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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously cited in the Non-Final rejection mailed December 18th, 2025. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-6 (as numbered by the Applicant) of the remarks, filed March 18th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Giancotti et al. (US 20190041127), hereinafter Giancotti.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: item “351”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 20200080771), hereinafter Cooper in view of Kelbch (DE 103 42 788), hereinafter Kelbch and Giancotti et al. (US 20190041127), hereinafter Giancotti.
Regarding claim 1, Cooper discloses a modularized liquefied natural gas production unit (Fig. 1, containerized LNG liquefaction unit 10, container 14; Fig. 2, LNG liquefaction plant 12) comprising:
a refrigerant compressor skid (See annotated Fig. 2 of Cooper below, compressor skid A);
a main exchanger module disposed in proximity to the refrigerant compressor skid, the main exchanger module comprising a natural gas main heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 2 of Cooper below, compressor skid A is shown in proximity to the heat exchangers 17 and 18); and
a refrigerant fluid closed thermodynamic refrigeration cycle module comprising a refrigerant compressor suction vessel, a refrigerant compressor discharge vessel, a refrigerant compressor intermediate compression stage cooler, and a refrigerant compressor intermediate compression stage condenser (Fig. 5, separator 24, separator 28, intercooler 26, aftercooler 30).
However, Cooper does not disclose wherein the main exchanger module comprises a main electrical room.
Kelbch teaches a main exchanger module of a modularized liquefied natural gas production unit to include a main electrical room (Fig. 2, Frame 1, warm space 7, main heat exchanger 5, electrical cabinets 12).
Cooper fails to teach wherein the main exchanger module comprises a main electrical room, however Kelbch teaches that it is a known method in the art of LNG production units to include a main exchanger module of a modularized liquefied natural gas production units to include a main electrical room, specifically within the container 14. This is strong evidence that modifying Cooper as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. a compact mobile unit for LNG production). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper by Kelbch and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a compact mobile unit for LNG production.
Further, Cooper as modified does not explicitly disclose the main electrical room connected to the refrigerant compressor skid.
Giancotti teaches the main electrical room connected to the refrigerant compressor skid (Fig. 1, modular gas turbine system 1, control and electrical room 72, base plate 3, compressors 23 and 25; Pg. 2, paragraph 23, The modular gas turbine system described herein can be part of an on-shore LNG system for the liquefaction of natural gas; Pg. 3, paragraph 39, Under the air filter housing 15 a control and electrical room 72 for the gas turbine engine 5 can be arranged. The control and electrical room 72 can be arranged at two levels, to occupy less surface on the base plate 3).
Cooper as modified fails to teach the main electrical room connected to the refrigerant compressor skid, however modularized liquefied natural gas production unit teaches that it is a known method in the art of modularized compression systems for liquefied natural gas production units to include the main electrical room connected to the refrigerant compressor skid. This is strong evidence that modifying Cooper as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing compact unit for use in LNG production). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper as modified by Giancotti and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing compact unit for use in LNG production.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Cooper
Regarding claim 2, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the main exchanger module further comprises instrumentation and electrical connections (Cooper, Fig. 2, power connector 16c; Pg. 5, paragraph 134, In the illustrated embodiment a plurality of connectors 16a-16f (hereinafter referred to in general as "connectors 16") are supported on the container 14 to enable the separate and mutually isolated flow of services, fluids and utilities into and/or out of the container 14; Further, the teachings of connectors running into the container 14 at least imply wherein the main exchanger module further comprises instrumentation and electrical connections since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the refrigerant compressor skid is installed in proximity to the main electrical room (When modified as described herein the main electrical room would be provided within the container 14 placing the main electrical room in proximity to the refrigerant compressor skid A of annotated Fig. 2 of Cooper). Further, the limitations of claim 3 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Cooper
Regarding claim 4, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the refrigerant fluid closed thermodynamic refrigeration cycle module comprises a natural gas feed line and product lines (Cooper; Fig. 1, feed gas inlet connector 16a; Pg. 5, paragraph 136, feed gas inlet connector 16a enabling a feed stream of gas for liquefaction to be fed to the plant 12).
