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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “integral gear machine operatively coupling the one or more turbines and the one or more auxiliary compressors” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claims 13-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 2 should have “stream” after “high pressure gaseous oxygen”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon an objected to claim.
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.
Claim 1-27 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 “the high-pressure gaseous oxygen steam and at least one high pressure gaseous air stream having a pressure greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a)” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation of 10 bar(a) applies to both streams or only the high-pressure gaseous air. For the purpose of examination, the pressure is considered to apply to both streams.
Claim 2 recites “a first exhaust stream” and a “second exhaust stream” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if these streams are within the scope of the “one or more exhaust streams”. Claim 1 also requires that all of the exhaust streams are mixed, but the first exhaust stream no longer exists after expanding again. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be part of the one or more exhaust streams and only one overall exhaust stream is required to be mixed.
Claim 2 recites “to expand a diverted portion” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if it’s referring to the same diverted portion of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be referring to the same diverted portion.
Claim 3 recites that the first turbine expand the pre-cooled high pressure air stream but claim 2 requires the first turbine is to expand a diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air as such it is unclear what is required of the claims. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that the high pressure gaseous air is pre-cooled before a diverted portion is configured to be expanded in a turbine.
Claim 6 recites “the work provided” which is considered indefinite both because no limitation have been claimed of work provided rendering it lack of antecedent basis, and work provided appears to be a method step, In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, “the work provided” is considered that the one or more turbines are configured to provide work and the work they are configured to provide is more than the work that is required of the compressors.
The term “subambient” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “subambient” 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. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the pressure is below what would be considered atmospheric pressure.
Claim 8 recites “the cold vaporized air stream is at subambient pressure and the system further comprise vacuum pump configured to pressurize the cold vaporized air stream” but has provided no structure to provide such a configuration as the stream was originally a high pressure air stream which renders the limitation indefinite as it is unclear what is required for the stream to be at subambient pressure without any structural configuration. Further, the refrigerant stream is required to be partially the cold vaporized air stream, but this limitation is transforming the cold vaporized air stream and it is unclear how that mixing would be configured to occur. For the purpose of examination, it is understood that the cold vaporized stream liquid air stream is configured to be expanded prior to heating in the second heat exchange device and the vacuum pump is configured to be upstream of where the mixing is configured to take place to form the refrigerant stream.
Claim 9 recites “the work provided” which is considered indefinite both because no limitation have been claimed of work provided rendering it lack of antecedent basis, and work provided appears to be a method step, In the instant case, the claim recites both an apparatus and process in the same claim. Per MPEP 2173.05(p): “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” For the purpose of examination, “the work provided” is considered that the one or more turbines are configured to provide work and the work they are configured to provide is more than the work that is required of the compressors.
The term “proximate” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” 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. As long as both the launch platform and components are at the launch facility the limitation is considered met.
Claim 16 recites “the high-pressure gaseous oxygen steam and at least one high pressure gaseous air stream having a pressure greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a)” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation of 10 bar(a) applies to both streams or only the high-pressure gaseous air. For the purpose of examination, the pressure is considered to apply to both streams.
Claim 17 recites “a first exhaust stream” and a “second exhaust stream” which is considered indefinite as it is unclear if these streams are within the scope of the “one or more exhaust streams”. Claim 1 also requires that all of the exhaust streams are mixed, but the first exhaust stream no longer exists after expanding again. For the purpose of examination, they are considered to be part of the one or more exhaust streams and only one overall exhaust stream is required to be mixed.
Claim 18 recites “the first heat exchanger” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to refer to the first heat exchange device.
Claim 18 recites that the first turbine expand the pre-cooled high pressure air stream but claim 17 requires the first turbine is to expand a diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air and as such it is unclear what is required of the claims. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood that the high-pressure gaseous air is pre-cooled before a diverted portion is configured to be expanded in a turbine.
Claim 21 recites “the work provided” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitations understood that the one or more turbines provided work.
The term “subambient” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “subambient” 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. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the pressure is below what would be considered atmospheric pressure.
Claim 22 recites “the work provided” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitations understood that the one or more turbines provided work.
Claim 25 recites “supplying the at least one high pressure gaseous oxygen and the high-pressure gaseous air stream via a pipeline from an air separation unit to a launch facility” which is considered indefinite. The claims do not relate these limitations to any of the other limitation of the claim operations for those streams which renders the claims indefinite on how it relates to the further operation of such streams. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the steps of claim 16 are performed at the launch facility.
Claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13-15, 19-20, 23-24, 26-27 are 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-13, 15-19, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JPS61282780), hereinafter referred to as Maeda (all references made herein are to the provided translation) and further in view of Turney et al. (US PG Pub 20220099364), hereinafter referred to as Turney and Guillard (US PG Pub 20180038641), hereinafter referred to as Guillard.
With respect to claim 1, Maeda teaches (Figure 3) a system for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream from a gaseous oxygen stream (liquid oxygen stream that is subcooled is produced, page 10, subcooled liquid oxygen would be the same as densified, liquid oxygen), the system comprises:
a heat exchanger arrangement comprising a first heat exchange device (heat exchanger 23) configured to liquefy the gaseous oxygen stream (liquid oxygen is produced in heat exchangers 22 and 23, page 10 which would make 23 the first heat exchange device as it the colder heat exchanger) and at least one gaseous stream via indirect heat exchange (liquid nitrogen is also produced in 23, page 9) with a refrigerant stream (refrigerant is in part the stream coming through 35 of vaporized nitrogen as well as outlet turbine gas of nitrogen gas, page 9) to yield a liquid oxygen stream (liquid oxygen stream sent to 24) and a liquid stream (liquid nitrogen sent to shell 33, page 9) and a second heat exchange device configured to densify the liquified oxygen stream via indirect heat exchange with the liquid stream to yield a densified liquid oxygen stream and a cold vaporized stream (liquid stream is added to the liquid in 33 where it is used to subcool the oxygen with heat exchanger 24 resulting in a subcooled oxygen stream removed as well as a vaporized nitrogen stream removed, page 9); one or more turbines configured to expand a diverted portion of the at least one gaseous stream to yield one or more exhaust streams (turbines 27 and 31, page 9 expanded a diverted portion of the nitrogen stream and produce multiple exhaust streams as seen in the figure); wherein the refrigerant stream comprises a mixture of the one or more exhaust streams and the cold vaporized stream (the refrigerant in 33 is the combination of the exhaust stream from 31 and the vaporized nitrogen which would be a cold vaporized stream, page 9).
Maeda does not teach the pressure of the oxygen stream and thus does not teach high pressure gaseous oxygen stream is at a pressure greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a).
Turney (Figure 1) teaches that a gaseous oxygen stream from an air separator (102) is delivered from an air separation unit it is at high pressure for the liquefaction between 40 and 100 bar (paragraphs 77-79).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the delivered oxygen stream into the system of Maeda to have been a high pressure streambased on the teaching of Turney as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 6 of the instant specification, greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a)) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Maeda as modified does not teach the gaseous stream is a high pressure air stream at about 10 bar(a), and thus the refrigerant is a cold vaporized air stream.
Guillard (Figure 1) teaches that cold refrigeration for a liquefaction system can be provided by an air separation unit as a boosted air stream, a nitrogen stream, or a nitrogen-air mixture (paragraph 51) with the boosted air coming from a boosted air compressor after pretreatment at 15-100 bara (paragraph 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a boosted air stream as the gas provided as the refrigerant gas in Maeda instead of nitrogen based on the teaching of Pages since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as both nitrogen and air are known cycle gases suitable for liquefaction it would have been prima facie obvious to have utilized air as the refrigerant in Maeda instead of nitrogen as it would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a gas that is suitable for providing a cycle fluid for a liquefaction cycle. As such, the gaseous stream that is liquefied would be an air stream (as the stream is air it is nitrogen and oxygen and would thus still be liquefied at the same temperature as nitrogen) and the vaporized stream would be a cold vaporized air stream.
