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 .
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 storage tank in a ship (claim 1), the compressor (claim 1), a flow meter (claim 2), and a refrigerant circulation unit and refrigerant used for heat exchange (claim 7) 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 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 2-6 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 2 states “wherein blanket nitrogen is supplied….to maintain a constant pressure in the separator” and “nitrogen consumption…is monitored….reliquefaction system is operated in a bypass operation mode….” Which is found to be indefinite as these are positively recited method steps in an apparatus or structural claim. It is unclear how these steps structurally modify the apparatus. For the purpose of examination, the method steps are considered functional language and as long as the structure is recited in the prior art it will be assumed that the functional language can be performed, i.e. flow meter monitoring flow rate, presences of a bypass line and nitrogen blanket line as disclosed in claim 1.
Claim 4 states “subcooled reliquefied gas is supplied to the separator…..and….flow rate is monitored to determine whether to return….to a normal operation mode” all of which is claimed as method or process steps in an apparatus claim and is therefore found to be indefinite as it is unclear how the supplying and monitoring should be interpreted. For the purpose of this office action it will be assumed that this steps are functional language in an apparatus claim and therefore can be performed as long as there are control valves provided.
Claims 3 and 5-7 depend from claims 2 and 4 rejected above and therefore inherit the 35 USC 112 deficiencies of their parent 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-0638924 Daewoo in view of KR 10-1770917 Hyundai (both cited and provided by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Daewoo discloses A boil-off gas reliquefaction system for ships (see figure and abstract), comprising: a compressor 10 compressing boil-off gas generated from liquefied gas stored in a storage tank in a ship (boil off from cargo tanks sent to 10, see abstract); a reliquefaction line connecting the compressor to the storage tank and allowing the boil- off gas to be reliquefied and returned to the storage tank therealong (see piping/line through heat exchanger 20 liquefying boil off, sent through separator 30 and sent through valve 60 back to cargo tanks as LNG); a heat exchanger disposed on the reliquefaction line and cooling the boil-off gas compressed by the compressor (20); a separator (30) disposed on the reliquefaction line, separating the boil-off gas cooled by the heat exchanger into a gaseous phase and a liquid phase, and supplying separated liquefied gas to the storage tank (from separator 30 through valve 60 back to cargo tanks). Daewoo does not disclose a nitrogen blanket line along which nitrogen is supplied to an upstream side of the separator; and a bypass line branched from the reliquefaction line downstream of the heat exchanger and connected to the storage tank without passing through the separator. This is disclosed by Hyundai (figure 1) who provides a bypass line branched from the reliquefaction line downstream of the heat exchanger without passing through the separator and that liquefied being sent to a separator can also be sent through a bypass (see liquefied streams 11/12 to LNG drum 20 and also bypass stream 11 both of which have valves for controlling a bypass, see paragraph 34 and 69-72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a separator bypass line around an LNG separator as disclosed by Hyundai with the separator and liquefied natural gas feed of Daewoo in order to ensure flow control and even flow being distributed through the LNG pumps whether it be to a user or back to the ship tanks (paragraph 72) and also to help with separator pressure controls of the separator (see paragraphs 73-76). Hyundai further discloses a nitrogen blanket line along which nitrogen is supplied to an upstream side of the separator (see Nitrogen lines 22/22A/22B combining with boil off feed 23, see paragraphs 82-83). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a nitrogen blanket stream as a feed to the LNG separator as disclosed by Hyundai with the LNG separator of Daewoo in order to allow for safe pressure regulation of the LNG drum and to keep internal pressure of the separator constant and at appropriate levels (see paragraphs 82-87).
Regarding claim 2, Daewoo and Hyundai both disclose utilizing pressure meters within the separator however neither disclose the use of a flow meter on the nitrogen supplied flow. The examiner goes on official notice that flow meters are well known in the art and can be applied to monitor the flow for any stream within the process and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide additional control to the valves being utilize to control quantity of the streams being sent along the blanket or bypass lines. Further this is a simple substitution of one known measuring meter for another and also the use of a known technique to a known device (flow meters to natural gas liquefying plant process streams). See the 35 USC 112b rejection above with regard to the rest of the claim limitations which are considered to be functional language. Further as disclosed with respect to cl aim 1 above, Hyundai discloses controlling the pressure of the separator utilizing the blanket nitrogen stream and bypass line.
Regarding claim 3, Hyundai discloses further comprising: a first control valve disposed on the reliquefaction line downstream of a junction between the bypass line and the reliquefaction line; and a second control valve disposed on the bypass line (see valves on streams 11 and 12). See motivation in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, wherein, while the second control valve is opened to deliver the subcooled reliquefied gas to the storage tank along the bypass line, some of the subcooled reliquefied gas is supplied to the separator through the first control valve and the flow rate of the nitrogen supplied to the separator is monitored to determine whether to return the boil-off gas reliquefaction system to a normal operation mode. See 35 USC 112B rejection above with regard to any functional method language. See controllable valves on lines 11 and 12 of Hyundai. Monitoring flow rate is well known in the art and the examiner goes on official notice (see rejection and motivation of claim 2) that flow meters on process streams is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Hyundai further comprising: a pressure detector detecting an internal pressure of the separator (pressure regulation paragraphs 82-86 require pressure monitoring). Daewoo as modified by Hyundai discloses a pressure compensation line branched from the reliquefaction line downstream of the compressor to bypass the heat exchanger and joined with the nitrogen blanket line to be connected to the upstream side of the separator (see bypass from compressor 10 utilized as boil-off blanket gas through valves 60 and 50; and a pressure compensation valve disposed on the pressure compensation line downstream of a junction between the pressure compensation line and the back-up nitrogen blanket line, wherein the boil-off gas or the nitrogen is adjusted in pressure by the pressure compensation valve based on a pressure value detected by the pressure detector prior to being supplied to the separator (see 60/50, see functional language explanation in the 35 USC 112B rejection above). Daewoo provides for utilizing a branch off of compressed boil off before liquefaction as a blanket gas and Hyundai provides for combining compressed boiloff 23a/23 with the nitrogen blanket stream 22. See motivations in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Daewoo and Hyundai do not explicitly disclose further comprising: a first shut-off valve disposed on the pressure compensation line upstream of the junction between the pressure compensation line and the nitrogen blanket line; a second shut-off valve disposed on the nitrogen blanket line; and a check valve disposed on the nitrogen blanket line downstream of the second shut-off valve to prevent backflow however Daewoo discloses utilization of pressure control and check valves (50/60 for the boil off blanket gas). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize the pressure and check valves provided by Daewoo upstream and/or downstream of combining with nitrogen streams. Utilization of pressure control valves and check valves are well known to be applied to separator feed streams in LNG plants and it would be use of a known technique to improve similar devices avoiding back flow and providing additional pressure control of feed streams.
Regarding claim 7, Daewoo discloses further comprising: a refrigerant circulation unit through which refrigerant used for heat exchange with the boil-off gas in the heat exchanger is circulated, wherein the refrigerant in the refrigerant circulation unit is nitrogen (see refrigerant loop 40 used in HE 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798