DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The second recited “entrained liquid droplets” should be “ the entrained liquid droplets .” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 2 – 5 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 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recited “pressurized liquid” is the same as “pressure liquid stream” in claim 1. Claim s 3–4 is indefinite because the limitation of “the fluid” is indefinite. Claim 5 is indefinite because the limitation of “the vapor portion” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if it is the same as the recited “gaseous portion” in claim 1. 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. The claims are rejected as follows: Claim s 1 –3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al., US 2004 / 0112066 A1 (“ Leitch ”) in view of Wang et al., CN 206973959 U (“Wang”) . Regarding claim 1 : Leitch discloses that a method for removing entrained liquid droplets from a gas (see entire disclosure of Leitch) , comprising: a) introducing a gas with entrained liquid droplets into a separator ( Leitch ’s step of introducing stream 19 into receiver vessel 20, Leitch Fig. 1, [0039], note that while Leitch discloses its stream 19 as “liquid carbon dioxide”, there ought to be a portion of gas because there is gas in Leitch ’s receiver vessel 20) , thereby producing a gaseous portion ( Leitch ’s pressure relief line 55 comprising vapor, Leitch Fig. 1, [0039]) and a liquid portion ( Leitch ’s carbon dioxide liquid 24, Leitch Fig. 1, [0037]) , wherein the gaseous portion (55 of Leitch ) exits the separator ( Leitch Fig. 1, [0039]) , wherein the liquid portion (24 of Leitch ) is restricted by a liquid control valve ( Leitch ’s fill control valve 25, Leitch Fig. 1, [0039]) and collected in a reservoir volume (interior of Leitch ’s receiver vessel 20, Id. ) in the separator, b) opening the liquid control valve (25 of Leitch ) upon receiving a signal from a liquid level sensor ( Leitch ’s level sensor 44, Leitch Fig. 1, [0036]) , the liquid portion (24 of Leitch ) thereby exiting the separator (20 of Leitch ) and being introduced into a lock hopper ( Leitch ’s high pressure accumulation chamber 30, Leitch Fig. 1, [0037]) , c) providing a pressurized vapor stream to the lock hopper, thereby pressurizing the lock hopper ( Leitch ’s pressure sensor 53, level sensor 45 in cooperation of heater 31 to adjust a desired pressure inside Leitch ’s chamber 30, Leitch Fig. 1, [0040]) , d) withdrawing a pressurized liquid stream ( via outlet conduit 32 , which is liquified carbon dioxide, Leica Fig. 1, [0039]) from the lock hopper (30 of Leitch , Id. ). Leitch does not disclose a cyclone separator. Leitch does not disclose that the level sensor 44 is located inside the reservoir volume . In the analogous art of liquid storage device, Wang discloses a cyclone separator 17 attached to one end of an inner pipe 12 located inside Wang’s reservoir body 1, Wang Fig. 1, p. 3. Additionally, Wang discloses a liquid level sensor 14 located inside Wang’s liquid storage chamber 5 inside reservoir body 1, Wang Fig. 1, p. 3. Wang discloses that t he utility model has reasonable structure, simple operation, safety and high efficiency and is energy-saving and environment-friendly with improve d efficiency of gas-liquid separation , Wang Fig. 1, p. 1. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Wang’s cyclone separator 17 and liquid level sensor 14 inside Leitch ’s receiver vessel 20 for the benefits disclosed above. Regarding claim 2: Modified Leitch as modified discloses that t he method of claim 1, further comprising e) venting the lock hopper once the lock hopper is empty of pressurized liquid (using Leitch ’s vent valve 52, Leitch Fig. 1, Table 1, [0041]) . Regarding claim 3: Modified Leitch as modified discloses that t he method of claim 1, wherein the fluid is a cryogenic fluid ( Leitch [0032]). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terrien et al., US 2012 / 0291483 A1 (“ Terrien ”) . Regarding claim 4: Modified Leitch does not disclose that t he method of claim 1, wherein the fluid is hydrogen. In the analogous process of carbon dioxide purification, Terrien discloses a process of recovering carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Terrien discloses that hydrogen is an important feedstock for many chemicals, however, hydrogen production is associated with large amount of CO2 emissions. Terrien [0003]. Terrien discloses that it is desirable to not only provide a means to produce hydrogen but also a means to recover the carbon dioxide associated with the hydrogen production . Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Leitch’s carbon dioxide production line to be within a hydrogen production facility. In which case, the fluid would necessarily include hydrogen. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kravets et al., US 11 , 035 , 260 B1 (“ Kravets ”). Regarding claim 5: Modified Leitch does not disclose that t he method of claim 1, further comprising: e) introducing the vapor portion exiting the cyclone separator into a chevron-type liquid-vapor separator, thereby producing a secondary gaseous portion and a secondary liquid portion. In the analogous art of gas liquid separation, Kravets discloses an alternative to one liquid gas separation 112a, which is to use a series of separators 112a and 112b. Kravets Fig. 1, col. 14, ll. 57–64. Kravets also discloses the separators could be any suitable cryogenic liquid-gas separator, including chevron devices or cyclone devices. Id. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a chevron-type liquid- vapor separator after the cyclone separator because Kravets discloses such design is known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use such design for better separation results. Double Patenting A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/530, 512 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Claim 1 of the current invention including all limitation of claim 1 of the copending invention . Claims 3–5 of the current invention are identical to claims 2, 3 and 5 of the copending invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT QIANPING HE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8385 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30-5:00 M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7872 . 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /Qianping He/ Examiner, Art Unit 1776