Further it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the air stream of Maeda as modified that is liquefied and used as the refrigerant to have been a high pressure stream greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a) (and thus the stream being cooled to also have been at that pressure) based on the teachings of Guillard as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 6 of the instant specification, greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a)) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 2, Maeda as modified teaches wherein the one or more turbines further comprise: a first turbine configured to expand a diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream to yield a first exhaust stream (turbine 27 which produces a first exhaust stream); and a second turbine configured to further expand the first exhaust stream to yield a second exhaust stream (turbine 31 which produces a second exhaust stream); wherein the refrigerant stream comprises a mixture of the second exhaust stream and the cold vaporized air stream (the refrigerant stream as above is from the outlet of 31 and the vaporized stream from 33).
With respect to claim 3, Maeda as modified teaches further configured to pre-cool the high-pressure air stream and the first turbine is configured to expand the pre-cooled high pressure air stream to yield the first exhaust stream (prior to expansion in 27 the high-pressure air stream as modified is pre-cooled in 22, page 8 which is then expanded to yield the first exhaust stream from 27).
Maeda as modified does not teach where the pre-cooling is in the first heat exchange device.
Guillard teaches the use of a singular heat exchanger (50) which is used to both cool the refrigerant (132) prior to expansion (140) (paragraphs 51-52) which is the same heat exchanger uses the provide liquefaction to a feed stream (2 to 46, paragraph 46 and 50).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of utilizing two heat exchangers (22 and 23) in Maeda as modified to have utilized a singular heat exchanger for all of the heat exchanger processes provided by the two heat exchangers based on the teaching of Guillard since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a single heat exchanger instead of two would be common knowledge in the art whereby a single heat exchanger could result in less space being used than two individual heat exchangers and/or allow for better heat integration between allow the heat exchanger steps of the process. Thus the singular heat exchanger would be the first heat exchange device which would be here the stream is of air as modified is pre-cooled before passing to the turbine.
With respect to claim 4, Maeda as modified teaches wherein the first heat exchange device is further configured to partially warm the first exhaust stream and the second turbine is configured to expand the partially warmed, first exhaust stream to yield the second exhaust stream (after expanding, the exhaust stream is warmed in 23 before being expanded again in 31, page 9).
With respect to claim 12, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the first heat exchange device, the second heat exchange device, the one or more turbines are disposed proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility.
Turney teaches that there is a need to have a self-contained oxygen liquefaction system on an offshore platform that is used to perform rocket launches (paragraphs 2-3) and that the liquefaction facilities including turbines and heat exchangers (112 and 317, paragraph 87) are on the offshore platform.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the liquefaction facilities of Maeda as modified including the heat exchangers and turbines to have been on an offshore platform that is used to launch rockets based on the teaching of Turney since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the system in this configuration would allow for of a self-contained system that can be used to launch rockets in an ideal location for their launch (paragraphs 2-3 of Turney). As the rockets are launched from the offshore platform there would be a launch platform where the launch takes place and the liquefaction facility being on the platform, would result in the entire facility being a launch facility with the liquefaction facility proximate the launch platform.
With respect to claim 13, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the high-pressure gaseous oxygen and the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream are supplied to the launch facility via a pipeline from an air separation unit.
Turney teaches that a high-pressure gaseous oxygen stream can be provided to an offshore platform used for rockets (paragraphs 2-3, Figure 1, paragraphs 77-78). Flow lines can be seen in the figure to transport the oxygen (106).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when providing the high pressure gaseous oxygen stream to the offshore platform for liquefaction via flow lines in Maeda as modified to have based on Turney provided it from an air separation unit as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing it from an air separation unit would allow compression equipment from being away at a safe distance from the liquefaction facility (paragraphs 78 of Turney) as well as provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a suitable source for the oxygen. As the oxygen has to be transported from onshore to offshore, the lines transporting them are a pipeline.
Guillard teaches that an air stream for used for a refrigerant is provided by a compressor for an air separation unit (paragraph 51) and that gaseous oxygen can also be produced by the air separation unit (paragraph 57). It can be seen in Guillard that flow lines pass the air into the heat exchanger.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when using an air separation unit to produce gaseous oxygen in Maeda to have based on the teaching of Guillard to have had the source of the high pressure air to also have been the air separation unit via flow lines which is passed to the offshore platform as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing it would be common knowledge in the art that a known and suitable source of high pressure gaseous air is an air separation unit and thus would be obvious to have delivered the air from such unit. The flow lines used to deliver the air are a pipeline.
Maeda as modified does not teach the air separation unit is located within 2 kilometers of the launch facility.
Turney teaches that the air separation unit is to be at a safe distance from the facility which has the rockets (paragraphs 2-3, 78) which can be as little as greater than 1 mile.
Thus the distance away from the launch facility for the air separation unit is a result effective variable, chosen based on ensuring a safe distance. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Maeda as modified as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component requiring adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Maeda as modified by having the air separation unit within 2 kilometers of the offshore platform (launch facility) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 15, Maeda as modified does not teach further comprising a storage tank and wherein and the densified, liquid oxygen stream is stored in the storage tank for use as an oxidant for a space vehicle propulsion system.
Examiner takes official notice that upon the production of the densified, liquid oxygen stream in Maeda (the subcooled liquid oxygen) it would have been obvious to have stored in in a storage tank so that it was available for later use. As it is present on offshore platform used for rockets as modified, it is thus useable as an oxidant for a space vehicle propulsion system as that it an intended use that stored liquid oxygen in this configuration would be useable for.
With respect to claim 16, Maeda teaches (Figure 3) method for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream from a gaseous oxygen stream (liquid oxygen stream that is subcooled is produced, page 10, subcooled liquid oxygen would be the same as densified, liquid oxygen), the method comprising the steps of:
liquefying the gaseous oxygen stream and at least one gaseous stream via indirect heat exchange with a refrigerant stream in a heat exchanger arrangement to yield a liquid oxygen stream and a liquid stream (liquid oxygen is produced in heat exchangers 22 and 23, page 10 and liquid nitrogen is also produced in 23, page 9 with refrigerant which is in part the stream coming through 35 of vaporized nitrogen as well as outlet turbine gas of nitrogen gas, page 9)
densifying the liquified oxygen stream via indirect heat exchange with the liquid stream in the heat exchange arrangement to yield the densified liquid oxygen stream and a cold vaporized air stream (liquid stream is added to the liquid in 33 where it is used to subcool the oxygen with heat exchanger 24 resulting in a subcooled oxygen stream removed as well as a vaporized nitrogen stream removed, page 9);
wherein the heat exchange arrangement comprises a first heat exchange device configured to liquefy the gaseous oxygen stream and at least gaseous air stream (the heat exchanger 23 which is the colder of the two heat exchangers would be where the liquefaction takes place,) a second heat exchange device configured to densify the liquified oxygen stream (heat exchanger 24);
expanding a diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream and in one or more turbines to yield one or more exhaust streams (turbines 27 and 31, page 9 expanded a diverted portion of the nitrogen stream and produce multiple exhaust streams as seen in the figure);
mixing the one or more exhaust streams and the cold vaporized air stream to yield the refrigerant stream (the refrigerant in 33 is the combination of the exhaust stream from 31 and the vaporized nitrogen which would be a cold vaporized stream, page 9).
Maeda does not teach the pressure of the oxygen stream and thus does not teach high pressure gaseous oxygen stream is at a pressure greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a).
Turney (Figure 1) teaches that a gaseous oxygen stream from an air separator (102) is delivered from an air separation unit it is at high pressure for the liquefaction between 40 and 100 bar (paragraphs 77-79).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the delivered oxygen stream into the system of Maeda to have been a high pressure stream based on the teaching of Turney as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 6 of the instant specification, greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a)) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Maeda as modified does not teach the gaseous stream is a high-pressure air stream at a pressure greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a), and thus the refrigerant is a cold vaporized air stream.
Guillard (Figure 1) teaches that cold refrigeration for a liquefaction system can be provided by an air separation unit as a boosted air stream, a nitrogen stream, or a nitrogen-air mixture (paragraph 51) with the boosted air coming from a boosted air compressor after pretreatment at 15-100 bara (paragraph 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a boosted air stream as the gas provided as the refrigerant gas in Maeda instead of nitrogen based on the teaching of Pages since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as both nitrogen and air are known cycle gases suitable for liquefaction it would have been prima facie obvious to have utilized air as the refrigerant in Maeda as modified instead of nitrogen as it would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a gas that is suitable for providing a cycle fluid for a liquefaction cycle. As such, the gaseous stream that is liquefied would be an air stream (as the stream is air it is nitrogen and oxygen and would thus still be liquefied at the same temperature as nitrogen) and the vaporized stream would be a cold vaporized air stream.
Further it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the air stream of Maeda as modified that is liquefied and used as the refrigerant to have been a high pressure stream greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a) (and thus the stream being cooled to also have been at that pressure) based on the teachings of Guillard as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 6 of the instant specification, greater than or equal to about 10 bar(a)) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 17, Maeda as modified teaches wherein the one or more turbines further comprise: a first turbine configured to expand a diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream to yield a first exhaust stream (turbine 27 which produces a first exhaust stream); and a second turbine configured to further expand the first exhaust stream to yield a second exhaust stream (turbine 31 which produces a second exhaust stream); wherein the refrigerant stream comprises a mixture of the second exhaust stream and the cold vaporized air stream (the refrigerant stream as above is from the outlet of 31 and the vaporized stream from 33).
With respect to claim 18, Maeda as modified teaches further comprising the step of pre-cooling the at least one high pressure air stream, and wherein the step of expanding the diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream in the first turbine further comprises expanding the pre-cooled at least one high pressure air stream to yield the first exhaust stream (prior to expansion in 27 the high pressure air stream as modified is pre-cooled in 22, page 8 which is then expanded to yield the first exhaust stream from 22).
Maeda as modified does not teach where in the pre-cooling is in the first heat exchanger.
Guillard teaches the use of a singular heat exchanger (50) which is used to both cool the refrigerant (132) prior to expansion (140) (paragraphs 51-52) which is the same heat exchanger uses the provide liquefaction to a feed stream (2 to 46, paragraph 46 and 50).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of utilizing two heat exchangers (22 and 23) in Maeda as modified to have utilized a singular heat exchanger for all of the heat exchanger processes provided by the two heat exchangers based on the teaching of Guillard since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby utilizing a single heat exchanger instead of two would be common knowledge in the art whereby a single heat exchanger could result in less space being used than two individual heat exchangers and/or allow for better heat integration between allow the heat exchanger steps of the process. Thus the singular heat exchanger would be the first heat exchange device which would be here the stream is of air as modified is pre-cooled before passing to the turbine.
With respect to claim 19, Maeda as modified as teaches further comprising the step of partially warming the first exhaust stream, and wherein the step of expanding the first exhaust stream further comprises expanding the partially warmed, first exhaust stream to yield the second exhaust stream (after expanding, the exhaust stream is warmed in 23 before being expanded again in 31, page 9).
With respect to claim 25, Maeda does not teach the step of supplying wherein the high-pressure gaseous oxygen stream is supplied via a pipeline from an air separation unit to a launch facility.
Turney teaches that a high-pressure gaseous oxygen stream can be provided to an offshore platform used for rockets (paragraphs 2-3, Figure 1, paragraphs 77-78). Flow lines can be seen in the figure to transport the oxygen (106).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the liquefaction system of Maeda on an offshore platform and providing the high pressure gaseous oxygen stream for liquefaction to the offshore platform based on the teaching of Turney separation unit would allow compression equipment from being away at a safe distance from the liquefaction facility (paragraphs 78 of Turney) as well as provide what would be common knowledge in the art of a suitable source for the oxygen needed for the system. As the oxygen has to be transported from onshore to offshore, the lines transporting them are a pipeline.
Maeda as modified does not teach providing the high-pressure air from the air separation unit via a pipeline to the launch facility.
Guillard teaches that an air stream for used for a refrigerant is provided by a compressor for an air separation unit (paragraph 51) and that gaseous oxygen can also be produced by the air separation unit (paragraph 57). It can be seen in Guillard that flow lines pass the air into the heat exchanger.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when using an air separation unit to produce gaseous oxygen in Maeda to have based on the teaching of Guillard to have had the source of the high pressure air to also have been the air separation unit via flow lines which is passed to the offshore platform as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing it would be common knowledge in the art that a known and suitable source of high pressure gaseous air is an air separation unit and thus would be obvious to have delivered the air from such unit. The flow lines used to deliver the air are a pipeline.
Maeda as modified does not teach the air separation unit is located within 2 kilometers of the launch facility.
Turney teaches that the air separation unit is to be at a safe distance from the facility which has the rockets (paragraphs 2-3, 78) which can be as little as greater than 1 mile.
Thus the distance away from the launch facility for the air separation unit is a result effective variable, chosen based on ensuring a safe distance. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Maeda as modified as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component requiring adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Maeda as modified by having the air separation unit within 2 kilometers of the offshore platform (launch facility) as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 26, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream comprises a stream of purified air from the air separation unit.
Guillard teaches that prior to passing into the boosted air compressor, which is where the air is produced from that is removed that can be used as a refrigerant, it is first passed for purification (220) (paragraph 56).
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 Guillard for the high pressure gaseous air stream sent form the air separation to the liquefaction system of Maeda as modified to have purified the air stream since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby purifying the stream would provide what is common knowledge in the art of preventing the high freeze components found in air from clogging the heat exchangers.
Claim(s) 5-6, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard and further in view of Chong et al. (US 20140305160), hereinafter referred to as Chong.
With respect to claim 5, Maeda as modified teaches one or more auxiliary compressors configured to compress the high-pressure air stream (booster brake compressor 28).
Maeda does not teach to a pressure greater than or equal to about 50.5 bar(a).
Chong teaches that when a refrigerant stream is pressurized using a compressor driven by a turbine (29 connected to 31) it can be brought to a pressure as high as 80 to 100 bar (paragraph 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the high pressure air stream of Maeda as modified that compressed in the brake compressor based on the teaching of Chong to have been brought to a pressure greater than or equal to about 50.5 bar(a) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 8 of the instant specification indicating to a pressure greater than or equal to about 50.5 bar(a)) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 6, Maeda teaches wherein the work provided by the one or more turbines is equal to or greater than the work required by the one or more auxiliary compressors (the turbine 27 is shown as the only connection to 28, and they are directly connected, paragraph 9, which would be understood that it is the only driver for 28).
With respect to claim 20, Maeda as modified teaches further comprising the step of compressing the at least one high pressure air stream in one or more auxiliary compressors (booster brake compressor 28 compresses the air stream which already a high pressure air stream).
Maeda does not teach the auxiliary compressor compressing to a pressure greater than or equal to about 50.5 bar(a).
Chong teaches that when a refrigerant stream is pressurized using a compressor driven by a turbine (29 connected to 31) it can be brought to a pressure as high as 80 to 100 bar (paragraph 24).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the high pressure air stream of Maeda as modified that compressed in the brake compressor based on the teaching of Chong to have been brought to a pressure greater than or equal to about 50.5 bar(a) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 8 of the instant specification indicating to a pressure greater than or equal to about 50.5 bar(a)) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).\
With respect to claim 21, Maeda as modified teaches wherein the work provided by the one or more turbines is equal to or greater than the work required by the one or more auxiliary compressors ((the turbine 27 is shown as the only connection to 28, and they are directly connected, paragraph 9, which would be understood that it is the only driver for 28).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard/Chong and further in view of Mahoney et al. (US Patent No. 5901579).
With respect to claim 7, Madea as modified does not teach an integral gear machine operatively coupling the one or more turbines and the one or more auxiliary compressors.
Mahoney (Figure 2) teaches a bridge machine can be formed that multiple turbines (63, 58) can be provided which connect to individual gears (100, 101) which are connected to a primary gear (99) and in turn a motor (67) which allows all the compressors to also be driven and when excess power is generated by the expansion for the power toe be extracted (Column 5, line 66 – Column 6, lines 14).
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 Mahoney to have provided a bridge machine (an integral gear machine) which has bull gears and individual gears for connecting the braked compressor and the turbines of Maeda as well as a motor to since it held that a combination of prior art element to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the bridge machine that a motor, the braked (auxiliary) compressor and the turbines are all connected to would provide the predictable result of being able to provide all the power needed for compression if the turbines were insufficient or being able to extract power when the turbines generate more power than is needed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard/Chong and further in view of Fletcher (US Patent No. 4077231).
With respect to claim 8, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the cold vaporized air stream is at a sub-ambient pressure and the system further comprises a vacuum pump configured to pressurize the cold vaporized air stream.
Fletcher teaches that through the combination of a vacuum pump (36) and a valve (41) that a refrigerant stream can be expanded for use to below a vacuum pressure and is used for heat exchange and before being mixed against is pressurized in the vacuum pump (36) (Column 3, lines 28-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have utilized an expansion valve upstream of the heat exchanger (33 and 24) of Maeda to expand the liquid air stream to a vacuum pressure with a vacuum pump downstream of the heat exchanger for repressurizing the air prior to mixing based on the teaching of Fletcher since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that providing the vacuum pump with the expansion would allow for the liquid air refrigeration capability to be increased through the use of the high expansion before being repressurized for mixing. This would result in the cold vaporized gas being at a vacuum pressure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard/Chong/Fletcher and further in view of Mahoney.
With respect to claim 9, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the work provided by the one or more turbines is greater than 90% of the work required by the one or more auxiliary compressors and the vacuum pump.
Mahoney (Figure 2) teaches a bridge machine can be formed that multiple turbines (63, 58) can be provided which connect to individual gears (100, 101) which are connected to a primary gear (99) and in turn a motor (67) which allows all the compressors to also be driven and when excess power is generated by the expansion for the power to be extracted (Column 5, line 66 – Column 6, lines 14).
It can thus be shown by Mahoney that all power that is needed in a system for driving components can be provided by the turbines. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the work provided by the turbines of Maeda as modified to have been greater than 90% of the work required by the one or more auxiliary compressors and the vacuum pump as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 22 of the instant specification indicating the turbines may be used to prevent import of additional turbines and that only greater than 90% is required with a variable number of components available) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 10-11, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard and further in view of Guenogo et al. (US PG Pub 20230251030).
With respect to claim 10, Maeda as modified does not teach further comprising: a third turbine configured to expand another diverted portion of the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream to yield a third exhaust stream; and wherein the second turbine is further configured to further expand a mixture of the first exhaust stream and the third exhaust stream to yield the second exhaust stream.
Guenogo (Figure 1) teaches that two separate expanders (7) can be used with a second stage heat exchanger where two different diverted portions of a stream are expanded separately, and then the streams are both heated and ultimately mixed in the heat exchanger (4) before being used for further heat exchange (paragraph 31-37, see Figure 1).
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 Guenogo to have instead of having a single turbine (27) with a single diverted portion of the air stream to have two turbines in Maeda as modified where two different diverted portions of air are expanded and then mixed within the heat exchanger (23) during heating (which would form the stream passing to 31) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby forming the two separate streams would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of different temperatures available for refrigeration as well as either different power generated by using multiple turbines for the expansion or smaller turbines able to be used to provide the expansion and refrigeration if needed. As the heat exchange is shown by both Maeda and Guenogo to be in the colder part of the heat exchange system the mixing would occur as modified upstream of the turbine (31).
With respect to claim 11, Maeda as modified teaches wherein the first heat exchange device is further configured to partially warm the first exhaust stream and the third exhaust stream and the second turbine is configured to expand a mixture of the partially warmed, first exhaust stream and partially warmed, third exhaust stream to yield the second exhaust stream (as modified this is the configuration, where the heat exchanger portion equivalent to 23 is configured to warm the two streams which are mixed together during heating and then they after mixing are sent to the turbine).
With respect to claim 23, Maeda as modified does not teach further comprising the steps of: expanding a second diverted portion of the high pressure gaseous air stream in a third turbine to yield a third exhaust stream; and mixing the first exhaust stream and the third exhaust stream in the first heat exchange device; and wherein the step of expanding the first exhaust stream in the second turbine further comprises further expanding the mixture of the first exhaust stream and the third exhaust stream in the second turbine to yield the second exhaust stream.
Guenogo (Figure 1) teaches that two separate expanders (7) can be used with a second stage heat exchanger where two different diverted portions of a stream are expanded separately, and then the streams are both heated and ultimately mixed in the heat exchanger (4) before being used for further heat exchange (paragraph 31-37, see Figure 1).
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 Guenogo to have instead of having a single turbine (27) with a single diverted portion of the air stream to have two turbines in Maeda as modified where two different diverted portions of air are expanded and then mixed within the heat exchanger (23) during heating (which would form the stream passing to 31) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby forming the two separate streams would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of different temperatures available for refrigeration as well as either different power generated by using multiple turbines for the expansion or smaller turbines able to be used to provide the expansion and refrigeration if needed. As the heat exchange is shown by both Maeda and Guenogo to be in the colder part of the heat exchange system the mixing would occur as modified upstream of the turbine (31).
With respect to claim 24, Maeda as modified teaches further comprising the steps of partially warming the first exhaust stream and the third exhaust stream in the first heat exchanger, and wherein the step of further expanding the first exhaust stream in the second turbine further comprises further expanding the mixture of the first exhaust stream and the third exhaust stream in the second turbine to yield the second exhaust stream (as modified this is the configuration, where the heat exchanger portion equivalent to 23 is configured to warm the two streams which are mixed together during heating and then they after mixing are sent to the turbine).
Claim(s) 14, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard and further in view of and further in view of Kong et al. (US PG Pub 20170276428).
With respect to claim 14, Maeda does not teach wherein the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream comprises a synthetic air stream comprising a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen from the air separation unit.
Kong teaches that to provide an air stream from an air separation unit (Figure 1, paragraph 38) that a compressed synthetic air stream (13) which has any desired oxygen content can be provided (paragraph 48-50).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of providing the air stream from the air sepration unit as in Maeda as modified for the high pressure gaseous air stream to have been provided based on the teaching of Kong as a compressed synthetic air product since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the stream as a synthetic air product would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of the ability to control the specific composition of the air stream which would allow for it to be tailored to specific use as opposed to using just a cleaned air stream.
With respect to claim 27, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the at least one high pressure gaseous air stream comprises a stream of purified synthetic air comprising a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen produced by the air separation unit.
Kong teaches that to provide an air stream from an air separation unit (Figure 1, paragraph 38) that a compressed synthetic air stream (13) which has any desired oxygen content can be provided (paragraph 48-50).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have instead of providing the air stream from the air separation unit as in Maeda as modified for the high pressure gaseous air stream to have been provided based on the teaching of Kong as a compressed synthetic air product since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the stream as a synthetic air product would provide what would be common knowledge in the art of the ability to control the specific composition of the air stream which would allow for it to be tailored to specific use as opposed to using just a cleaned air stream.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda/Turney/Guillard/Chong and further in view of Mahoney and Fletcher.
With respect to claim 22, Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the cold vaporized air stream is at a subambient pressure and the method further comprises the step of pressurizing the cold vaporized air stream with a vacuum pump,
Fletcher teaches that through the combination of a vacuum pump (36) and a valve (41) that a refrigerant stream can be expanded for use to below a vacuum pressure and is used for heat exchange and before being mixed against is pressurized in the vacuum pump (36) (Column 3, lines 28-40).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have utilized an expansion valve upstream of the heat exchanger (33 and 24) of Maeda to expand the liquid air stream to a vacuum pressure with a vacuum pump downstream of the heat exchanger for repressurizing the air prior to mixing based on the teaching of Fletcher since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that providing the vacuum pump with the expansion would allow for the liquid air refrigeration capability to be increased through the use of the high expansion before being repressurized for mixing. This would result in the cold vaporized gas being at a vacuum pressure.
Maeda as modified does not teach wherein the work provided by the one or more turbines is greater than 90% of the work required by the one or more auxiliary compressors and the vacuum pump.
Mahoney (Figure 2) teaches a bridge machine can be formed that multiple turbines (63, 58) can be provided which connect to individual gears (100, 101) which are connected to a primary gear (99) and in turn a motor (67) which allows all the compressors to also be driven and when excess power is generated by the expansion for the power to be extracted (Column 5, line 66 – Column 6, lines 14).
It can thus be shown by Mahoney that all power that is needed in a system for driving components can be provided by the turbines. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the work provided by the turbines of Maeda as modified to have been greater than 90% of the work required by the one or more auxiliary compressors and the vacuum pump as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 22 of the instant specification indicating the turbines may be used to prevent import of additional turbines and that only greater than 90% is required with a variable number of components available) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pages et al. (US PG Pub 20240255219) which teaches the use of nitrogen or air as a cycle gas in liquefaction using multiple stages including expanding a diverted turbine stream.
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