Regarding claim 8, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the main exchanger module is integral with the refrigerant fluid closed thermodynamic refrigeration cycle module to form an integrated refrigeration module (Cooper; Fig. 1, containerized LNG liquefaction unit 10, container 14; Fig. 2, LNG liquefaction plant 12; Pg. 5, paragraph 134, The LNG liquefaction plant 12 is wholly contained within the transportable container 14).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper as modified by Kelbch and Giancotti as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Van Wijngaarden et al. (US Patent no. 9,422,037), hereinafter Van Wijngaarden.
Regarding claim 5, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the product lines comprise a liquefied natural gas line (Cooper; Fig. 1, LNG outlet connector 16b; Pg. 5, paragraph 137, a LNG outlet connector 16b enabling LNG produced by the plant 12 to exit the container 14, for example to flow into a storage tank).
However, Cooper as modified does not disclose wherein the product lines comprise a liquefied petroleum gas line.
Van Wijngaarden teaches wherein the product lines comprise a liquefied petroleum gas line (Col. 5, lines 60-64, FIGS. 4 and 5 show the position of the tanks 80 for storing hydrocarbon liquids, such as condensate and/or LPG. Condensate and/or LPG is produced as a byproduct during the LNG processing on board of the floating LNG plant 1).
Cooper as modified fails to teach wherein the product lines comprise a liquefied petroleum gas line, however Van Wijngaarden teaches that it is a known method in the art of LNG production units to include wherein the product lines comprise a liquefied petroleum gas. This is strong evidence that modifying X as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. collecting byproducts from LNG production for sale or other use to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cooper as modified by Van Wijngaarden and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of collecting byproducts from LNG production for sale or other use to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper as modified by Kelbch and Giancotti as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanigawa et al. (WO 2020026377), hereinafter Tanigawa.
Regarding claim 6, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Cooper as modified does not disclose wherein the refrigerant fluid closed thermodynamic refrigeration cycle module comprises emergency relief installations.
Tanigawa teaches wherein the refrigerant fluid closed thermodynamic refrigeration cycle module comprises emergency relief installations (Fig. 2, flare stack 141, knockout drum 142; Pg. 10-11, paragraph 39-40, Further, a flare stack 141 for burning gas discharged from the FLNG 1 is arranged at the bow of the hull 11 farthest from the living space 13. The flare stack 141 is disposed on the port side bow of the hull 11, which is opposite to the pipe rack portion 51 (the center position in the boat width direction) when viewed from the berthing position of the LNG tanker 6. At the base end of the flare stack 141, a knockout drum 142 for separating liquid accompanying the gas to be burned in the flare stack 141 is provided. In this way, the berthing position of the living space 13 and the LNG tanker 6 is set at a position as far as possible from the flare stack 141 where the gas is burning at the upper end. However, it is not an essential requirement to provide the flare stack 141 on the opposite side of the pipe rack portion 51 (the center position in the ship width direction) when viewed from the berthing position of the LNG tanker 6. FIG. 5 described later shows an example in which the flare stack 141 is arranged at the bow on the starboard side at the same position as the berthing position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of Cooper as modified to include emergency relief installations as taught by Tanigawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure the safe disposal of hydrocarbons, which is crucial for preventing over-pressurization of equipment and for protecting workers.
Regarding claim 7, Cooper as modified discloses the modularized liquefied natural gas production unit of claim 6 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the emergency relief installations comprise a flare drum (Tanigawa, Fig. 2, flare stack 141, knockout drum 142; Pg. 10-11, paragraph 39-40, Further, a flare stack 141 for burning gas discharged from the FLNG 1 is arranged at the bow of the hull 11 farthest from the living space 13. The flare stack 141 is disposed on the port side bow of the hull 11, which is opposite to the pipe rack portion 51 (the center position in the boat width direction) when viewed from the berthing position of the LNG tanker 6. At the base end of the flare stack 141, a knockout drum 142 for separating liquid accompanying the gas to be burned in the flare stack 141 is provided. In this way, the berthing position of the living space 13 and the LNG tanker 6 is set at a position as far as possible from the flare stack 141 where the gas is burning at the upper end. However, it is not an essential requirement to provide the flare stack 141 on the opposite side of the pipe rack portion 51 (the center position in the ship width direction) when viewed from the berthing position of the LNG tanker 6. FIG. 5 described later shows an example in which the flare stack 141 is arranged at the bow on the starboard side at the same position as the berthing position). Further, the limitations of claim 7 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 6 above.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 May 05th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights