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.
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, 5, 15 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, “supplying the densified, liquid oxygen from the one or more storage tanks to the space launch facility” is indefinite since the claim already states that the one or more storage tanks are “disposed at the space launch facility” and therefore the fluid is already at the facility and it is unclear what supplying to the facility requires.
The recitation, “at a low pressure” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what pressure level is included and excluded by the relative term “low”.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “a residual portion” is indefinite for reintroducing anew that which was already recited in claim 1.
The recitation, “a first warm portion” is indefinite since “warm” is a relative term and there is no way to discern what the portion must be warm relative to and no way to determine what temperature is sufficiently high to meet the recitation.
The recitation, “intermediate pressure warm exhaust” is indefinite since it is unclear what pressure is included and excluded and it is unclear what pressures must the present exhaust must be lower and higher than.
The recitation, “intermediate pressure cold exhaust” is indefinite since it is unclear what pressure is included and excluded and it is unclear what pressures must the present exhaust must be lower and higher than.
The recitations, “warm refrigeration circuit” and “warm turbine” are indefinite since it is not clear what the recited circuit or turbine must be compared with and it is not clear what part of the circuit or turbine must be evaluated. Further it is unclear what particular temperature is sufficient to be considered “warm”.
The recitations, “cold refrigeration circuit” and “cold turbine” are indefinite since it is not clear what the recited circuit or turbine must be compared with and it is not clear what part of the circuit or turbine must be evaluated. Further it is unclear what particular temperature is sufficiently low to be considered “cold”.
In regard to claim 5, the recitations, “first heat exchanger” are indefinite for failing to properly reference the first primary heat exchanger and it is unclear if this is referencing the same heat exchanger or not.
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, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view of Li (CN 216924913) 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 (30) 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 in claims 1-3 and in addition, 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 Li.
Li teaches a method (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) comprising:
directing a gaseous oxygen stream (page 4 oxygen) via a pipeline (oxygen pipeline) to a first refrigeration stage (at least 7);
cooling the gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen) in the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) to yield a cooled gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen after 7), and then liquefying and subcooling the cooled gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen after 7) in the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) to yield a subcooled, liquid oxygen stream (after 8), wherein the gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen) is directed to the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) at a low pressure (lower pressure than other streams);
wherein the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) is configured to receive a first refrigerant (nitrogen; page 3) and flow the first refrigerant (nitrogen from 1, 2) through a first primary heat exchanger (7) to cool the gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen) and then through a first subcooler (part of 8) to subcool and liquefy the cooled gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen after (7) via indirect heat exchange with a residual portion (part) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) to yield the subcooled, liquid oxygen stream (after 8).
As well as the limitations of claim 3, showing that the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) is a reverse Brayton cycle refrigeration stage (see turbines) and further comprises:
splitting the first refrigerant (nitrogen) flowing through the first primary heat exchanger (7) into a first warm portion (toward 3) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 3), a second cold portion (toward 4) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 4), and a residual portion (toward expansion valve before separator) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to expansion valve);
expanding the first warm portion (toward 3) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a warm turbine (3) to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 3);
expanding the second cold portion (toward 4) of the first refrigerant (nitrogen) in a cold turbine (4) to yield an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 4);
expanding the residual portion (toward expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen);
recycling the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 3) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 4) in one of more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 1, 2);
subcooling and liquefying the cooled gaseous oxygen stream (after 7) via indirect heat exchange with a part of the expanded residual portion (after expansion valve) to yield the subcooled, liquid oxygen stream (oxygen after 8) and a first refrigerant return stream (after expansion valve and after 8);
recycling the first refrigerant return stream (after expansion valve and after 8) via the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 1, 2); and
further compressing the recycled warm exhaust (after 3 and 7), the recycled cold exhaust (after 4 and 7, the recycled first refrigerant return stream (after expansion valve and after 8) in one or more first refrigerant compressors (1, 2); and the first refrigerant comprises nitrogen (page 3).
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 Li with the nitrogen refrigeration steps of Li for the purpose of providing the one or more nitrogen refrigeration streams to cool the second refrigeration stage of Prosser (690) efficiently and with great scalability 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 the nitrogen and oxygen streams from 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 Li teaches that the expanded residual portion (after expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen) is split into a first expanded residual portion (part to 8 ending up in top of 10) and a second expanded residual portion (part to 8 ending up in bottom of 10); the first expanded residual portion (part to 8 ending in top of 10) is received by the first subcooler (part of 8) and is warmed and recycled via the first primary heat exchanger (7) as an intermediate pressure return stream (higher in pressure than some streams, lower than others) and the second expanded residual portion (part to 8 ending in bottom of 10) is further expanded and recycled via the first primary heat exchanger (7) as a low pressure return stream (part to 1, 2; has a lower pressure than other streams); and the low pressure return stream (part to 1, 2) is compressed in the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (1, 2).
In regard to claim 15, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) comprises a nitrogen subcooler (other part of 8) configured to subcool the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen) via indirect heat exchange with the expanded residual portion of the low pressure return stream (see nitrogen to 8 is cooled by expanded refrigerant that is at a lower pressure than other streams).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 7-8) are an allegation that “densified, liquid oxygen stream” should be interpreted as requiring “further cooling” in a second refrigeration stage.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive and illustrative of the problematic nature of the recitation as the term alone does not require cooling in the second refrigeration stage.
Applicant's arguments (page 8) are an allegation that the specification describes temperatures that the “densified, liquid oxygen stream” stream may be cooled to.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the rejection is not based on a premise that the disclosure does not disclose densification and that the term is new matter but that the term “densified” is relative and unclear since it is unclear if the term requires a particular level of density and there is no way to determine what level of density meets the term.
Applicant's arguments (page 8) are an allegation that “warm” and “colder” are meaningful descriptive terms that identify where in the process a stream or fluid is.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive first as there are no recitations of “colder” only “cold”.
Further, the allegation highlights another indefinite aspect of the terminology as the basic meaning of such terms is a relative value of temperature and the applicant is alleging that the recitations define “location” in a cycle. Contrary to the allegation, there is no support found that the terms cold and warm require a particular location of a stream or component, therefore the allegation is unpersuasive. There is no way to discern what must be compared to discern that a stream or component qualifies as “warm” or “cold”.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that “intermediate pressure” is not indefinite because the specification provides an example of “about 6 bar(a)” as a suitable pressure. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive inasmuch as the applicant is alleging that the term requires a pressure of about 6 bar(a) as this is not commensurate with the scope of the recitation and the allegation underscores the ambiguity that is created from relative terms used without clear language as the scope of the term is clearly greater than merely requiring a pressure of 6 bar(a).
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that since the disclosure describes examples of high pressure streams as being 50 bar(a) and low pressure streams as being 1.5 to 3.0 bar(a) that this informs readers that the intermediate pressure is “distinguished” and does not need a numerical definition. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the applicant has immediately relied on numerical examples to describe the scope of the term and this only underscores that the terminology is unclear since interpreting the terms to require a particular pressure value creates indeterminate scope since the terms are broader than the single example values and there is no support that the terms alone require the pressure values alleged.
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
Prosecution Insights