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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because t he MPEP states in part that (a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding . All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together, and: (ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch). The application papers are objected to because the abstract has line numbers in the left margin has track changes lines in the left margin , see MPEP 608.01. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: T he MPEP states in part that (a) Papers that are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application, or a reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding . All papers, other than drawings, that are submitted on paper or by facsimile transmission, and are to become a part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, must be on sheets of paper that are the same size, not permanently bound together, and: (ii) Either 21.0 cm by 29.7 cm (DIN size A4) or 21.6 cm by 27.9 cm (8 1/2 by 11 inches), with each sheet including a top margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), a left side margin of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch), a right side margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch), and a bottom margin of at least 2.0 cm (3/4 inch) . The application papers are objected to because the claims ha ve line numbers in the left margin and the amendments to claim s 1 -5 has track changes lines in the left margin , see MPEP 608.01. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-6 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. The term “ heavy ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ heavy ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 4 recite “the method comprising the steps of: separating the debutanizer from the separator by closing the heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream line; separating the top of the debutanizer from the cold box by closing the light hydrocarbons vapor line; routing the natural gas stream from the cold box to the debutanizer by opening the line; and collecting the vapor stream from the debutanizer by opening the auxiliary vapor line”. However, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim are. It is unclear to the Examiner how the debutanizer is separated from the separator by closing the heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream line , the top of the debutanizer is separated from the cold box by closing the light hydrocarbons vapor line , routing the natural gas stream from the cold box to the debutanizer by opening the line and collecting the vapor stream from the debutanizer by opening the auxiliary vapor line is performed without any structure performing the closing or opening . Clarity is advised. Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim. 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 non-obviousness. Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mak et al (US 20200191477 A1, herein after referred to as Mak) in view of Currence (US 20130213087 A1, herein after referred to as Currence ). Regarding claim 1 , Mak teaches a liquefied natural gas production unit (as described in paragraph 0028) comprising: a cold box (cold box 53), a separator (separator 52) configured to separate pre-cooled natural gas (as described in paragraph 0034) into a vapor stream (via vapor stream line 7, paragraph 0061) and a heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream (as described in paragraph 0061); a debutanizer (stripper 59) connected to the bottom of the separator (as shown on figure 1) through a heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream line (lines 6 and 13), the debutanizer being configured to evaporate light hydrocarbons (as described in paragraph 0029) from the heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream (as described in paragraph 0029), a liquid stream line (line 15) being connected to the bottom of the debutanizer (as shown on figure 1); the top of the separator (as shown on figure 1) being connected to the cold box (cold box 53, as shown on figure 1) through a vapor stream line (line 5, paragraph 0044 and as shown on figure 1), and the top of the debutanizer (stripper 59, as shown on figure 1) being connected to the cold box (cold box 53, paragraph 0036) through a light hydrocarbons vapor line (line 14). Mak teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the vapor stream line and the light hydrocarbons vapor line downstream the cold box are connected to the debutanizer through a line and wherein an auxiliary vapor line is connected to the debutanizer. However, Currence teaches wherein the vapor stream line (conduit 120) and the light hydrocarbons vapor line (conduit 138) downstream the cold box (primary heat exchanger 24, as further described in paragraph 0018) are connected to the debutanizer (column 40, paragraph 0026 and as shown on figure 1) through a line (conduit 130 via vessel 30, figure 1) and wherein an auxiliary vapor line (conduit 124) is connected to the debutanizer (as shown on figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unit of Mak to include wherein the vapor stream line and the light hydrocarbons vapor line downstream the cold box are connected to the debutanizer through a line and wherein an auxiliary vapor line is connected to the debutanizer in view of the teachings of Currence in order to yield the predictable result of further optimizing the natural gas line recovery facility. Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Regarding claim 3 , the combined teachings teach wherein the vapor stream line (conduit 120 of Currence ) is connected to the light hydrocarbons vapor line (conduit 138 of Currence ) through a line (conduit 130 via vessel 30, figure 1 of Currence ). Regarding claim 4 , the combined teachings teach a method of operating the liquefied natural gas production unit (as described in paragraph 0028 of Mak) during start-ups, the liquefied natural gas production unit comprising a cold box (cold box 53 of Mak), a separator (separator 52 of Mak) configured to separate pre-cooled natural gas (as described in paragraph 0034 of Mak) into a vapor stream (via vapor stream line 7, paragraph 0061 of Mak) and a heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream (as described in paragraph 0061 of Mak), a debutanizer (stripper 59 of Mak) connected to the bottom of the separator (as shown on figure 1 of Mak) through a heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream line (lines 6 and 13 of Mak), the debutanizer being configured to evaporate light hydrocarbons (as described in paragraph 0029 of Mak) from the heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream (as described in paragraph 0029 of Mak), a liquid stream line (line 15 of Mak) being connected to the bottom of the debutanizer (as shown on figure 1 of Mak), the top of the separator (as shown on figure 1 of Mak) being connected to the cold box (cold box 53, as shown on figure 1 of Mak) through a vapor stream line (line 5, paragraph 0044 and as shown on figure 1 of Mak), and the top of the debutanizer (as shown on figure 1 of Mak) being connected to the cold box (cold box 53, as shown on figure 1 of Mak) through a light hydrocarbons vapor line (line 5, paragraph 0044 and as shown on figure 1 of Mak), wherein the vapor stream line (conduit 120 of Currence ) and the light hydrocarbons vapor line (conduit 138 of Currence ) downstream the cold box (primary heat exchanger 24, as further described in paragraph 0018 of Currence ) are connected to the debutanizer (column 40, paragraph 0026 and as shown on figure 1 of Currence ) through a line (conduit 130 via vessel 30, figure 1 of Currence ) and wherein an auxiliary vapor line (conduit 124 of Currence ) is connected to the debutanizer (as shown on figure 1), the method comprising the steps of: separating the debutanizer (stripper 59 of Mak) from the separator (separator 52 of Mak) by closing the heavy hydrocarbon liquid stream line (via 57, figure 1 of Mak); separating the top of the debutanizer (column 40 of Currence ) from the cold box (primary heat exchanger 24, as further described in paragraph 0018 of Currence ) by closing the light hydrocarbons vapor line (interpreted to close via the gas stream in conduit 138 decreasing, 0045 of Currence ); routing the natural gas stream from the cold box (24 of Currence ) to the debutanizer (column 40 of Currence ) by opening the line (conduit 122 via device 34, figure 1 of Currence ); and collecting the vapor stream (0026 of Currence ) from the debutanizer (column 40 of Currence ) by opening the auxiliary vapor line (conduit 124 via device 34, figure 1 of Currence ). Regarding claim 5 , the combined teachings teach further comprising the step of: splitting the vapor stream (splitting conduit 120, as shown on figure 1 of Currence ) from the top of the separator (separation vessel 30) between the vapor stream line (conduit 120 of Currence ) and the light hydrocarbons vapor line (conduit 138 of Currence ), by opening the line (via device 44, figure 1 of Currence ). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mak as modified by Currence , as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Leal (US 9803459 B1, herein after referred to as Leal). Regarding claim 2 , the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but does teach wherein the vapor line is connected to one of a flare, a fuel gas unit or a boil- off gas system. However, Leal teaches wherein the vapor line (vapor discharge line 44) is connected to one of a flare (flare 50, as described in col 4 lines 32-40), a fuel gas unit or a boil- off gas system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unit of the combined teachings to include wherein the vapor line is connected to one of a flare, a fuel gas unit or a boil- off gas system in view of the teachings of Leal in order to yield the predictable result of further collecting into a gas collection system for processing and sale or field use. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8687 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm . 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 Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5054 . 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. /LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763