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 1-6), Subspecies 1B - Fig. 1B, Species 2 (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 4, 6-14 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note that in addition to the claims 4, 7-14 are withdrawn as indicated by the Applicant, claim 6 is withdrawn since the elected species does not subcool the low pressure return stream as claimed.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.
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) 1-3, 6 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 densified, liquid oxygen stream” is indefinite as the term “densified” is relative and there is no way to discern how dense the stream must be to qualify.
The recitation, “the steps of” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “to yield a densified, liquid oxygen stream;” is indefinite since the claim already recites a densified, liquid oxygen stream and it is unclear if this is the same or other stream.
The recitation, “(iii) liquefying and subcooling the gaseous oxygen stream in a first refrigeration stage to yield a subcooled, liquid oxygen stream; (iv) densifying the subcooled, liquid oxygen stream in a first refrigeration stage to yield a densified, liquid oxygen stream;” as well as the recitation later in the claim that the gaseous oxygen stream is subcooled in a first subcooler creates uncertainty about where the fluid is subcooled. Further the recitation is indefinite as it is unclear how the gaseous oxygen stream is liquefied and subcooled in step (iii) and subcooled again in step (iv). This appears contrary to the disclosure which shows that the gaseous oxygen liquefies in the first refrigeration stage and then the liquefied stream is subcooled in a subcooler. Summarily, it is entirely unclear how to interpret these limitations and where subcooling must occur.
The recitation, “the launch facility” is indefinite since it is unclear if this is the referencing the previously recited space launch facility or is another launch facility.
The recitation, “to a space vehicle at least one of the one or more launch platforms;” is indefinite for being grammatically errant and it is unclear why the recitation does not have another “at” after vehicle. Further the recitation is unclear since the claim already references a space vehicle launch previously in the claim and it is unclear why the present recitation does not refer to --the space vehicle--.
The recitation, “the second refrigeration stage” is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis.
The recitation, “to yield a densified, liquid oxygen stream.” is indefinite since the claim already recites a densified, liquid oxygen stream and it is unclear if this is the same or other stream.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “a first warm portion” is indefinite as 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, “is split” in step a) appears grammatically inconsistent.
The recitation, “the first refrigerant stream” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitations of (b) and (c) are grammatically errant and appear to be missing --in-- before “a warm turbine” and “a cold turbine”.
The recitation, “wherein step (iii)” is indefinite for reintroducing step (iii) and it is unclear why the recitation is not --wherein the step (iii)--.
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) 1-3, 5 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.
In regard to claim(s) 1-3, Prosser (690) teaches a method (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream (34; para. 25) for a space vehicle launch (para. 3) comprises:
subcooling and densifying a liquid oxygen stream (32) in 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 the second heat exchanger (30) to subcool and densify the liquid oxygen stream (32) and yield the densified, liquid oxygen stream (34); and the second refrigerant comprises a nitrogen and neon containing mixture (para. 20).
Prosser (690) does not appear to explicitly teach liquefying a gaseous oxygen stream in a first refrigeration stage, as claimed and Prosser (690) does not explicitly teach that the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage are disposed on launch platforms of a space launch facility, the low pressure gaseous oxygen is supplied to the space launch facility 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, nitrogen refrigerators are well known and ordinary for providing efficient refrigeration as taught by Prosser (094). Prosser (094) teaches a method (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 a first primary heat exchanger (112); wherein the first refrigeration stage (100) is a reverse Brayton cycle refrigeration stage (see turbines) and further comprises:
splitting the first refrigerant (nitrogen) flowing through the first primary heat exchanger (112) into a first warm portion (toward 170) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 170), a second cold portion (toward 175) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 175), and a residual portion (toward 125) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to 125)
expanding the first warm portion (toward 170) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a warm turbine (170) to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 170);
expanding the second cold portion (toward 175) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a cold turbine (175) to yield an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175);
expanding the residual portion (toward 125) of the first refrigerant stream (refrigerant);
recycling the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 170) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 175) in one of more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 113, 114);
providing refrigeration (at 120, para. 34) via indirect heat exchange with all or a part of the expanded residual portion (after 125);recycling the first refrigerant return stream (at least some of the fluid returning to the compressors) via the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 113, 114); and
further compressing the recycled warm exhaust (after 170 and 112), the recycled cold exhaust (after 175 and 112), the recycled first refrigerant return stream (after 125 and 112) in one or more first refrigerant compressors (113, 114); and the first refrigerant comprises nitrogen (para. 5, 26).
In addition, Turney teaches producing gaseous oxygen (106) in an air separation unit (102); directing the gaseous oxygen stream (106) via a pipeline (see fig. 1 and para. 79) from the air separation unit (102) to a space launch facility (para. 3), the space launch facility having one or more launch platforms (para. 2-3 offshore platforms) and teaches that providing liquefaction systems on the one or more launch platforms (see 113) 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) by the teachings of Prosser (094) with the nitrogen refrigeration steps 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)) and to provide liquefaction of gaseous oxygen for the purpose of providing oxygen for space launch vehicles on 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.
In regard to claim 5, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 since Prosser (094) teaches that the expanded residual portion (after 125) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen) is split into a first expanded residual portion (from 140 to 150) and a second expanded residual portion (to 142); the first expanded residual portion (from 140 to 150) is received by the first subcooler (120) and the second expanded residual portion (to 142) is further expanded and recycled via the 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).
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 9, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763