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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “compressing” in lines 3 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.” This recitation and the further recitations in the claims of method steps rejected as follows are understood to be that the respective components are configured to provide such limitation.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “condensing” in lines 5 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.”
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “mutually heat-exchanging” in line 6 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.”
Claim 1 recites “the liquid-phase boil-off gas” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. For the purpose of examination this limitation is understood to refer to boil-off gas that was condensed in the condenser.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “transferring” in line 7 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.”
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “transferring” in line 8 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.”
Claim 1 recites “an intercooler mutually heat-exchanging between a part of the liquid-phase boil-of gas condensed int eh condenser and the rest, transferring a gas-phase boil-off gas generated by heat exchange to the compressor, and transferring the liquid-phase boil-off gas to the liquefied gas storage tank” which is considered indefinite. An intercooler is a heat exchanger which means that it would only be configured to provide heat transfer, it is unclear how it would transfer anything. Further, “between a part of the liquid-phase boil-off gas condensed in the condenser and the rest” is unclear as it is unclear what “the rest is”. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood that the intercooler exchanges heat between a part of the liquid phase boil off gas against a part of itself and that the gas-phase boil off gas generated by heat exchange in the intercooler is configured to be transferred to the compressor and liquid phase boil-gas is configured to be transferred from the intercooler to the storage tank.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “transfers” in line 11 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.”
Claim 1 recites “the liquefy the gas-phase boil-off gas in the intercooler” which is considered indefinite. The claims do not recite cooling of any gas-phase boil-off gas in the intercooler that is cooled and only refers to the transfer of gas phase boil-off gas from the intercooler to the compressor and specifically to gas-phase boil-off gas generated by heat exchange. As such, it is unclear how the intercooler can both generate gas-phase boil off gas by heat exchanger and simultaneously liquefy other gas-phase boil-off gas through the type of cooling described. For the purpose of examination, as long asF17C the liquefied gas is used for cooling in the intercooler the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “depressurizes” in line 2 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.”
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “storing” in line 3 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.”
Claim 2 recites “wherein the intercooler depressurized a part of the liquid-phase boil-off gas condense din the condenser with a depressurizing valve and then store in the inside and passes the rest through the inside to mutually heat exchange with the boil-off gas” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear how this relates to the limitations of claim 1 a claim 1 already requires configurations for the liquid-phase boil off gas and it is unclear how an intercooler would depressurize anything with a depressurizing valve as an intercooler is a heat exchanger and further it is unclear what the rest is. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is determined that the part of the boil-off gas that is “the rest” from claim 1 is configured to be passed into a depressurizing valve and is then passed into the intercooler where it at least temporarily stored.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “injects” in line 5 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.”
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “drops” in line 6 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.” Further, this limitation is requiring that the liquid is used to cool both fluids in the intercooler; however, claim 1 is requiring cooling between the two parts of the liquid-phase boil off gas which renders this limitation unclear. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is considered met as long as all of the fluids are configured to enter the intercooler as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, the recitation of “cools” in line 7 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.”
Claim 2 recites “a part of the boil-off gas stored in the intercooler” and “the rest of the boil-off gas passing through the intercooler” which are considered indefinite with the second limitation lacking antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are understood such that it refers to the part of the liquid phase boil-off gas in the intercooler and the part of the liquid phase boil-off gas passing through the intercooler respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of “transfers” in line 3 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.”
Claim 3 recites “the intercooler transfer the first material with a relatively low boiling point to the compressor as a gas-phase boil-off gas during heat exchange with a boil-off gas” which is considered indefinite as it unclear how an intercooler would transfer anything and how these limitations relate to those of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the boil-off gas that is configured to pass from the intercooler to the heat exchanger contains the first substance and that boil-off gas has exchange heat with the liquid phase boil-off gas heat exchanging in the intercooler.
The term “relatively low boiling point” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” 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, as long as the first substance has a lower boiling point than the second, the limitation is met.
Claim 3 recites “the first material” in line 3 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the first substance.
Claim 4 recites “the first material” in lines 3-4 which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood to be the first substance.
The entirety of claim 5 is indefinite as it recites a recitation that is entirely method steps without any structural limitations provided. 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 of the prior art is capable of providing the limitation as claimed the limitation is met.
The entirety of claim 6 is indefinite as it recites a recitation that is entirely method steps without any structural limitations provided. 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 of the prior art is capable of providing the limitation as claimed the limitation is met.
Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
In the context of the invention, heavy hydrocarbon is understood to refer to liquefied petroleum gas.
In claim 3, “a mixture of a first substance and a second substance” is understood to not be limiting to only two substances present, only that it includes two substances with different boiling points.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR20190048446), hereinafter referred to as Han and further in view of Schroth (US PG Pub 20230184380), hereinafter referred to as Schroth.
Han (Figure 2) teaches a boil-off gas re-liquefying system, as a system for processing a liquefied gas, which is a heavy hydrocarbon (Han is for reliquefying a gas which can be liquefied petroleum gas, paragraphs 7 and 22), the system comprising:
a compressor compressing a boil-off gas generated from a liquefied gas storage tank in multiple stages (compressor 20 which compresses the evaporated gas from a liquefied gas storage tank 10 in multiple stages, paragraph 39);
a condenser condensing the boil-off gas compressed in the compressor (cooler 30 which can liquefy the compressed gas, paragraph 53) ;
an intercooler mutually heat-exchanging between a part of the liquid-phase boil-off gas condensed in the condenser and the rest (economizer 61, which is between compression stages,, paragraph 77, and thus an intercooler, which receives liquefied gas in the evaporated gas line 31, and expanded evaporative gas from 50, paragraphs 67-69, which would result in them exchanging heat, paragraph 71) transferring a gas-phase boil-off gas generated by heat exchange to the compressor (gas from 20 also enters into 61 and gas leaving as 21 passes to the compressor, 20, paragraph 77, which would also be gas that is heat exchanged in this process as it is in the economizer, which would also include any gas formed by cooling using the depressurized evaporative gas), and transferring the liquid-phase boil-off gas to the liquefied gas storage tank (the liquid phase continues from 61 ultimately back into the tank 10 via 70, paragraph 83, and although it is referred to as being reliquefied, has already been known to be liquefied at least in part upstream in 30, paragraph 53, so it would include liquid-phase boil-off gas prior to 70).
Han does not teach a liquefied gas pump pressurizing the liquefied gas of the liquefied gas storage tank, wherein the liquefied gas pump transfers a liquefied gas to the intercooler to liquefy the gas-phase boil-off gas in the intercooler.
Schroth (Figure 4) that a heat exchanger (6) which is used to condense compressed gas (compressed gas 15c entering via 15d) can also be fed by a high-pressure pump (5) which pressurized liquid from the tank that the boil-off gas originates (3) (paragraph 29).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time to have provided a high pressure pump which is configured to transfer liquefied gas from the storage tank of Han into the economizer to provide cooling since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this would provide the predictable result that would be common knowledge in the art of increasing the cooling capacity of the heat exchanger which could increase the liquefaction performance of the heat exchanger to increase the overall amount of reliquefied boil-off gas that is produced.
With respect to claim 2, Han as modified teaches wherein the intercooler depressurizes a part of the liquid-phase boil-off gas condensed in the condenser with a depressurizing valve (the part of the liquid from 30 that is passed into pressure reducer 50 can be a valve, paragraph 65) and then storing in the inside (this liquid, paragraph 73 is what is seen in the economizer blow the gas line entry from 20, which liquid is used for heat exchange, paragraph 66) and passes the rest through the inside to mutually heat exchange with the boil-off gas (the non-split and separate portion is cooled in 611 against the liquefied gas paragraph 73), and the liquefied gas pump injects the liquefied gas to the inside of the intercooler so that the liquefied gas drops the temperature of a part of the boil-off gas stored in the intercooler and cools the rest of the boil-off gas passing through the inside of the intercooler (as modified the liquefied gas from the tank is pumped into the economizer as well where it would provide further cooling fluid).
With respect to claim 3, Han as modified teaches wherein the liquefied gas is a mixture of a first substance and a second substance with different boiling points, and the intercooler transfers the first material with a relatively low boiling point to the compressor as a gas-phase boil-off gas during heat exchange with a boil-off gas (the fluid is LPG, which is a mixture of multiple components including propane, butane and ethane, and is thus a mixture of two substances, paragraph 54, at least one of those would be in the gas phase that passes to the compressor).
With respect to claim 4, Han as modified teaches wherein the liquefied gas pump transfers the liquefied gas to the intercooler to limit the evaporation amount of the first material in the intercooler within a preset value (as the liquefied gas provides cooling to the intercooler it would lower the overall temperature, limiting the boil-off of at least one of the first materials, thus meeting the limitation as claimed).
With respect to claim 5, Han as modified teaches wherein, as the system operation time elapses, the first material continues to circulate through the compressor, the condenser, and the intercooler so that the proportion of the first material in the boil-off gas flowing through the condenser increases, and the liquefied gas pump transfers the liquefied gas to the intercooler and reduces the flow rate of the first substance transferred from the intercooler to the compressor so that the proportion of the first material in the boil-off gas flowing through the condenser is within a preset value (overtime the continued operation of the cooling system could result in different concentrations as claimed, and if the first substance has a lower boiling point than the second substance it would evaporate in the economizers at a higher rate resulting in a higher concentration of the first substance, such as ethane flowing through the condenser, which could result in it achieving a preset value).
With respect to claim 6, Han as modified wherein the liquefied gas pump transfers the liquefied gas to the intercooler when the proportion of the first substance in the boil-off gas flowing through the condenser is greater than or equal to a preset value (as modified the transferring could and would happen regardless of what is happening with the first substance and thus would happen under those conditions as well).
With respect to claim 7, Han as modified teaches ship having the boil-off gas re-liquefying system of claim 1 (the reliquefaction system 2 is part of a ship, paragraphs 26-27).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US PG Pub 20190112022) teaches a similar overall setup of using intercoolers between compression stages during reliquefaction of boil-off gas.
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