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
Claims 2-15, 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-15, 17-19 all use the terms “The structure” or “the structure” when referring to the “A floating or onshore structure” of claim 1, but should recite “The floating or onshore structure” or “the floating or onshore structure” for the consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: conversion device in claim 1 which is understood to be a regulation device which is understood to be a valve,
fuel preparation system in claim 1 understood to include a separator and associated piping,
compression design device in claim 3 understood to be a compressor,
propulsion device in claim 4 understood to be an engine,
expansion device in claim 11 understood to be a valve.
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.
Supply system is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and is understood to be referring to the general structure of the system.
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 1-19 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 “at least one tank which is configured to contain liquefied natural gas in a first configuration and to contain a mixture of liquid methane and an alkane comprising at least two carbon atoms in a second configuration”, then later recites “at least one supply system for supplying a fuel tot eh consumer in the first configuration, the fuel being prepared from a gas resulting from boil-off liquefied natural gas contained in the tank; and for supplying the fuel to the consumer in the second configuration, the fuel being prepared from a gas resulting from the boil-off of the mixture contained in the tank, wherein the supply system comprises a conversion device configured to alternate between the first configuration and the second configuration of the supply system” which is considered indefinite. While it is understood that a single tank could be configured to contain two different fluids depending on the configuration, the overall configuration as claimed is indefinite. First, “a mixture of liquid methane and an alkane comprising at least two carbon atoms” would meet the minimum definition of liquid natural gas, so it is unclear what is required to be in the tanks other than possibly two different liquefied natural gas mixtures. Further, the configurations are clearly mean to be exclusive separate configurations how the supply system is configured in this way. Further, the claims refer to “a fuel” and “the fuel” but it is clearly referring to two separate things so it unclear if the supply system is producing “the fuel” regardless of the configuration. Further, the conversion device is said to alternate between the first configuration and the second configuration of the supply system; however, the supply system does not have a first and second configuration, the configurations are for the tanks. Finally it is unclear how the conversion device would alternate between the two configurations of the supply system, as there is only one required tank which has either the first configuration or the second configuration but not the two configurations, so it is unclear how it could be configured to alternate because the system is not alternating between the two configurations even being present, the system is configured to be able to have the two configurations. The first configuration is understood as one in which the tank is configured to contain LNG of one type of mixture, and the second configuration is understood as one in which LNG of a different mixture type is configured to be contained in the tank, but it is unclear how the supply system or conversion device would be able to alternate between these, as there is only at least one tank present as claimed and there is no showing of the fluids actually being present differently, or the claimed fluids actually being part of the invention, only that the tanks are configured to contain different fluids. Even in view of the specification it is not clear how the two configurations can exist together, or if the system is only required to be able to exist in both configurations such that as long as the tanks are capable of holding different fluids the limitation is met. The claims appear to be claiming that the system is configured to alternate between the two configurations but it I unclear how this would be as there is no teaching or disclosure of the tanks being switched between the configurations and it appears only that there is support for the system to operate based on what type of fluid is present, but it is unclear what is actually required in the system other than the structural components. As such, the scope of claim 1 is considered to be so indefinite as to preclude examination on the merits for this reason and other reasons listed below as it would require considerable speculation about the meaning of the terms employed in the claim as well as assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2173.06.
Claims 1-4, 12, and 16-17 all use the term “the tank” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear how it relates to the “at least one tank” of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, “the tank” is understood to refer to “the at least one tank”.
Claim 2 recites “the heat exchange module comprises at least one thermal heat exchanger… a cooling branch configured to be passed through by liquefied natural gas or the mixture” which is configured indefinite. The heat exchange module is claim 1 is claimed to be present when the mixture is configured to be in the tank, so it is unclear how the liquefied natural gas would be able to be in the cooling branch of the heat exchange module, as that configuration would be present in the second configuration when there is not liquefied natural gas. The use of “the liquefied natural gas or the mixture” in claims dependent upon claim 2 including claims 4 and 13-15 is also indefinite. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to only refer to “the mixture”.
Claims 2-3, 4, 7-8, 13, 18 all recite “the thermal exchanger” multiple times which is considered indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis and is unclear how it relates to the “at least one thermal heat exchange” of claim 2. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be the same heat exchanger.
Claim 3 recites “a first past constituting the supply branch and disposed between” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “and disposed”. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that eth first pass is disposed between the gas inlet of the supply system and an inlet of the first pass of the thermal heat exchanger.
Claim 3 recites “at least one heat exchanger” which is considered indefinite as it unclear if this exchanger is separate from the “at least one thermal heat exchanger” or is one of the “at least one thermal heat exchanger”. For the purpose of examination, the at least one heat exchanger is considered to be a separate heat exchanger.
Claim 3-6, 14 all recite “the heat exchanger” multiple times which is considered indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis and is unclear how it relates to the “at least one thermal heat exchange” of claim 2. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be the same heat exchanger.
Claim 4 recites “the heat exchange module comprises a calorie exchanger” which is considered indefinite as it unclear if this exchanger is separate from the “at least one heat exchanger” and the “at least one thermal heat exchanger” or is one of those heat exchanger. For the purpose of examination, the calorie exchanger is considered to be a separate heat exchanger.
Claim 4 recite “to supply at least a portion of the liquefied natural gas or of the mixture from a tank” which is configured indefinite. The heat exchange module is claim 1 is claimed to be present when the mixture is configured to be in the tank, so it is unclear how the liquefied natural gas would be able to be in the cooling branch of the heat exchange module, as that configuration would be present in the second configuration when there is not liquefied natural gas.
Claim 11 recites “at least one tank” but it is unclear if it is the same “at least one tank” of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, they are understood to be the same tank.
Claim 13 recites “a flow of fluid in the first pass” and “a flow of liquefied natural gas or of the mixture in the second pass” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not required the actual flowing of any fluid only that the branches are configured to have the fluids present. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the thermal exchanger is configured to receive flows of fluid with such configuration.
Claim 14 recites “a flow of fluid in the first pass” and “a flow of liquefied natural gas or of the mixture in the second pass” which is considered indefinite. The claims have no required the actual flowing of any fluid only that the branches are configured to have the fluids present. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the thermal exchanger is configured to receive flows of fluid with such configuration.
Claim 15 recites “a flow of fluid in the first pass” and “a flow of liquefied natural gas or of the mixture in the second pass” which is considered indefinite. The claims have no required the actual flowing of any fluid only that the branches are configured to have the fluids present. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the thermal exchanger is configured to receive flows of fluid with such configuration.
Claim 18 recites “at least one tank” which is unclear as it depends upon claim 2 which already has “at least one tank” so it is unclear if this is the same tank. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the same “at least one tank”.
Claims 9-10, 12, 16-17, 19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all issues in regard to 35 USC 112 in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, it may not be possible to indicate every issue in regard to 35 USC 112 and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding issues in regard to 35 USC 112. The applicant is also requested to proof-read any future amendments for any potential issues in regard to 35 USC 112 that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In view of the amendments, no prior art is applied in the rejection above, and the previous prior art is not considered to apply to the rejection above. It if unclear what the scope of the invention is in view of the specification, and in view of applicant’s arguments, as while the concept of having two separate fuels that alternate can be supplied to a fuel source would be understood in the art, it is unclear how the system can operate in such configurations with “at least one tank” when the system would thus only have a single fluid in the tank, and thus unclear how it could have two configurations that alternate as claimed, while it is understood that a single tank could be configured to contain two different fluids depending on the configuration, the overall configuration as claimed is indefinite. For there to be two different fluids the system would have to be operated such that at different times a different fluid is present, but as written the limitation of alternate would require that both configurations exist at the same time to allow the system to be able to alternate, if both the first and second configuration cannot exist at the same time, the system would not be able to be configured to alternate. As such, as can be seen in the rejection above, the claims are considered so indefinite that no prior art is applied to the rejection. Also, in the arguments, applicant repeatedly recites that there is an ability to switch between two different fluids, but as claimed there are no fluids present, only a tank which is capable of having different fluids. Further, applicant argues that the supply system as claimed is for alternating between different fluids stored in the tank which can be interpreted that there are simultaneously two different fluids stored in the tank which is not what is claimed or best understood in view of the rejection, only the ability to store a single fluid at a time, but the system can store more than one fluid. The specification does not render these limitations clear as while it discusses the ability to transport two different cryogenic liquids alternately, this is not clear in the way the invention is claimed. A focus on the structure of the invention and how the individual components provide the structural limitations as claimed may read over the prior art that was previously applied as well as the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) in order to render the claims definite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights