputting the boil off gas stream” is indefinite since for improperly reintroducing inputting and it is unclear why the recitation is not --after the inputting of the boil off gas stream--.
In regard to claim 12, the recitation, “after inputting the boil off gas stream” is indefinite since for improperly reintroducing inputting and it is unclear why the recitation is not --after the inputting of the boil off gas stream--.
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.
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) 8-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Desai (US 3503220) in view of Maunder (US 2014/0083132). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim(s) 8, Desai teaches a process (see whole disclosure) for natural gas processing, liquefaction, and/or storage (column 1, line 25-26), comprising:
inputting a natural gas stream (10; column 3, line 70-75) through one or more contaminant removal systems (11) to provide a cleaned gas stream (after 11);
prior to compressing (before 19) the cleaned gas stream (after 11), splitting the cleaned gas stream (after 11) into a pre-refrigeration stream (12) and a product stream (30);
passing the product stream (30) through a compressor (at least 19), and then a heat exchanger (at least 13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67), and then splitting a secondary refrigeration stream (at least 66) off of the product stream (30);
liquefying and storing gas from the product stream (30) in a gas storage tank (74);
prior to any expansion or compression of the pre-refrigeration stream (12), inputting the pre-refrigeration stream (12) through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67) then expanding the pre-refrigeration stream (via 18) to provide a primary refrigeration stream (20), then inputting the primary refrigeration stream (20) through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67), and then (iii) exiting at least some of the primary refrigeration stream (fluid from 20) from the process through an outlet (of 26; column 4, line 30-32).
Desai teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach compressing the primary refrigeration stream (20) after flowing through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67) and before the exiting. However, compressing as claimed is routine and ordinary as taught by Maunder. Maunder teaches a process for natural gas liquefaction including providing a primary refrigeration stream (11) through a heat exchanger (at least B, D) and then compressing (via N) the primary refrigeration stream (11) and then after the compression of the primary refrigeration stream (11): exiting the process through an outlet (see 33) and also teaches recycling the primary refrigeration stream (11) with a cleaned gas stream (2) (see combination 34 with portions of the feed gas).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Desai with the primary refrigeration stream (20) after the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67) with the compressing and recycling steps of Maunder for the purpose of providing sufficient pressure for delivering the gas to consumers that demand a higher pressure and to provide a reuse of the fluid material of the primary refrigeration stream so as to improve the efficiency of the liquefaction process.
In regard to claim 9, Desai teaches directing the secondary refrigeration stream (at least 66) to flow through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67).
In regard to claim 10, Desai teaches inputting a boil off gas stream (75) from the gas storage tank (74) through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67).
In regard to claim 11, Desai teaches after the inputting of the boil off gas stream (75) to flow through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67), then sending the boil off gas stream (75) to provide fuel gas (column 4, line 30-32) to one or more ancillary systems (industrial consumers, column 4, line 32).
In regard to claim 12, Desai teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach compressing the boil off gas stream (75) after the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67), then mixing the boil off gas stream (75) with the secondary refrigeration stream (at least 66) to provide a mixed stream of gas and then sending the mixed stream of gas as fuel gas to one or more ancillary systems. However, Maunder teaches that this is routine and ordinary. Maunder teaches inputting a boil off gas stream (at least part of 26) from the gas storage tank (I) through a heat exchanger (B, D, J) thereby obtaining the refrigeration capacity of the boil off gas (at least part of 26), then compressing the boil off gas stream (at least part of 26), then mixing the boil off gas stream (at least part of 26) with a secondary refrigeration stream (at least part of 18) to provide a mixed stream of gas (see mixing of 32 and 21) and then sending the mixed gas stream (of 32 and 21) to provide fuel gas to one or more ancillary systems (see 33). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Desai with compression of the boil off gas stream (75) after the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67) and then mixing of the boil off gas (75) with the secondary refrigeration stream (at least 66), as taught by Maunder, for the purpose of preparing the fluid to be used as fuel for certain consumers.
In regard to claim 14, Desai teaches that the expanding of the pre-refrigeration stream (20) after passing through the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67) is performed by passing the pre-refrigeration stream (12) through a turbo expander (18) to provide the primary refrigeration stream (20).
In regard to claim 15, Desai, as modified above, teaches that the compression of the primary refrigeration stream (20) is performed by compressing the primary refrigeration stream (20) through a turbo compressor (interpreted as at least a compressor, Maunder - N, L).
In regard to claim 16, Desai teaches directing the product stream (30) through one or more JT valves (77, 72, 64, 48) upon exiting the heat exchanger (13, 41, 24, 23, 22, 67) thereby reducing pressure of the product stream (30) to provide liquefied natural gas (LNG in 74) for storage or to provide the secondary refrigeration stream (66).
Claim(s) 8-12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hass (US 6220053) in view of Maunder (US 2014/0083132). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 8, Hass teaches a process (see whole disclosure) for natural gas processing, liquefaction, and/or storage (column 2, line 25-30), comprising: inputting a natural gas stream (1) into the process; prior to compressing the product stream (before at least 22) splitting the natural gas stream (1) into a pre-refrigeration stream (16) and a product stream (17); passing the product stream (17) through a compressor (at least 22), and then a heat exchanger (at least 18), and then splitting a secondary refrigeration stream (41 or 30) off of the product stream (17); liquefying gas from the product stream (17); prior to any expansion or compression of the pre-refrigeration stream (16), inputting the pre-refrigeration stream (16) through the heat exchanger (at least 18) then expanding the pre-refrigeration stream (16) to provide a primary refrigeration stream (21), then inputting the primary refrigeration stream (21) through the heat exchanger (at least 18), then compressing the primary refrigeration stream (via 3 at least), and then after the compression of the primary refrigeration stream (21): recycling the primary refrigeration stream (21) with the feed gas stream (10 via 11) . Note that the splitting (into 16, 17) is performed before compressing (before compressing with at least 22).
Hass does not explicitly teach that the natural gas stream (1) is input through one or more contaminant removal systems to provide a cleaned gas stream; and storing the liquefied gas in a gas storage tank. However, cleaning natural gas and storing liquefied natural gas is routine and ordinary as by Maunder. Maunder teaches inputting a natural gas stream through one or more contaminant removal systems (A) to provide a cleaned gas stream (2a); and further teaches storing a liquefied gas (in I) in a gas storage tank (I; para. 31, LNG tank). 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 gas of Hass with contaminant removal as taught by Maunder to prevent clogging and other fouling problems caused by impurities in the natural gas and to store the LNG in a storage tank for later use and distribution.
In regard to claim 9, Hass teaches directing the secondary refrigeration stream (41 or 39) to flow through the heat exchanger (18).
In regard to claim 10-12, Hass teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach inputting a boil off gas stream from the gas storage tank through the heat exchanger, then compressing the boil off gas stream, then mixing the boil off gas stream with the secondary refrigeration stream to provide a mixed stream of gas and then sending the mixed stream of gas as fuel gas to one or more ancillary systems.
However, Maunder teaches inputting a boil off gas stream (at least part of 26) from the gas storage tank (I) through a heat exchanger (B, D, J) thereby obtaining the refrigeration capacity of the boil off gas (at least part of 26), then compressing the boil off gas stream (at least part of 26), then mixing the boil off gas stream (at least part of 26) with a secondary refrigeration stream (at least part of 18) to provide a mixed stream of gas (see mixing of 32 and 21) and then sending the mixed gas stream (of 32 and 21) to provide fuel gas to one or more ancillary systems (see 33). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hass with a boil off gas stream from the storage tank through the heat exchanger (18) of Hass then compressing the boil off gas stream, then mixing the boil off gas stream with the secondary refrigeration stream (41 or 39) to provide a mixed stream of gas and then sending the mixed stream to provide fuel gas to one or more ancillary systems for the purpose of obtaining cooling from the boil off gas and gainfully consuming the boil off gas for fuel in situations where the amount of such fluid exceeds the needs for recirculating refrigerant.
In regard to claim 14, Hass teaches expanding of the pre-refrigeration stream (16) after passing through the heat exchanger (18) is performed by passing the pre-refrigeration stream (16) through a turbo expander (20) to provide the primary refrigeration stream (21).
In regard to claim 15, Hass teaches that the compression of the primary refrigeration stream (21) is performed by compressing the primary refrigeration stream (21) through a turbo compressor (interpreted as at least a compressor; see at least compressor 3).
In regard to claim 16, Hass teaches directing the product stream (17) through one or more JT valves (34, 40) upon exiting the heat exchanger thereby reducing pressure of the product stream (17) to provide liquefied natural gas (LNG, 38) for storage (in I of Maunder) or to provide the secondary refrigeration stream (41).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments (page 8-9) are an allegation that the prior art does not show the amended limitations and this is unpersuasive in view of the detailed grounds of rejection above wherein every claim limitation is shown by the prior art.
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
February 17, 2026