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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Marinized Liquefaction and Gas Conditioning for Floating LNG” by Trocquet (Trocquet).
In reference to claim 1, Trocquet teaches a liquefactor for a gas that is liquefied at a cryogenic temperature (pages 10-23), comprising an assembly comprising a framework (framework of module on page 23), the framework having a substantially elongate parallelepiped shape (page 23) and having a main axis corresponding to its length and two ends (from one end of the module on page 23, to the other end of the same module; MUSTANG to LM2500+G4), the framework not containing a distillation column (no distillation column on framework on page 23), and inside the framework at one end of the framework at least one plate-and-fin heat exchanger (cold box plate fin exchanger, page 12, page 22 and NDX-1 cold box, page 23), each plate having a length and a width (inherent), and the plates being arranged with their length parallel to the axis of the framework (inherent in the structure depicted on page 12 and page 23), a line for sending a gas to be liquefied to the at least one heat exchanger (unmarked; inherent), a line for removing a cooled or liquefied gas from the at least one heat exchanger (unmarked; inherent), a support mounted inside the framework (unmarked; each element on the framework is supported and is not floating on the framework, page 23), at least one turbine (expander, page 12), the turbine being fastened to the support (inherent) and being arranged to drive a compressor arranged outside the framework (compressors delivering nitrogen back to the nitrogen loop compression, page 12), the turbine being connected to the at least one exchanger (cold box plate fin exchanger, page 12) to send a gas cooled or heated in the at least one heat exchanger to be expanded in the turbine and/or to send a gas expanded in the turbine from the turbine to the at least one heat exchanger, at least one cooler (compression coolers, page 23) connected to cool gas compressed in the compressor, a means for conveying a refrigerant to the cooler (inherent in the structure of framework on page 23), and wherein the cooler (compression coolers, page 23) is positioned at another end of the framework and the turbine (expander compressors, page 23) is positioned between the cooler (compression coolers, page 23) and at least one heat exchanger (NDX-1 cold box, page 23), wherein the framework is positioned with the main axis vertical, the at least one heat exchanger being positioned above the at least one turbine and the at least one cooler (page 23), the line for sending a gas to be liquefied to the heat exchanger in the framework and a means connected to the heat exchanger to remove a liquefied gas from the framework (inherent in the structure depicted on page 23).
In reference to claim 3, Trocquet teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Trocquet additionally teaches fastening feet connected to the other end of the framework to place the framework on a foundation (inherent in the structure depicted on page 23).
In reference to claim 4, Trocquet teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Trocquet additionally teaches a means for fluidically connecting the exchanger to the compressor to convey a gas cooled in the exchanger to the compressor (pipeline connecting the exchanger to the compressor, page 12 and page 23).
In reference to claim 5, Trocquet teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Trocquet additionally teaches a means for fluidically connecting the exchanger to the turbine to convey a gas expanded in the turbine to the exchanger (pipeline connecting the exchanger to the turbine expander, page 12 and page 23).
In reference to claim 9, Trocquet teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Trocquet additionally teaches wherein the framework is at least 10 m long, the cooler and the turbine occupying a portion of the length of the framework
equal to at least 4 m (it appears that claimed dimensions are used in the framework depicted on page 23).
In reference to claim 10, Trocquet teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Trocquet additionally teaches wherein the at least one heat exchanger is thermally insulated (inherent in the structure depicted on page 23; heat exchangers performing at cryotemperatures must be thermally insulated to prevent extreme heat loss).
In reference to claims 11-13, they claim the method of providing and configuring the apparatus of claims 1, 4 and 5, thus, they are rejected based on the rejection of apparatus as explained in the rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 above and the associated method steps, which follow directly from the use of the apparatus, are rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trocquet in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0333859 to Durand et al. (Durand).
In reference to claim 2, Trocquet teaches the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but does not teach comprising at least one partition dividing the framework into at least two portions, the partition having the shape of a rectangular plate arranged perpendicular to the axis of the framework, the partition acting as support for the turbine if the cooler is at the other end of the framework or for the cooler if the turbine is at the other end of the framework, the turbine and the cooler being separated from one another by the partition. Durand teaches a refrigeration device and system (FIG. 1) comprising at least one partition (unmarked, longitudinal strut having point 106, FIG. 1) dividing the framework into at least two portions, the partition having the shape of a rectangular plate (FIG. 1) arranged perpendicular to the axis of the framework, the partition acting as support for the turbine if the cooler is at the other end of the framework or for the cooler if the turbine is at the other end of the framework, the turbine and the cooler being separated from one another by the partition (par 0039 and par 0044) in order to provide rigid, secure support for the working elements of the liquefaction system (par 0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Trocquet, to include at least one partition dividing the framework into at least two portions, the partition having the shape of a rectangular plate arranged perpendicular to the axis of the framework, the partition acting as support for the turbine if the cooler is at the other end of the framework or for the cooler if the turbine is at the other end of the framework, the turbine and the cooler being separated from one another by the partition, as taught by Durand, in order to provide rigid, secure support for the working elements of the liquefaction system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
1/24/2026