Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The claims received 6/8/2026 are entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a coolant” at two instances. The second recitation therefor lacks antecedent basis to the first.
Claim 11 recites “operated”. A single claims both an apparatus and method steps of using that apparatus is indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(p). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows the steps set forth or whether infringement occurs when the steps are actually performed.
Claim 14 recites “a piping grid network” which lacks antecedent basis to claim 1.
Claims depending from a rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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) 1-4 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2013/0340474) in view of Crowley (US 4,276,749).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a liquefaction heat pump system comprising:
a storage vessel (11) configured to receive a liquified fuel from a piping grid network (overall network of piping from filling of vessel through to end user, e.g. combustion);
a heat pump circuit including sequentially at least a compression stage (13) configured to compress the fuel,
a heat pump stage (20) configured to receive the compressed fuel from the compression stage, and to heat a coolant by removing heat from the compressed fuel by at least one heat exchanger (21); and
a pumping arrangement (plural pumps 33 are formed in an arrangement) configured to pump fuel from the storage vessel and/or from the heat pump circuit back to the piping grid network (towards L3 or returning as shown in figure 9A); and
operating the liquefaction heat pump system such that fuel is liquefied and a coolant is heated by the heat pump circuit (the fuel is liquefied at 21 which heats the coolant within 20, which heats further coolant at 24)
Jung is silent concerning a controller unit for operating the liquefaction heat pump. Crowley discloses a liquefaction heat pump which includes a controller unit (plurality of control connections shown in figure 1) configured for operating the liquefaction heat pump system such that fuel is liquefied and a coolant is heated by the heat pump circuit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jung with a controller unit configured for operating the liquefaction heat pump system such that fuel is liquefied and a coolant is heated by the heat pump circuit in order to maintain appropriate conditions, e.g. temperature, and respond to changing conditions, e.g. operating capacity.
Regarding claim 2, Jung discloses the compressor stage includes a plurality of compressors (at least 5 compressors shown in figure 9A).
Regarding claim 3, Jung discloses the compressor stage includes compressors in a cascaded arrangement (the compressors are arranged in series which applicant defines as cascaded within the specification).
Regarding claim 4, Jung discloses the heat pump stage includes one or more of a desuperheater, a condenser and/or a subcooler (terms refer to condition of the fluid it is understood from the figure that subcooling and condensing are occurring within the fluid).
Regarding claim 7, Jung discloses a second vessel (31) downstream of the heat pump stage to receive the fuel from the heat pump stage.
Regarding claim 8, Jung discloses the liquefaction heat pump system according to claim 7, but lacks an additional subcooling heat exchange between the storage vessel (11) and second vessel (31). Jung does provide that the liquefaction apparatus may be “increased or decreased, depending on a design thereof” [0081]. The examiner takes official notice that providing a plurality of cooling heat exchangers in series is old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a subsequent cold box in series from the primary cold box in order to increase a cooling capacity of the system, e.g. for use in larger systems. The feature of subcooling is accomplished by further cooling of a liquefied stream.
Regarding claim 9, Jung, as modified, discloses the liquefaction heat pump system according to claim 7, but lacks a pump vessel. Crowley discloses a pumping arrangement includes a pump vessel (accumulator 24) in selective fluid communication with the storage vessel (11), a line extending from the compressor stage (13) to the pump vessel, the line being selectively opened by the controller unit (at 17) to control a pressure in the pump vessel and to cause a pressure increase in the pump vessel to pump the fuel out of the second vessel into the piping grid network (3:28-47; 4:35-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jung with the pumping vessel, in connection with the second vessel, in order to provide an accumulator function to the system, i.e. prevent vapor from flowing downstream.
Regarding claim 10, Jung discloses the pumping arrangement includes a pump (33) downstream of the heat pump circuit to pump the fuel back into the piping grid network.
Regarding claim 11, Jung discloses a bypass (L4) returning fuel to the storage vessel (11) or the heat pump circuit, the bypass including a valve (51) operated to allow the pump to operate at a constant flow rate. Jung lacks that the bypass is downstream of the pump. Consistent with (and inclusive of) the modification at claim 9 to provide the pumping vessel of Crowley as a pump includes bypass (26) with valve (84).
Regarding claim 12, Jung discloses the pump (33) is a mechanical pump.
Regarding claim 13, Jung, as modified, discloses the liquefaction heat pump system according to claim 1, but lacks that the fuel is ammonia. Crowley discloses similar systems are adaptable to ammonia as well as natural gas and others (1:60). It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Jung provides for a liquefaction system. Crowley evidences that similar liquefaction systems are suitable for use with ammonia. Merely applying the known system of Jung to the known purpose of treating ammonia is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2013/0340474), in view of Crowley (US 4,276,749), and in view of Gentry et al (US 2010/0205979).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Jung discloses using a refrigerant as a coolant but is silent concerning water and district heating. Gentry discloses a similar regasification system utilizing water as a coolant ([0018]) and the waste heat within a district heating network ([0016]-[0017] and [0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jung with water, e.g. to dissipate heat at 24, and then to use said heat for another purpose, e.g. district heating network in order to increase overall system utility and efficiency.
Regarding claims 14-15, Jung discloses a piping grid network comprising: at least one liquefied fuel demand (ME-GI); and at least one liquefaction heat pump system according to claim 1 (detailed above at claim 1), the at least one liquefaction heat pump system between the liquefied fuel source and the liquefied fuel demand, the at least one liquefaction heat pump system operable to maintain the fuel in a liquefied state, and to generate heat (dissipated at 24).
Jung is silent concerning the source of liquefied fuel. The examiner takes official notice that tanks may be filled from a fuel source via a piping grid network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Jung with a liquefied fuel source in order to provide fuel to the system thereby permitting operation.
Jung generates heat (at 24) but is silent concerning using it for a demand. Gentry discloses a similar liquefaction system where the waste heat is used for a district heating demand ([0016]-[0017] and [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the heat of Jung for district heating in order to utilize an otherwise wasted resource. Typically heat is merely dissipated to atmosphere.
Regarding claim 16, Jung, as modified, discloses the liquefaction heat pump system according to claim 14, but lacks that the fuel is ammonia. Crowley discloses similar systems are adaptable to ammonia as well as natural gas and others (1:60). It has been held that where there exists an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose that it is obvious to apply the known means to the known purpose. MPEP 2144.07. In this instance Jung provides for a liquefaction system. Crowley evidences that similar liquefaction systems are suitable for use with ammonia. Merely applying the known system of Jung to the known purpose of treating ammonia is prima facie obvious yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Jung further discloses a plurality of the at least one liquefaction heat pump system, at least two of the liquefaction heat pump systems being in series (series arranged compressors shown in figure).
Regarding claim 18, Jung, as modified, discloses the network according to claim 14, but lacks a plurality of systems in parallel. It has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04. Therefor it would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of liquefaction heat pump systems in parallel in order to predictably increase system capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Faulk (US 2,884,763) liquefied fuel gas supply
Ragot et al (US 2021/0156517) BOG treatment
Vakacharla (US 2025/0075339) green ammonia
Koshi et al (US 2026/0218979) liquefied gas conveyance
Fuchs et al (US 10/030,815) reliquefying plant
Rosen et al (US 11/988/395) district heating system
Van Horn (US 3,205,665) BOG treatment
Wilkinson (US 2,682,154) BOG treatment
Harvey (US 2,038,562) Ammonia preparation
Reed (US 3,150,495) BOG treatment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 PM.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights