Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12 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 “a heat exchanger configured to cool the boil-off gas compressed by the first compressor or the second compressor” and then later recites “boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section… is supplied to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction, the power generation engine, or the rear compression section” and then later “the first compressor is operated such that some of the boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is supplied to the rear compression section, and the remainder is supplied to the power generation engine or supplied to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction” which is a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Initially the claims only require that gas from one of the two compressors is passed to the heat exchanger and then later the claims require the option that only from the first compressor is the gas passed to the heat exchanger. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that compressed gas from one of the compressors is required to be passed to the heat exchanger.
Claim 1 recites “the boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is configured to be supplied to the heat exchanger, the power generation engine, or the rear compression section” and then later recites “such that some often boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is supplied to the rear compression section and the remainder is supplied to the power generation engine or supplied to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction” which is a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Initially the claims only require that the boil-off gas compressed in the front section is passed to one of the configurations and then later they require a positive recitation of where it is passed to which renders the claims indefinite as those two cannot occur at the same time. For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted that some only some of the boil-off gas is supplied to the rear compression section.
Claim 4 recites “in response to operation” which along with its following limitations is a method step within an apparatus claim which renders indefinite the metes and bounds sought for protection of the claim. 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, as long as the structure has a mechanism capable of providing such configuration the limitation is met.
Claim 10 recites “the first compressor to compress the received boil-off gas” and “the second compressor to compress the received boiloff gas” and then later recites “compressing the received boil-off gas from the storage tank by the first compressor or the second compressor” which is considered indefinite as it is a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The claims require compressors which each receive at least a portion of the boil-off gas but then only require compression by one of the compressors but refer to “the received boil-off gas” so it is also unclear if compression is required by both compressors. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are interpreted that both compressors generate compressed gas from received boil-off gas during operation.
Claim 10 recites “cooling and reliquefying at least a portion of the compressed gas which is not supplied as fuel to the propulsion and the power generation engine” which is considered indefinite. The claims have not required any compressed gas being supplied to either the propulsion or power generation engine, only that that what the method is for nor has any requirement been made that there is some gas not supplied as fuel. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted that compressed gas is passed for reliquefaction.
Claim 10 recites “the first compressor is operated such that some of the boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is supplied to the rear compressor section and the remainder is supplied to the power generation engine or supplied to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction, and when the ship is at anchor, the second compressor is operated to supply the boil-off gas to the power generation engine or to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction” but this limitation conflicts with the previous limitation of “cooling and reliquefying at least a portion of the compressed gas which is not supplied as fuel to the propulsion and the power generation engine” which appears to provide the condition of always requiring that fluid is passed for reliquefaction which renders the claims unclear. For the purpose of examination, the specific methods are only interpreted to be how those compressors are operating at that time, but not a change in the overall operation of the system.
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all issues in regard to 35 USC 112 in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, specifically the repeated use of “or” statements coupled with different conditions, it may not be possible to indicate every issue in regard to 35 USC 112 and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding issues in regard to 35 USC 112. The applicant is also requested to proof-read any future amendments for any potential issues in regard to 35 USC 112 that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
Claims 2-3, 5-9, 12 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) 1-3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR20190071179), hereinafter referred to as Son and father in view of Choi et al. (KR102003409B1), hereinafter referred to as Choi and Li et al. (CN112648530A), hereinafter referred to as Li and Lee et al. (US PG Pub 20200239109), hereinafter referred to as Lee.
With respect to claim 1, Son (Figure 1) teaches a boil-off gas treatment of a ship for supplying boil-off gas generated in a storage tank as fuel to a propulsion engine and a power generation engine supplied with fuel at a lower pressure than the propulsion engine, and for reliquefying surplus boil-off gas (tank T provides gas to a first compressor 210 a ME-GI engine, which would be understood to be a propulsion engine, a low pressure engine, which would be understood to be a power generation engine, and for reliquefaction in heat exchanger 120, paragraphs 41-44, which in heat exchanger 120 as the temperature is dropped to -155 C, paragraph 68 would be where liquefaction occurs, which based on what is shown in the figure of branching points for the low pressure engine would have the pressure of those be lower than the propulsion engine) comprising:
a first compressor (210, paragraph 41), which is fluidly connected to the storage tank to receive at least a portion of the boil-off gas generated in the storage tank (210 receives some of the boil-of gas as seen in the figure),
a heat exchange configured to cool the boil-off gas compressed by the first compressor through heat exchange with a refrigerant (120 cools the boil-off gas using a cycling refrigerant, paragraph 67);
and a refrigerant circulation line along which the refrigerant supplied to the heat exchanger is circulated (refrigerant is circulated through compressor 220, expander 310 and compressor 230, paragraph 62),
wherein the first compressor comprise a front compression section and a rear compression section (the first compressor is a five-stage compressor, paragraph 49 which means it has front and rear sections, with the first stages being front and the last stages being rear), and the boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is configured to be supplied to the to the rear compressor section (compressed gas passes form the first stages to the last),
the first compressor is operated such that some of the boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is supplied to the rear compression section and the remainder is supplied to the power generation engine or to the heat exchanger for liquefaction (boil-off gas initially compressed in early stages of the compressor is divided such that some is passed to the power generation engine, some all the way through the compressor the rear compressions section of the fifth stage, and some removed before the final stage to be sent for liquefaction removed after the fourth stage, paragraphs 45-49).
Son does not teach a second compressor fluidly connected to the storage tank to receive at least a portion of the boil-off gas generated in the storage tank, the second compressor configured to compress the received boil-off gas to a fuel supply pressure required by the power generation engine, which is lower than that required for the propulsion engine.
Choi (Figure 2) teaches that a second dedicated compressor (220 can receive boil-off gas from the tank) to compressor it for passing compressed gas to the second engine at a lower pressure (paragraph 21). By providing a dedicated second compressor for supplying fuel to the second engine separate from the first, the flow rate of the boil-off gas to the heat exchanger can be increased to increase reliquefaction performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Choi to have in Son provided a separate dedicated compressor which receives some of the boil-off gas from the tank to compress the boil-off gas to the pressure of the gas combustion unit or low pressure engine so that the reliquefaction performance can be increased by having the first compressor not needed to provide boil-off gas to the low pressure engine or gas combustion unit (paragraph 36 of Choi).
While it would be understood that the operation described by Son for the ME-GI engine and the boil-off gas reliquefaction would likely while the ship is underway this is not explicit in Son wherein the boil-off gas treatment system is configured to be operated depending on an operation condition of the ship such that: the first compressor operations are while the ship is underway.
Lee teaches that when there is more BOG than needed for the high-pressure engine, the excess can be passed to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction (paragraph 96) which engine is for propulsion which is operations occur when the vessel is moving (paragraph 278, 285-286).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when the ship of Son as modified was underway to have performed the operation where some of the boil-off gas is fully compressed (in front and rear sections) and sent to the engine and some is partially compressed (only in front sections) before being reliquefied based on the teaching of Lee since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge that the operation of the first compressor to provide boil-off gas to the ME-GI engine with excess being passed to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction would be provided while the ship is underway so that the boil-off gas can be provided as fuel to the engine to provide fuel for propulsion to keep the ship underway and excess can be recovered.
Son as modified does not teach that the operation includes when the ship is at anchor, the second compressor is operated to supply the boil-off gas to the power generation engine.
Li teaches that when a ship is at anchor the main engine stops running and the power generation engine is operated and BOG is passed to the power generation engine via a compressor (page 4 of translation).
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 Li to have when the ship of Son is at anchor to have passed boil-off gas to the power generation engine (which is the low pressure engine) via the second compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby operating the power generation engine at anchor would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of being able to provide power to the ships operating systems to maintain operation of the ship.
With respect to claim 2, Son as modified teaches wherein the refrigerant circulation line comprises: a refrigerant compressor configured to receive the refrigerant discharged from the heat exchanger after heat exchange and further configured to compress the received refrigerant (230);
and a refrigerant expander to receive the refrigerant compressed by the refrigerant compressor expand to cool the received refrigerant (310), and supply the cooled refrigerant to the heat exchanger (the expander as modified passes the refrigerant back to the heat exchanger).
With respect to claim 3, Son teaches a boil-off gas supply line along which boil-off gas is supplied from the storage tank to the first compressor or the second compressor through the heat exchanger (the line passing from the top of the tank via 110);
a first fuel supply line disposed downstream of the first compressor and connected to the propulsion engine (the flow line from the end of 210 to the ME-GI engine);
a reliquefaction line along which boil-off gas compressed while passing through part of the first compressor is supplied to the heat exchanger to be cooled and is returned to the storage tank (the line which leaves after the fourth compression stage and ultimately passes into 120 and continues before ultimate passing liquid back to the tank);
and a second fuel supply line along which boil-off gas compressed while passing through the second compressor is supplied to the power generation engine (the flow passes from the second compressor to the low-pressure engine).
With respect to claim 10, Son (Figure 1) teaches a boil-off gas treatment method of a ship for supplying boil-off gas generated in a storage tank as fuel toa propulsion engine and a power generation engine with fuel at a lower pressure than the propulsion engine and for reliquefying surplus boil-off gas (tank T provides gas to a first compressor 210 a ME-GI engine, which would be understood to be a propulsion engine, a low pressure engine, which would be understood to be a power generation engine, and for reliquefaction in heat exchanger 120, paragraphs 41-44, which in heat exchanger 120 as the temperature is dropped to -155 C would be where liquefaction occurs, which based on what is shown in the figure of branching points for the low pressure engine would have the pressure of those be lower than the propulsion engine), a first compressor (210, paragraph 41), which is fluidly connected to the storage tank to receive at least a portion of the boil-off gas generated in the storage tank (210 receives some of the boil-of gas as seen in the figure),
compressing the received boil-off gas from the storage tank in by the first compressor to generate compressed gas (gas generated in the tank is compressed in 210),
cooling and reliquefying at least a portion of the compressed gas, which is not supplied as fuel to the propulsion engine and the power generation engine through heat exchange in a heat exchanger with a refrigerant circulated along a refrigerant circulation line (refrigerant is circulated through compressor 220, expander 310 and compressor 230, paragraph 62 where it reliquefies the gas not sent to either engine by lowering the temperature to -155 C at 100 bar from -65 C, paragraph 68 which would liquefy the boil-off gas),
(the first compressor is a five-stage compressor, paragraph 49 which means it has front and rear sections, with the first stages being front and the last stages being rear where boil-off gas passes from the first to last stages),
the first compressor is operated such that some of the boil-off gas compressed in the front compression section is supplied to the rear compression section (the boil-off gas that is passed through the whole compressor) and the remainder is supplied to the power generation engine or supplied to the heat exchanger for liquefaction (all the gas not passed through the whole compressor can be sent to the low-pressure engine or the heat exchanger).
Son does not teach a second compressor which is fluidly connected to the storage tank being configured to compress the received boil-off gas to a fuel supply pressure required for the power generation engine, which is lower than that required for the propulsion engine.
Choi (Figure 2) teaches that a second dedicated compressor (220 can receive boil-off gas from the tank) to compressor it for passing compressed gas to the second engine at a lower pressure (paragraph 21). By providing a dedicated second compressor for supplying fuel to the second engine separate from the first, the flow rate of the boil-off gas to the heat exchanger can be increased to increase reliquefaction performance.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Choi to have in Son provided a separate dedicated compressor which receives some of the boil-off gas from the tank to compress the boil-off gas to the pressure of the gas combustion unit or low pressure engine so that the reliquefaction performance can be increased by having the first compressor not needed to provide boil-off gas to the low pressure engine or gas combustion unit (paragraph 36 of Choi).
While it would be understood that the operation described by Son for the ME-GI engine and the boil-off gas reliquefaction would likely while the ship is underway this is not explicit in Son wherein the boil-off gas treatment system is configured to be operated depending on an operation condition of the ship such that: the first compressor operations are while the ship is underway.
Lee teaches that when there is more BOG than needed for the high-pressure engine, the excess can be passed to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction (paragraph 96) which engine is for propulsion which is operations occur when the vessel is moving (paragraph 278, 285-286).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have when the ship of Son as modified was underway to have performed the operation where some of the boil-off gas is fully compressed (in front and rear sections) and sent to the engine and some is partially compressed (only in front sections) before being reliquefied based on the teaching of Lee since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge that the operation of the first compressor to provide boil-off gas to the ME-GI engine with excess being passed to the heat exchanger for reliquefaction would be provided while the ship is underway so that the boil-off gas can be provided as fuel to the engine to provide fuel for propulsion to keep the ship underway and excess can be recovered.
Son as modified does not teach that the operation includes when the ship is at anchor, the second compressor is operated to supply the boil-off gas to the power generation engine.
Li teaches that when a ship is at anchor the main engine stops running and the power generation engine is operated and BOG is passed to the power generation engine via a compressor (page 4 of translation).
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 Li to have when the ship of Son is at anchor to have passed boil-off gas to the power generation engine (which is the low pressure engine) via the second compressor since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby operating the power generation engine at anchor would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of being able to provide power to the ships operating systems to maintain operation of the ship.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son/Choi/Li/Lee and further in view of and further in view of Lee et al. (KR20170137604), hereinafter referred to as Ko.
With respect to claim 4, Son teaches a branch line branched off of the boil-off gas supply line and configured to allow boil-off gas to be supplied to the first compressor or the second compressor without passing through the heat exchanger the valve V2 allows boil-off gas to be supplied to the compressors without entering the heat exchanger 120, which means the supply line acts as a by-pass line of 120); wherein in response to non-operation of the reliquefaction, all the boil-off gas generated in the storage tank bypasses the heat exchanger along the branch line and is introduced into the first compressor or the second compressor (if 120 is not needed, V2 can be used to bypass it).
Son does not teach a preheater provided to the branch line to heat the boil-off gas, wherein, when the branch line is used the gas is to be heated by the preheater (which would be when the reliquefaction system is not in operation).
Ko teaches boil-off gas can either by-pass (via 81b) a heat exchanger (20) or pass through (via 81a) the heat exchanger as it leaves a tank on the way to compression (51-54, paragraph 106) where the boil-off gas which bypasses the heat exchanger is heated in a heater (61) to bring the temperature of the vaporized gas up (paragraph 144) in order to supplement the preheating of the evaporation gas when the heat exchanger is weakened (paragraph 179).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in Son when passing the boil-off gas through the branch line to have provided a heater which preheats the boil-off gas in the branch line based on the teaching of Ko to heat the boil-off gas in the branch line in order to bring the boil-off gas to the desired temperature.
With respect to claim 5, Son as modified teaches a decompressor configured to receive compressed boil-off gas cooled through heat exchange in the heat exchanger and decompress the received compressed boil-off gas (pressure reducing device 320, paragraph 69);
and a gas-liquid separator configured to receive the boil-off gas decompressed by the decompressor and perform gas-liquid separation with of the received boil-off gas (from the pressure-reducing device 320 the gas fluid is passed to 500, paragraphs 70-71 58), wherein flash gas separated by the gas-liquid separator is joined with a stream of uncompressed boil-off gas upstream of the heat exchanger (gas from 500 is mixed with boil-off gas from the tank Paragraph 72, and liquefied gas separated by the gas-liquid separator is returned to the storage tank, the liquefied gas is sent to the tank, paragraph 71).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son/Choi/Lee/Li/Ko and further in view of Lee et al. (KR101356003), hereinafter referred to as Moon.
With respect to claims 6-7, Son as modified does not teach a liquefied gas supply line along which liquefied gas stored in the storage tank is supplied as fuel to the propulsion engine; a compression pump disposed on the liquefied gas supply line and configured to pressurize the liquefied gas to the fuel supply pressure required for the propulsion engine; and a vaporizer configured to heat the liquefied gas pressurized by the compression pump, a liquefied gas branch line branched off of the liquefied gas supply line downstream of the vaporizer and connected to the power generation engine; a pressure regulating valve provided to the liquefied gas branch line and configured to adjust the liquefied gas to the fuel supply pressure required for the power generation engine; and a heater provided to the liquefied gas branch line and to further heat the liquefied gas having passed through the pressure regulating valve to a fuel supply temperature required for the power generation engine.
Moon teaches a system for treating boil-off gas for a ship (Figure 100) with a hybrid fuel system with a liquefied gas supply line along which liquefied gas stored in the storage tank is supplied as fuel to the propulsion engine (fuel supply line 110 provides LNG to the MEGI engine, paragraph 41-42), a compression pump disposed on the liquefied gas supply line and pressurizing the liquefied gas to a fuel supply pressure required for the propulsion engine (LNG pump 120 brings the pressure of the LNG to that needed for the MEGI engine, paragraphs 41-42) and a vaporizer heating the liquefied gas pressurized by the compression pump (vaporizer after LNG pumps, paragraph 41, which would vaporize the LNG), a liquefied gas branch line branched off of the liquefied gas supply line downstream of the vaporizer and connected to the power generation engine (connecting line 170 which lets vaporized LNG pass to a gas combustion or inert gas generator, paragraph 49); a pressure regulating valve provided to the liquefied gas branch line and adjusting the liquefied gas to a fuel supply pressure required for the power generation engine (pressure reduction valve, 190, paragraph 50); and a heater provided to the liquefied gas branch line and further heating the liquefied gas having passed through the pressure regulating valve to a fuel supply temperature required for the power generation engine (180 heats the fluid from 190 to pass it to 200, paragraph 50). Thus, it the entirety of the limitations can be shown to be taught by Moon, where each pressure increase, decrease or temperature increase would be capable of bringing them to the required pressures and temperatures.
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 Moon provide a line which passes from the liquid of the tank of Son to the ME-GI engine with a high pressure pump followed by a vaporizer on it, as well as a branch line after the vaporizer which is capable of passing the vaporized fluid through a pressure reduction valve and then to another heater and to the generator engine in order to supply the necessary fuel to the respective engines when the amount of boil-off gas is not enough to meet the need for gas by the engines (paragraph 75 of Moon).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son/Choi/Lee/Li and further in view of Ragot (US PG Pub 20160216029), hereinafter referred to as Ragot.
With respect to claim 9, Son as modified does not teach wherein the refrigerant circulated along the refrigerant circulation line is nitrogen. Son does teach a separate refrigerant can be provided (paragraph 6) but does not provide any specific configuration.
Ragot teaches that a closed loop refrigeration system can be provided to provide the liquefaction refrigerant for evaporation gas being cooled, which refrigerant can be nitrogen (paragraphs 20-21, 35-36).
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 Ragot provided a closed loop nitrogen based refrigeration system as the liquefaction system of Son instead of the boil-off gas based system since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereby as both a internally formed boil-off gas based reliquefaction system are known (Son) and a closed loop nitrogen based reliquefaction system (Ragot) are known it would have been prima facie obvious to have substituted the boil-off gas based system for the nitrogen based system as both are known ways of providing refrigeration to the same component and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such substitution with the reasonably predictable results of providing a different but suitable reliquefaction refrigeration cycle for the boil-off gas. The closed loop system as shown by Ragot would still have a refrigerant circulation line as nitrogen has to be circulated in the closed loop for it to operate.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son/Choi/Lee/Li and further in view of Shin (KR20180092120A).
With respect to claim 12, Son as modified teaches wherein the refrigerant circulated along the refrigerant circulation line is compressed by a refrigerant compressor (230 or 220, paragraph 65) cooled through the heat exchanger (compressed gas from 220 is cooled in 120, paragraph 66), expanded and cooled by a refrigerant expander (cooled and compressed gas is expanded in 310, paragraph 65 where it would be expanded and cooled) and supplied to the heat exchanger as a cold heat source (gas from 310 is used to provide cooling to 120, paragraphs 66-67).
Son does not teach wherein the refrigerant compressor is connected to the refrigerant expander and compressed the refrigerant using expansion energy of the refrigerant transmitted from the refrigerant expander.
Shin teaches that in a refrigeration cycle a decompressor (510) can be formed to drive the compressor (230) so that the power generated by expanding the fluid can drive the compressor by forming a compander (see Figure 1, paragraph 65).
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 expander (310) of Son use the energy of expansion of the refrigerant to drive one of the compressors (220 or 230) of the refrigeration cycle based on the teaching of Shin since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the energy from the expansion to the compressor would provide the predictable result that is common knowledge in the art of reducing the overall amount of energy needed by the system for compression.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 3/18/2026, with respect to Choi in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of C has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see 8-10, filed 3/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 10 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Son.
In view of the amended claims, specifically reciting that the first compressor is operated with front and rear compression sections, Son as well as Li and Lee have been provided to show the obviousness of the amended limitations. While some of the same references are used, applicant does not provide any arguments against how those references are used in the rejection above. Further, while applicant argues that the claims recite “selective operation scheme”; the claims only recite how the system is operated in different configurations, but there is no requirement that they are limiting such that only such operation is performed under those conditions, only that that specific operation is performed and there is no claimed “switching operation” as described in applicants’ arguments. Additionally, while the previous rejection Son is used in the current rejection it is done in a separate way than in the previous rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 5712726681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights