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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers are not clear, making the Drawings difficult to read and understand.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1
Lines 6-7 recite the language “the fuel consuming apparatus”. For consistency and clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the at least one fuel-consuming apparatus—
Lines 9-10 recite the language “the fuel consuming apparatus”. For consistency and clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the at least one fuel-consuming apparatus—
Line 14 recites the language “the compression member”. For consistency and clarity, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –the at least one compression member—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
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:
“flow control member” in claim 1,
“at least one cooling means” in claim 2 (heat exchange means), and
“at least one heating means” in claim 2 (heat exchange means).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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 1-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1
Lines 6-8 recite the limitation “a flow control member configured to split the exhaust fumes emitted by the fuel consuming apparatus into a first portion of the exhaust fumes and a second portion of the exhaust fumes” (emphasis added), this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The Specification discloses that “the term ‘flow control member’ means any member capable of controlling the flow of fumes in the duct carrying said flow”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The Specification discloses that the flow control member can be any member capable of controlling the flow of fumes in the duct, but does not disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Line 12 recites the limitation "the turbine of the turbocharger" (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –a turbine of a turbocharger—
Line 18 recites the limitation “a turbine of the turbocharger”. However, as line 12 previously disclosed “the turbine of the turbocharger”, it is unclear if the limitation of line 18 is the same as line 12 or if it is a new limitation. For examination purposes the claim limitation has been interpreted as if the claim read –the turbine of the turbocharger—
Line 24 recites the limitation “the turbine of the turbocharger”. However, as line 12 previously disclosed “the turbine of the turbocharger” and line 18 disclosed “a turbine of the turbocharger”, it is unclear.
Regarding Claim 6
Line 6 recites the limitation “at least a first heat exchanger”. However, Line 3 previously disclosed “a first heat exchanger”. Therefore, it is unclear if the heat exchanger of line 6 is the same heat exchanger as line 3 or if it is a new limitation entirely.
Regarding Claim 7
Lines 9-10 recite the limitation “at least one compression member”. However, Claim 1 previously disclosed “at least one compression member”. Therefore, it is unclear if the compression member of lines 9-10 is the same compression member as recited in claim 1 or if it is a new limitation entirely.
Regarding Claim 8
Line 5 recites the limitations “a first portion of the exhaust fumes” and “a second portion of the exhaust fumes”. However, Claim 1 previously disclosed “a first portion of the exhaust fumes and a second portion of the exhaust fumes”. Therefore, it is unclear if the first and second portions of the exhaust fumes of claim 8 are the same limitations as the first and second portions of claim 1, or if they are new limitations.
Regarding Claim 12
Line 2 recites the limitation “at least one ship”. However, Claim 11 previously disclosed “A ship”. Therefore, it is unclear if the at least one ship of claim 12 is the ship of claim 11.
Additionally, the format of claim 12 is confusing as it is considered an independent claim which depends from an independent claim which also depends from an independent claim.
Regarding Claim 13
Lines 1-2 recite the limitation “A method for loading or unloading liquid gas from a gas transport ship according to claim 11”. However, no method is being claimed.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 9-11
Claims 2-5 and 9-11 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the device of claim 1, the inclusion of:
“a flow control member configured to split the exhaust fumes emitted by the fuel consuming apparatus into a first portion of the exhaust fumes and a second portion of the exhaust fumes;
a first duct for circulating the exhaust fumes extending between the fuel consuming apparatus and a connection point;
a second duct for circulating the second portion of the exhaust fumes extending between the connection point and the turbine of the turbocharger; and a third duct for circulating the first portion of the exhaust fumes extending between the connection point and the compression member” and
“wherein the second duct is configured for circulating mixed fumes resulting from the mixing of the first portion of the exhaust fumes and the second portion of the exhaust fumes from the connection point to the turbine of the turbocharger” was not found.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention is Sung et al. (US 2022/0325651 A1). Sung discloses the separation of a portion of the exhaust gas to remove carbon dioxide, however, Sung does not teach circulating a mixture of the first and second portions of exhaust fumes from the connection point to the turbine of the turbocharger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights