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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a system, classified in F25J 2270/06.
II. Claims 15-22, drawn to a method, classified in F25J 2290/34.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process such as a process that cools a second refrigerant of hydrogen having no helium or neon, or a process that delivers subcooled oxygen to pipelines rather than launch platforms. In addition or the alternative, the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such as an apparatus having only expansion valve expansion of the first refrigerant stream and no turbine expansion or an apparatus having a single first refrigerant refrigeration circuit.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Hampsch on 12/19/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-22 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 575. 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.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear how the fluid entering the heat exchanger from valve 775 proceeds and how the portion (768) is “a diverted portion” as claimed. The claims recite a diverted portion (see claim 14), however, the drawing does not show any portion leaving the heat exchanger for stream (768) to be diverted from. It is unclear what the invention includes and excludes relative to this recited stream. 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 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) 1-14 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 a second refrigerant through a second heat exchanger configured to cool the second refrigerant via indirect heat exchange with one or more streams of the first refrigerant and configured to flow the second refrigerant through a densification heat exchanger to subcool and densify the liquid oxygen stream via indirect heat exchange with the second refrigerant;” is 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.
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”.
In regard to claims 2-14, the recitation, “of a densified, liquid oxygen” is indefinite for inappropriately reintroducing that which has already been previously introduced.
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.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “the warmed, low pressure return stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “the warmed, second expanded residual stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “the cold exhaust” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is the intermediate pressure cold exhaust or some other exhaust.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “the warmed diverted portion” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis. The recitation, “the cold exhaust” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is the intermediate pressure cold exhaust or some other exhaust.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “the recycled first refrigerant return stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what stream is being referenced.
In regard to claim 13, the recitation, “the pressure of the warm exhaust” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is referring to “the intermediate pressure warm exhaust” or some other warm exhaust. The recitation, “the pressure of the cold exhaust” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is referring to “the intermediate pressure cold exhaust” or some other cold exhaust. The recitation, “the low pressure return stream” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Turney (US 2023/0009727). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Turney teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including fig. 3) for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream from a liquid oxygen stream, the system comprises:
a first refrigeration stage (see 10 and identifications below) configured to receive a first refrigerant (in 11; para. 78, 74 nitrogen) and flow the first refrigerant through at least one first heat exchanger (heat exchanger in 10); and
a second refrigeration stage (see 20 and identifications below) configured to flow a second refrigerant (para. 45 helium, neon, hydrogen; hereafter helium for simplicity) through a second heat exchanger (heat exchanger in 20, 25) configured to cool the second refrigerant (helium) via indirect heat exchange with one or more streams (see expanded nitrogen streams provides cooling to the helium in the second refrigeration stage indirectly) of the first refrigerant (expanded nitrogen streams) and configured to flow the second refrigerant (helium) through a densification heat exchanger (at least bottom portion of heat exchanger in 25) to subcool and densify the liquid oxygen stream (feed stream) via indirect heat exchange with the second refrigerant (helium);
wherein the first refrigeration stage (10) further comprises:
a first warm refrigeration circuit (line through 5 at least; see fluid therein is warmer than other lines), a second cold refrigeration circuit (line through 7 at least; see fluid therein is colder than other lines), a residual refrigeration circuit (line to separator of 11), and one or more recycle circuits (returning lines to 2); wherein the first refrigerant (nitrogen) flowing through the first heat exchanger (heat exchanger in 11) is split into a first warm portion (toward 5) of the first refrigerant stream in the first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 5), a second cold portion (toward 7) of the first refrigerant stream in the second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 7), and a residual portion (through expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream in the residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to separator from expansion valve); a warm turbine (5; see warmer than 7) configured to expand the first warm portion (toward 5) the first refrigerant stream to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 5); a cold turbine (7; see colder than 5) configured to expand the second cold portion (toward 7) the first refrigerant stream to yield an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 7); an expansion valve (expansion valve before separator) for expanding the residual portion (toward expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream to yield an expanded residual stream (after expansion valve); wherein the warm exhaust (after 5), the cold exhaust (after 7), and the expanded residual stream (after expansion valve) are recycled in the one or more recycle circuits (returning lines to 2) to cool the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen); and one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (20) configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 5 through heat exchanger), the recycled cold exhaust (After 7 through heat exchanger), and the recycled expanded residual stream (part after expansion valve through heat exchanger).
In regard to claim 2, Turney teaches that the first refrigerant comprises nitrogen (para. 4, 45) and the second refrigerant comprises helium or neon or both helium and neon (para. 4, 45).
In regard to claim 3, Turney teaches that the second refrigeration stage (20) is a closed loop refrigeration stage (interpreted as recirculates fluid; see refrigerant is recirculated) and further comprises: a second refrigerant recycle compressor (24) disposed downstream of the second heat exchanger (heat exchanger in 20) and configured to compress the second refrigerant (helium); and a second refrigerant turbine (15a) disposed upstream of the second heat exchanger (heat exchanger of 20) and configured to expand the compressed second refrigerant (para. 21, 77).
In regard to claim 10, Turney teaches that the liquid oxygen stream (feed stream) is at a pressure between about 1.3 bar(a) and 3.0 bar(a) (the system is fully capable of this functional use).
