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 1-7, 15-22) in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “increasing the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream prior to feeding to the gas storage cavern” and in regard to the recitation of claim 3 that “the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream is increased using a pressure regulator.” and in regard to the recitation of claim 16, that “a pressure regulator in fluid flow communication with the high pressure vaporizer and gas storage cavern configured to increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas stream” all have scope that is not enabled. Particularly, the claim includes the scope that the first high-pressure gas stream is increased in pressure by the pressure regulator.
In fact, the disclosed invention does not raise the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (24) that comes from the vaporizer (22) and certainly does not raise the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (24) “using a pressure regulator”. No energy goes into a pressure regulator and therefore a pressure regulator cannot raise the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (24). This is a physical fact according to the first law of thermodynamics. The applicant has mis-used the English language in this instance and/or misunderstood the physics at hand. No amount of experimentation or any operation will raise the pressure of the first high pressure gas stream (24) when no energy input is provided and certainly not merely by restricting flow with a valve or orifice.
The disclosure explains in spec. para. 12 that the intended pressure increase is due to the phase change of liquid to vapor and that the intended pressure increase is aided by the use of a pressure regulator (26). However, the claim requires that the vaporizer produces the first high-pressure gas stream (24), therefore, the disclosed change of liquid to gas must occur in the vaporizer and cannot happen after the vaporizer, since the first high-pressure gas stream is as recited a gas.
To highlight some of the wands factors:
Quantity of Experimentation Necessary: How much experimentation is required to make and use the invention as claimed?
An unlimited amount of experimentation is necessary and would never be successful, as such would violate the first law of thermodynamics.
Amount of Direction or Guidance Presented: Does the application provide sufficient guidance to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention?
There is no guidance provided as to how to increase a pressure of a gas stream with no energy input
Presence or Absence of Working Examples: Are there working examples provided in the patent that demonstrate how to make and use the invention?
No working examples
Nature of the Invention: What is the complexity of the invention? Is it in a predictable or unpredictable field?
The field of pressurizing a fluid is very well understood and the recited scope fully contradicts known science fact.
State of the Prior Art: How well understood is the technology in the relevant field?
Pressure regulation is very well understood technology
Breadth of the Claims: How broad are the claims made in the patent? Broader claims may require more enablement.
The claims are extremely broad and encompass any pressures, any cryogenic fluid, and any pressure regulator.
The Examiner is certain that the applicant can instantly verify, upon review of this issue with their inventors, or others who have learned basic thermodynamics, that a pressure regulator does not have any energy input and therefore cannot elevate the pressure of the first high pressure gas stream (24) after it has left the vaporizer (22).
The Examiner recommends that the applicant properly amend the claim limitations to pursue supported subject matter that is enabled including that the pressure regulator may assist with ensuring that the first high pressure gas stream is at a higher pressure than that of the pumped liquid stream (as energy is added to the pumped liquid stream in the vaporizer 22 - causing the phase change and providing an elevation of pressure relative to the pumped liquid stream).
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) 1-7, 15-22 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 first high-pressure gas stream” is indefinite as the term “high” is relative and patently indistinct and there is no way to determine what amount of pressure is included and excluded thereby. Similar problem exists in claim 15.
This applies to all relative recitations.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “the pressure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Further in regard to claim 2, the recitation, “increasing a pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream prior to feeding to the gas storage cavern” and in claim 3, the recitation, “the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream is increased using a pressure regulator” and in claim 16, the recitation, “a pressure regulator in fluid flow communication with the high-pressure vaporizer and gas storage cavern configured to increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas stream” is/are indefinite for being inconsistent with the disclosed structure which shows that the only structures that can increase the disclosed fluid’s pressure are the pump (14) and the vaporizer (22). The pressure regulator may assist in the providing a desired pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (24) but cannot further elevate the pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (24) to a higher level by mere restriction of flow by a pressure regulator (26) as recited.
Further see the enablement rejection above.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “low-pressure vapor stream” is indefinite as the term “low” is relative and patently indistinct and there is no way to determine what amount of pressure is included and excluded thereby.
In regard to claim 7, the recitation, “warm” is relative and patently indistinct and there is no way to determine what temperature is included and excluded thereby.
In regard to claim 16, the recitation, “and gas storage cavern configured to increase the pressure of the high-pressure gas stream” is further indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the pressure” and for improperly reintroducing the gas storage cavern.
In regard to claim 17, the recitation, “low-pressure vaporizer” and “low-pressure vapor stream” is indefinite as the term “low” is relative and patently indistinct and there is no way to determine what amount of pressure is included and excluded thereby.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 15, 17, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bishop (US 2006/0150640). 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 1, Bishop teaches a method (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 11) comprising: pumping (via at least 56) a cryogenic liquid stream (para. 32, 470 from 414) to produce a pumped liquid stream (472); vaporizing the pumped liquid stream (472) to produce a first high-pressure gas stream (474 or 478; interpreted as having a higher pressure than at least some other stream); and feeding the first high-pressure gas stream (478) to a gas storage cavern (444-456; para. 10, 124).
In regard to claim 2, Bishop teaches increasing a pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (474) prior to feeding to the gas storage cavern (444-456).
In regard to claim 4, Bishop teaches dividing at least a portion of the cryogenic liquid stream (470) to produce a second cryogenic liquid stream (479);
vaporizing the second cryogenic liquid stream (479) to produce a low-pressure vapor stream (480; interpreted as having a lower pressure than at least some other stream);
compressing the low-pressure vapor stream (480) to produce a compressed gas stream (484); and
feeding the compressed gas stream (484) to the gas storage cavern (444-456).
In regard to claim 6, Bishop teaches that the gas storage cavern (444-456) comprises a cavity in a salt formation (para. 123, 15, 21, 23, 35).
In regard to claim 21, Bishop teaches that a pressure of the pumped liquid stream (472) ranges from 2500 to 5000 psia (para. 73).
In regard to claim 22, Bishop teaches that a pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (474, 478) ranges from 1000 to 3500 psia (para. 135).
In regard to independent claim 15, Bishop teaches a system (see whole disclosure including Fig. 11) for storing a cryogenic liquid comprising: a cryogenic pump (56) in fluid flow communication with a cryogenic liquid source (414), wherein the cryogenic pump (56) is configured to pump a cryogenic liquid stream (470) and produce a pumped liquid stream (472); a high-pressure vaporizer (473; operating at a higher pressure than some other fluids) in fluid flow communication with the cryogenic pump (56), wherein the high-pressure vaporizer (473) is configured to vaporize the pumped liquid stream (472) and produce a high-pressure gas stream (474, 478); and a gas storage cavern (444-456) in fluid flow communication with the high-pressure vaporizer (473), wherein the gas storage cavern (444-456) is configured to accept the high-pressure gas stream (474, 478).
In regard to claim 17, Bishop teaches a low-pressure vaporizer (260; interpreted as having fluids at pressure less than at least some other fluids) in fluid flow communication with the cryogenic liquid source (414) configured to vaporize at least a portion of the cryogenic liquid stream (470) and produce a low-pressure vapor stream (480); and a compressor (482) in fluid flow communication with the low-pressure vaporizer (260) and the gas storage cavern (444-456), the compressor (482) configured to compress the low-pressure vapor stream (480) and produce a compressed gas stream (484).
In regard to claim 20, Bishop teaches that the gas storage cavern (444-456) comprises a cavity in a salt formation (para. 123, 15, 21, 23, 35).
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) 2-3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2006/0150640) in view of Xu (US 6395064). 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) 2-3, 16, Bishop teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach a pressure regulator located after the vaporizer (473). However, pressure regulators are routine and provide the ability to modulate the pressure from the vaporizer. For example, Xu teaches pumping (via 801) a cryogenic liquid stream (liquefied gas, column 3, line 16) to produce a pumped liquid stream (after 801); vaporizing (via 802) the pumped liquid stream (after 801) to produce a first high-pressure gas stream (to 803); and that the pressure of the pumped liquid stream (after 801) is increased using a pressure regulator (803) thereby restraining uncontrolled expansion as the pumped liquid is vaporized (in 802). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bishop with the pressure regulator of Xu for the purpose of controlling the pressure from the vaporizer.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2006/0150640) in view of Drnevich (US 2011/0305515). 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.
Bishop teaches that a pressure of the first high-pressure gas stream (478) is stored in the gas storage cavern (444-456) but does not explicitly state that the pressure is in a range from 20% to 85% of a lithostatic pressure of the gas storage cavern. However, it is routine to consider the structural limits of the gas storage cavern, including the lithostatic pressure as taught by Drnevich. Drnevich teaches storing hydrogen in a salt cavern (para. 7) and teaches that the pressure thereof has a maximum pressure set by the lithostatic head and a minimum pressure to prevent creep (para. 33). Therefore, the pressure is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that storing an amount of gas while balancing the structural limits of the gas storage cavern. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim were disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to store the gas of Bishop at a pressure in a range of 20% to 85% of a lithostatic pressure of the gas storage cavern for the purpose of ensuring that the gas storage cavern (444-456) remains uncompromised and useful.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishop (US 2006/0150640) in view of Chalk (US 2023/0107342). 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 18, Bishop does not explicitly teach a gas bag in fluid flow communication with the low pressure vaporizer (260) and the compressor (482). However, it is routine and ordinary to provide buffer storage in association with a compressor. For example, Chalk explicitly teaches compressing hydrogen (para. 26, 45) and storing hydrogen in a secondary hydrogen buffer (para. 44) that includes a gas bag (para. 44 “gas bag”) and provides better control of the hydrogen to the compressor (para. 40). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bishop to have a gas bag buffer volume upstream of the compressor (482) for the purpose of providing greater flexibility in managing the handling of gas through various phases of operation.
In regard to claim 19, Bishop, as modified, teaches the low-pressure vaporizer (260) is in fluid flow communication with the cryogenic pump (56), but does not explicitly teach that the low-pressure vaporizer is configured to accept a boil-off gas stream from the cryogenic pump (56). However, Chalk teaches that hydrogen gas can blowby or leak pas fluid moving systems (para. 26) and that by collecting such gas to a compressor (para. 32) such gas can be collected to use. Further, in view of the handling of gas by the compressor (482) Bishop, such suggests that such leaked fluid would have been obviously sent to the low-pressure vaporizer (260) so as to be stored by the gas bag provided to Bishop as outlined above and the compressor (482) for eventual storage in the gas storage cavern to capture such boiled off gas and provide a reduction in losses.
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
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights