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 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 2-3, 7-8 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 recites “the natural gas refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle” and “the carbon capture unit refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle” both of which lack antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination both these cycles are understood to be the singular closed cycle of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “at least one of the compressors” twice which is considered indefinite. The claims have not previously recited the presence of compressors and even though there is compression in the cycle, the claims do not require that to be a structural part of the invention so it is unclear what compressors are being referred to and how many compressors are present in the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that there is at least one shared compressor between the two refrigeration cycles.
Claim 3 recites “the solvent’ which is considered indefinite. The claims have not positively required the presence of the solvent only that there is a solvent used within the system. For the purpose of examination this limitation is considered to be referring to the solvent and the solvent stream which are considered positively recited and to be ammonia as claimed.
Claim 7 recites “the first natural gas cooling unit” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be referring to the previously recited “natural gas cooling unit” of claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent upon 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Figures 1-3), hereinafter referred to as AAPA and further in view of Guerif et al. (US PG Pub 20220146193), hereinafter referred to as Guerif.
With respect to claim 1, AAPA (Figure 1, reference made to applicant’s specification) teaches a liquefied natural gas production plant comprising:
- a natural gas cooling unit comprising a heat exchanger configured to cool a natural gas stream through heating of a first refrigerant fluid (heat exchanger 106 is used to cool natural gas with a refrigerant, paragraphs 17 and 28)
a carbon capture unit (Figure 2) comprising:
an absorber configured to absorb carbon dioxide from a flue gas stream through absorption in a solvent stream (absorber 701 receives flue gas stream 608 and uses a solvent via 703/705 to remove carbon dioxide using ammonia, paragraph 31)
a desorber (702, paragraph 31) configured to separate a carbon dioxide rich gas stream from the solvent stream and comprising heating the solvent stream (desorber which has a heater, 715 separates the solvent from a CO2 rich stream 713, paragraph 32),
a carbon capture cooling unit comprising heat exchangers configured to cool down solvent from the desorber (heat exchanger 707 cools 703, paragraph 31), the flue gas (heat exchanger 607 cools flue gas, paragraph 31) and the carbon dioxide rich gas stream (carbon dioxide rich gas is cooled in heat exchanger 719, paragraph 33) through heating of a refrigerant fluid (all the heat exchangers are heated by a refrigerant such as ammonia or propane, paragraph 37), a closed thermodynamic refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle to cool the carbon capture cooling unit (there is a closed cycle which is part of a cycle that has cycling thermodynamic transformation including compression, condensation, expansion and vaporization which cools the heat exchangers of the carbon capture cooling unit, paragraph 37).
AAPA does not teach the closed thermodynamic refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle is coupled to both the natural gas cooling unit and the carbon dioxide capture cooling unit where the cycle is configured to cool the first refrigerant fluid and the natural gas cooling unit and the carbon capture cooling unit share the first refrigerant fluid and the refrigerant fluid heated in the carbon capture cooling unit is the first refrigerant fluid.
Guerif (Figure 2) teaches that two systems can be integrated (paragraph 7) where a single compressor (213) Is used which compresses refrigerant (211/212/220) from both systems being cooled and then the refrigerate is split (207/219) for use in each cooling system respectively before being used and recycled back for compression (paragraphs 78-79). Guerif also teaches that the coolant for the systems can be ammonia or propane (paragraph 86).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Guerif used a single closed refrigeration loop with common compression, condensation, expansion and vaporization to provide cooling in both the natural gas cooling unit and the carbon capture cooling units respective heat exchangers (Figures 1 and 2-3) of AAPA in parallel since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing one refrigeration system for both systems would provide what is common knowledge in the art of allowing them to be integrated which could reduce the overall number of components required, increase overall efficiency as opposed to separate refrigeration systems and allow both systems to be operated together when they are both present together.
With respect to claim 2, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the natural gas refrigerant fluid refirgernat cycle and the carbon capture unit refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle share a compressor (as modified, the same compressor system is used for both cycles, so they would share a compressor).
With respect to claim 3, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the solvent of the carbon capture unit is ammonia (ammonia solution is used as the solvent, paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 4, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the first refrigerant fluid is chosen among ammonia (the refrigerant for both is ammonia or propane, and as combined it is still ammonia or propane).
With respect to claim 5, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the first refrigerant fluid is chosen amongst hydrocarbons containing 2, 3, 4 or 5 carbon atoms per molecule, or mixtures thereof (the refrigerant for both is ammonia or propane, and as combined it is still ammonia or propane).
With respect to claim 7, AAPA as modified further comprising:
a second natural gas cooling unit (cold box 300 for producing LNG, paragraph 19) comprising:
a plurality of heat exchangers configured to cool the natural gas stream downstream the first natural gas cooling unit through heating of a second refrigerant fluid (cold box 300 has a plurality of heat exchangers for receiving natural gas 114 from heat exchanger 115 and liquefying it against refrigerant, paragraphs 18-19, 21, 24)
and a closed thermodynamic second refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle, configured to cool the second refrigerant fluid through cyclic thermodynamic transformations, including compression, cooling, condensation, expansion and vaporization (the second refrigeration cycle provides the cooling effect by compression, cooling, condensation, expansion, and vaporization).
With respect to claim 8, AAPA as modified teaches wherein the first refrigerant fluid is used to exchange heat with the second refrigerant fluid in the closed thermodynamic second refrigerant fluid refrigeration cycle (as modified the refrigerant fluid is cooled in heat exchangers 410 and 409 which is also against the same refrigerant used for 115, paragraphs 21 and 29)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of the amendments, some of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn but not all of the rejections have been addressed.
Applicants argues that the amendment to include “a closed thermodynamic refrigerant fluid refrigerant cycle coupled to both the natural gas cooling unit and the carbon capture cooling unit” is not taught by the prior art which “defeats any underlying prima facie case of obviousness”. This is not persuasive.
Applicant has not provided any specific arguments as to why the prior art does not provide such a teaching or directly addressed either prior art. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. AAPA teaches two separate cooling systems where a carbon capture system and a natural gas system both having cooling to various components. Guerif teaches that a single refrigerant cycle can be simultaneously used to provide cooling to two separate systems, a CO2 capture unit and a natural gas liquefaction plant (paragraphs 78-79) using ammonia or propane (paragraph 86) which is the same refrigerant taught by AAPA. As such, it can be shown that it would be obvious to based on Guerif to have used a single refrigeration cycle to provide cooling instead of the two individual cycles taught by AAPA, which would result in a showing of obviousness of claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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