In regard to claim 11, Turney teaches that the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (2) are configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 5 and through heat exchanger), the recycled cold exhaust (after 7 and through heat exchanger), and the recycled expanded residual stream (after expansion valve and heat exchanger) to a pressure greater than about 50 bar(a) (fully capable of such functional use).
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 cool the second refrigerant (helium; para. 25) via indirect heat exchange with one or more streams (23, 21) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) and configured to flow the second refrigerant (helium) through a densification heat exchanger (30) to subcool and densify the liquid oxygen (32) stream via indirect heat exchange with the second refrigerant (helium);
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 second heat exchanger (30) and configured to compress the second refrigerant (para. 24); and a second refrigerant turbine (25) disposed upstream of the 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 helium or neon or both helium and neon (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);
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 first heat exchanger (112) is split into a first warm portion (toward 170) of the first refrigerant stream in the first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 170), a second cold portion (toward 175) of the first refrigerant stream 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 the first refrigerant stream to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 170);
a cold turbine (175) configured to expand the second cold portion the first refrigerant stream 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 to yield an expanded residual stream (after 125);
wherein the warm exhaust (after 170), the cold exhaust (after 175), and the expanded residual stream (after 125) are recycled in the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 113, 114) to cool the first refrigerant stream (see streams flowing towards 113, 114 providing cooling to warm compressed nitrogen going towards cold end of first heat exchanger); 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 stream (after 125) is split into a first expanded residual stream (to 142) and a second expanded residual stream (from 140 to 150); the first expanded residual stream (to 142) is further expanded (via 142) and then recycled via the first heat exchanger (112) as a low pressure return stream (part of 123; has a lower pressure than other streams) to cool the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen); and the second expanded residual stream (from 140 to 150) is one of the one or more streams (streams used to cool 20 of Prosser (690)) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) flowing through the second heat exchanger (20) to cool the second refrigerant (helium - Prosser (094)).
In regard to claim 5, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 since Prosser (094) teaches that the warmed, low pressure return stream (part of 123 after 112) is compressed in the one or more of the first refrigerant recycle compressors (113, 114).
In regard to claim 6, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6 since Prosser (094) teaches that the warmed, second expanded residual stream (some of 122 after expansion valve between 140 and 150) is recycled to the one or more of the first refrigerant recycle compressors (113, 114).
In regard to claim 7, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that a diverted portion of the intermediate pressure cold exhaust provides at least one of the one or more streams of the first refrigerant through the heat exchanger (20). However, Prosser (690) suggest that the one or more streams of the first refrigerant may be gas nitrogen (25) and Prosser (094) explicitly teaches that at least a portion of an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (from expander 216) may be used to provide refrigeration at warmer temperatures (para. 45). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to send a portion of the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175) as one of the one or more first refrigerant streams to provide greater refrigeration to the second stage of Prosser (690) with a greater temperature range.
In regard to claim 8, Prosser (690), as modified immediately above, teaches that the warmed diverted portion (modified part of Prosser (094) - after being used to cool heat exchanger 20 of Prosser (690)) of the cold exhaust (Prosser (094) - after 175) is recycled to the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (Prosser (094) - 113, 114).
In regard to claim 10, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the liquid oxygen stream (32) is at a pressure between about 1.3 bar(a) and 3.0 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use; Prosser (690) - para. 5).
In regard to claim 11, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (113, 114) are configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust, the recycled cold exhaust, and the recycled first refrigerant return stream to a pressure greater than about 50 bar(a) (Prosser (094) - para. 37).
In regard to claim 12, 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 about 5 bar(a) and 10 bar(a) (para. 37).
In regard to claim 13, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the low pressure return stream (part of 123) is at a pressure below a pressure of the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (After 170) and a pressure of the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175).
Claim(s) 9 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. However, providing liquefaction systems on movable platforms is routine and ordinary as taught by Turney. Turney teaches providing liquefaction facilities on offshore platforms (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.
Claim(s) 14 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 Nagimov (US 2023/0395829). 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 appear to teach a third refrigeration stage comprising a third heat exchanger configured to densify a stream of liquid methane via indirect heat exchange with a diverted portion of the expanded residual stream to yield a densified, liquid methane stream. However, Nagimov teaches (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 4) a first refrigeration stage (20B; para. 50) configured to receive a first refrigerant (working fluid) and flow the first refrigerant (working fluid) through at least one first heat exchanger (heat exchanger of 20B); an expansion valve (expansion valve before 36) for expanding a residual portion (portion to expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream to yield an expanded residual stream (after expansion valve); one first refrigerant recycle compressor (compressor of 20B); a third refrigeration stage (at least 13) comprising a third heat exchanger (13) configured to densify a stream of liquid methane (para. 50, natural gas) via indirect heat exchange with a diverted portion (portion through 13) of the expanded residual stream (after expansion valve) to yield a densified, liquid methane stream (para. 50, 65, 74). 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 third refrigerator stage of Nagimov for the purpose of improving the utility of the system of Prosser (690) yielding a useful densified methane for use in rocket applications and eliminating boiloff losses (Nagimov-para. 65)
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). 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
December 29, 2025