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 of invention I (claims 1-10), Species 2 (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 5, 11-16 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note that in addition to the claims 11-16 withdrawn as indicated by the Applicant, claim 5 is withdrawn since the elected species does not subcool the low pressure return stream as claimed.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include ANY of the reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 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. 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 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, 6-10 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, “a first refrigeration stage configured to receive a first refrigerant and flow the first refrigerant through at least one first heat exchanger” is unclear since it is not clear if the at least one first heat exchanger is part of the first refrigeration stage or if it is separate and apart from the first refrigeration stage and the first refrigeration stage sends the first refrigerant to the first heat exchanger.
The recitation, “a second refrigeration stage configured to flow helium or neon containing second refrigerant through at least one second heat exchanger to subcool the liquid oxygen stream and yield a densified, liquid oxygen stream” is indefinite for being unclear since it is not clear if the second heat exchanger is part of the second refrigeration stage or if it is separate and apart from the second refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage sends the second refrigerant to the second heat exchanger and the recited densification heat exchanger. Further it is unclear how dense a liquid oxygen stream must be to be considered “densified” as the term is a relative term without any absolute meaning.
The recitation, “wherein the first refrigerant flowing through the first heat exchanger” is indefinite for inconsistently reciting the first heat exchanger and it is unclear if this is the same “at least one first heat exchanger” or another first heat exchanger.
The recitation, “a first warm portion of the first refrigerant stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the first refrigerant stream”. As far as can be discerned the claim only recites a first refrigerant previously and it is unclear how to interpret these two recitations. Further the recitation, “warm” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that the portion must have a particular temperature to be “warm”. Such is a relative term that has no absolute meaning and it is not possible to distinguish what temperature is sufficiently high to be considered “warm”.
The recitation, “intermediate pressure warm exhaust” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require the exhaust to have a particular pressure to be considered of “intermediate pressure” or a particular temperature to be “warm”. These are relative terms that have no absolute meaning and it is not possible to distinguish what pressure is sufficient to be considered “intermediate” and what temperature is sufficiently high to be considered “warm”.
The recitation, “intermediate pressure cold exhaust” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require the exhaust to have a particular pressure to be considered of “intermediate pressure” or a particular temperature to be “cold”. These are relative terms that have no absolute meaning and it is not possible to distinguish what pressure is sufficient to be considered “intermediate” and what temperature is sufficiently low to be considered “cold”.
The recitation, “warm” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that the stream, circuit, portion, or turbine must have a particular temperature to be “warm”. Such is a relative term that has no absolute meaning and it is not possible to distinguish what temperature is sufficiently high to be considered “warm”.
The recitation, “cold” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require that the stream, circuit, portion, or turbine must have a particular temperature to be “cold”. Such is a relative term that has no absolute meaning and it is not possible to distinguish what temperature is sufficiently high to be considered “cold”.
The recitation, “the first warm portion the first refrigerant stream” and “the second cold portion the first refrigerant stream” are indefinite for being grammatically errant as there should be an --of-- before “the first refrigerant stream”.
The extra space in “via the one or more recycle circuits ;” should be removed.
The recitation at the beginning of the claim, “a first refrigeration stage configured to receive a first refrigerant and flow the first refrigerant through at least one first heat exchanger to cool the low pressure gaseous oxygen stream and liquefy the cooled low pressure gaseous oxygen stream to yield a liquid oxygen stream;” is not consistent with the later recitation, “a first subcooler configured to receive all or a part of the expanded residual portion of the first refrigerant stream and liquefy the cooled low pressure gaseous oxygen stream” since it is not clear if the at least one first heat exchanger or the subcooler liquefies the cooled low pressure gaseous oxygen stream and since the subcooler should be subcooling liquid oxygen not liquefying gaseous oxygen.
In regard to claims 2-10, the recitation in the preamble, “of a densified, liquid oxygen” is indefinite for inappropriately reintroducing that which has already been previously introduced.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “the second heat exchanger” is unclear since it is not clear if this refers to the at least one second heat exchanger or is some other second heat exchanger.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “a low pressure return stream” is indefinite inasmuch as the recitation is interpreted to require a pressure of a particular level or value as there is no way to discern what pressure is sufficiently low to be considered “low” nor what it must be lower relative to.
Further, the claim is indefinite since claim 1 recites a first refrigerant return stream and the present recitation of claim 4 appears to create contradictory streams thereto and it is unclear how these should be interpreted.
In regard to claim 6, the relative terms “proximate” and “nearby” are indefinite for being unclear as to what distance is sufficiently near.
In regard to claims 8-9, the recitation “about” is unclear as there is no way to discern the tolerance included and excluded by the term.
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.
No recitations appear to meet the three-prong test 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) 1-8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view of Prosser (US 2022/0404094). 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(s) 1-3, Prosser (690) teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream (34; para. 25) from a liquid oxygen stream (32; para. 24), the system comprises:
a second refrigeration stage (10) configured to flow a second refrigerant (para. 24-26, neon or helium; hereafter helium for simplicity) through a second heat exchanger (20) configured to flow the second refrigerant (helium) through at least one second heat exchanger (30) to subcool and densify the liquid oxygen (32) stream and yield the densified, liquid oxygen stream (34);
the second refrigeration stage (10) is a closed loop refrigeration stage (para. 24 closed loop circuit) and further comprises: a second refrigerant recycle compressor (15) disposed downstream of the at least one second heat exchanger (30) and configured to compress the second refrigerant (para. 24); and a second refrigerant turbine (25) disposed upstream of the at least one second heat exchanger (30) and configured to expand the compressed second refrigerant (para. 24);
wherein the first refrigerant comprises nitrogen (para. 25) and the second refrigerant comprises a nitrogen and neon containing mixture (para. 2, 20).
Prosser (690) does not appear to explicitly teach the first refrigeration stage as claimed. However, nitrogen refrigerators are well known and ordinary for providing efficient refrigeration as taught by Prosser (094). Prosser (094) teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 2, 4) comprising:
a first refrigeration stage (100) configured to receive a first refrigerant (nitrogen; para. 2) and flow the first refrigerant (nitrogen, see at least 178; hereafter nitrogen) through at least one first heat exchanger (112) to cool a feed stream (at least part of 111);
wherein the first refrigeration stage (100) further comprises:
a first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 170), a second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 175), a residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to 125), and one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 113, 114);
wherein the first refrigerant (nitrogen) flowing through the at least one first heat exchanger (112) is split into a first warm portion (toward 170) of a first refrigerant stream (part from compressors) in the first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 170), a second cold portion (toward 175) of the first refrigerant stream (part from compressors) in the second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 175), and a residual portion (toward 125) of the first refrigerant stream in the residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to 170);
a warm turbine (170) configured to expand the first warm portion (toward 170) of the first refrigerant stream (part from compressors) to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 170);
a cold turbine (175) configured to expand the second cold portion (toward 175) of the first refrigerant stream (part from compressors) to yield an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175);
an expansion valve (125) for expanding the residual portion (toward 125) of the first refrigerant stream (part from compressors) to yield an expanded residual stream (after 125);
wherein the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 170) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175) are recycled in the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 113, 114) to cool the feed stream (at least part of 111);
a first subcooler (120) configured to receive all or a part of the expanded residual portion (after 125) of the first refrigerant stream (part form compressors) and provide cooling thereto (para. 34) and yield a first refrigerant return stream (at least some of the fluid returning to the compressors) that is recycled via the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 113, 114); and
one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (113, 114) configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 170 and 112), the recycled cold exhaust (after 175 and 112), and the recycled expanded residual stream (after 125 and 112).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Prosser (690) with the nitrogen refrigeration system of Prosser (094) for the purpose of providing the one or more nitrogen refrigeration streams to cool the second refrigeration stage of Prosser (690) efficiently (para. 4 - Prosser (094)) and with great scalability (para. 22- Prosser(094)).
In regard to claim 4, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 since Prosser (094) teaches that the expanded residual portion (after 125) of the first refrigerant stream (part from compressors) is split into a first expanded residual portion (to 142) and a second expanded residual portion (from 140 to 150); the first expanded residual portion (to 142) is further expanded (via 142) and then recycled via the at least one first heat exchanger (112) as a low pressure return stream (part of 123; has a lower pressure than other streams); and the low pressure return stream (part of 123) is compressed in the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (113, 114).
In regard to claim 7, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the low pressure gaseous oxygen stream (32) is at a pressure between about 1.3 bar(a) and 3.0 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use).
In regard to claim 8, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the one ore more first refrigerant recycle compressors (113, 114) are configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 170 and 112), the recycled cold exhaust (after 175 and 112), and the recycled first refrigerant return stream (after 125 and 112) to a pressure greater than about 50 bar(a) (Prosser (094) - para. 37; fully capable of the functional use)
In regard to claim 9, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 170) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175) are at a pressure between 5 bar(a) and 10 bar(a) (Prosser (094) - para. 37; fully capable of the functional use).
In regard to claim 10, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the low pressure return stream (Prosser (094) - part of 123) is at a pressure of between 1.5 var (a) and 3.0 bar (a) (Prosser (094) - fully capable of the functional use).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view of Prosser (US 2022/0404094) and Turney (US 2022/0099364). 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.
Prosser (690) does not explicitly teach that the first refrigeration stage or the second refrigeration stage or both the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage are disposed on moveable platforms, the platforms proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility, the low pressure gaseous oxygen is supplied to the launch facility or launch platform via a pipeline from an air separation unit and the densified, liquid oxygen stream is stored in a storage tank for use as an oxidant for a space vehicle propulsion system. However, official notice is taken that providing gaseous oxygen via a pipe line to a liquefaction system and storing the liquid in a storage tank is old and well known. Further Turney teaches that providing liquefaction systems on movable platforms is routine and ordinary. Turney teaches providing liquefaction facilities on offshore platforms (para. 3) proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility (para. 3) so as to provide liquefaction for rocket launch applications with greater safety. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Prosser (690) as modified by Prosser (094) to locate the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage on movable offshore platforms for the purpose of providing improved safety and reduced land cost and to provide an Air separation unit to provide the gaseous oxygen to the liquefaction facility for the purpose of garnering the needed oxygen from the atmosphere with well-known Air separation units and storing the densified liquid oxygen in storage tanks so as to use for rocket propulsion as desired for the purpose of providing desired oxygen for rocket propulsion and space development.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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 6, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763