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 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) 1-9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “wherein the transfer controls heating of the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant to prevent thermal shock during first fill procedures.” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the transfer” and it is unclear what structure is being referenced. Further, the disclosed invention does not heat the first refrigerant in the heat exchanger, but cools the first refrigerant and therefore it is unclear what the recitation requires.
Further it is unclear what structure is required to “prevent thermal shock during first fill procedures”.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “transferring includes transferring the first refrigerant to the first cooling unit and transferring the second refrigerant to the second cooling unit” is a step recitation in an apparatus claim and there is no way to discern what structure is being required thereby.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “and control the first temperature of the first refrigerant” is indefinite since claim 1 states that the first temperature is of the first refrigerant stored in the first storage device and the present recitation describes a temperature of the first refrigerant from the heat exchanger and therefore the recitations are not consistent with each other and it is unclear what temperature must be controlled by the recited temperature control assembly.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “a temperature controller configured to control the first temperature of the first refrigerant” is indefinite since claim 1 describes the first temperature as being of the first refrigerant in the first storage device and the present recitation describes a temperature elsewhere and it is unclear how these are the same temperatures.
In regard to claim 8, the recitation, “the system is configured to supply the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant in at least one of a gaseous form and a liquid form as part of a first fill procedure and an online procedure.” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure makes the system so configured. There is no discerning what structure is being required.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “a flow controller configured to control the second temperature of the second refrigerant by controlling flow characteristics of the second refrigerant entering the heat exchanger” is indefinite since claim 1 describes the second temperature of the second refrigerant in the second storage device and the present recitation describes a temperature entering the heat exchanger and it is not clear whether these are the same temperatures 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
First storage device and Second storage device in claim 1.
First cooling unit and second cooling unit in claim 4.
Temperature control assembly in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “storage device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as a container (spec. para. 65-66).
Claim limitation “cooling unit” as employed in claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure uses the term but never defines what structure is required of the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “temperature control assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure uses the term but never defines what structure is required of the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mock (US 2012/0204598) in view of Bailey (US 3602002).
In regard to claim 1, Mock teaches a system for supplying refrigerants to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility comprising: a first storage device (13) configured to store a first refrigerant (propane; para. 29), a first conduit (301) in fluid communication with the first storage device (13); a heat exchanger (15) configured to receive the first refrigerant (propane) from the first conduit (301); a first flow path (after 15) configured to advance the first refrigerant (propane) to the LNG facility (para. 29 “LNG facility”).
Mock does not explicitly teach a second storage device, second conduit, second flow path, as claimed. However, it is routine and ordinary to provide a system for supplying refrigerants to a refrigeration system. For example, Bailey explicitly teaches a system having a second storage device (10; see whole disclosure including Fig. 2) configured to store a second refrigerant (ethylene, column 2, line 5-10) and teaches a second conduit (36) in fluid communication with the second storage device (10), a heat exchanger (38) configured to receive the second refrigerant (ethylene) from the second conduit (36), the heat exchanger (38) configured to transfer heat to the second refrigerant (ethylene), a second flow path (after 38) configured to advance the second refrigerant (ethylene) to a refrigeration system (see refrigeration system). The vaporization of the ethylene clearly provides cooling power at cryogenic temperatures. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the vaporization of ethylene as taught by Bailey to provide cooling to the first refrigerant (propane) in the heat exchanger (15) of Mock for the purpose of taking advantage of the cooling power available from the ethylene and to reduce the cost and energy required to provide cooling to the propane while advantageously providing vaporization heat for the ethylene when filling the propane and ethylene refrigeration systems of Mock.
In regard to claim 2, Mock, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations including that the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant are stored in liquid form (see liquid propane and liquid ethylene), but does not explicitly teach that the first refrigerant and the second refrigerant are both stored at pressures lower than a LNG facility pressure. However, it is routine and obvious to store propane and ethylene at near ambient pressure for thermal efficiency and cost benefits and to operate the refrigeration systems of the LNG facility at higher pressure for the purpose of obtaining vapor compression refrigeration from expansion of such compressed refrigerant as is immediately apparent from the teachings of Mock. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to store the first refrigerant (propane) and the second refrigerant (ethylene) at near ambient pressures to reduce the cost of storage and to employ higher pressures in the refrigeration systems of the LNG facility for the purpose of obtaining vapor compression cooling from expansion.
In regard to claim 3, Mock teaches that the first refrigerant (propane) has a first boiling point, the second refrigerant (ethane) has a second boiling point, the first boiling point is greater than the second boiling point (as per thermophysical fact), and the first temperature is greater than the second temperature (boiling points of propane is higher temperature than ethylene).
In regard to claims 4-5, Mock, as modified, teaches that the LNG facility is a cascade facility (para. 16) having at least a first closed-loop refrigerant cycle (propane cycle) and a second closed-loop refrigerant cycle (ethylene cycle), wherein the LNG facility (LNG facility, para. 29) is configured to provide indirect cooling of a natural gas stream (“natural gas stream” para. 18) with the first refrigerant (propane) in the first closed-loop refrigerant cycle (propane cycle), followed by indirect cooling of the natural gas stream (natural gas stream) with the second refrigerant (ethylene) in the second closed-loop refrigerant cycle (ethylene cycle).
In regard to claim 6, Mock, as modified, teaches a temperature control assembly (see propane cycle) configured to receive the first refrigerant (propane) from the heat exchanger (15 as modified) and control a temperature (as part of the cycle) of the first refrigerant (propane).
In regard to claim 7, Mock, as modified, teaches that the temperature control assembly (propane cycle) includes a closed-loop conduit (natural gas heating propane cycle) having a heating fluid therein (natural gas), a second heat exchanger (at least 2) configured to heat from the heating fluid (natural gas), and a temperature controller (20) configured to control a temperature of the first refrigerant (propane) by controlling heat transfer in the second heat exchanger (at least 2).
In regard to claim 8, Mock, as modified, teaches that the system is configured to supply the first refrigerant (propane) and the second refrigerant (ethylene) in at least one of a gas form and a liquid form as part of a first fill procedure and an online fill procedure (structure is fully capable of such).
In regard to claim 9, Mock, as modified, teaches a flow controller (at least 48) configured to control a temperature of the second refrigerant (ethylene) by controlling flow characteristics of the second refrigerant (ethylene) entering the heat exchanger (15 as modified to vaporize ethylene).
Conclusion
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