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
This action is responsive to the amendment and remarks filed in response to the Non-Final Office action mailed February 6, 2026. Claims 1, 2, and 4–6 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claims 7–10 remain withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1, 2, and 4–6 are pending and under examination.
Applicant’s affirmation of the oral election of Group I (claims 1–6), made without traverse, is acknowledged and the election is hereby made of record.
A replacement drawing sheet bearing an amended Fig. 1 was filed with the amendment. The replacement sheet has been entered. However, a new objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is maintained for the reasons set forth below.
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 limitations “a storage tank … comprising an insulating portion in a vacuum state” and “a vacuum pump connected to the insulating portion to maintain the vacuum state of the insulating portion of the storage tank,” as recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Amended Fig. 1 depicts a box labeled “Vacuum Pump” together with a conduit extending to the reliquefaction apparatus and a discharge directed away from that box. Amended Fig. 1 does not, however, depict the storage tank as having any insulating portion; it does not depict any vacuum insulation layer, annular space, inner wall, or outer wall of the storage tank; and it does not identify any connection between the vacuum pump and the insulating portion of the storage tank as distinct from the connection to the reliquefaction apparatus. The storage tank continues to be depicted only as an unlabeled rectangle designated “T.” Because the vacuum-insulated construction of the storage tank and the connection of the vacuum pump to that construction are affirmatively recited structural limitations of amended claim 1, and because Applicant identifies the dual connection of a single vacuum pump as the feature distinguishing the claimed system from the prior art, each of these features must be illustrated.
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 1, 2, and 4–6 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 1 recites “a storage tank disposed in a ship” renders it unclear whether the ship in which the storage tank is disposed is the same ship recited in the preamble or a second, different ship. Appropriate correction is required; the limitation should read ––the ship––.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the reliquefaction apparatus is evacuated by the vacuum pump prior to N₂ purging.” Claim 1 is directed to a system, that is, to an apparatus. The quoted clause, however, recites an affirmative act performed upon that apparatus — evacuation — and further recites the temporal ordering of that act relative to a second act, N₂ purging. It is therefore not clear whether infringement of claim 1 occurs when a system having the recited structure is made or sold, or only when a user of that system actually evacuates the reliquefaction apparatus and thereafter purges it with nitrogen. A single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus is indefinite. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011); MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 1 further recites “N₂ purging” in line 20-21 without antecedent basis and without any corresponding structure. The claimed system as amended includes no nitrogen source, no nitrogen supply line, no valve, and no vent by which nitrogen could be introduced into or removed from the reliquefaction apparatus. It is accordingly unclear whether claim 1 positively requires the system to include structure for supplying nitrogen, whether N₂ purging is an act that must be performed for the claim to be met, and where within the system the nitrogen is introduced. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 further recites a vacuum pump “connected to the insulating portion to maintain the vacuum state of the insulating portion of the storage tank and connected to the reliquefaction apparatus to suction and vent a gas from the reliquefaction apparatus.” It is unclear whether the two recited connections are concurrent and permanently established, or whether they are selectively established one at a time. The ambiguity is not resolved by the specification; to the contrary, the specification indicates that the two connections are not of the same character. Paragraph 0053 describes the vacuum pump as disposed in the ship for the purpose of maintaining the internal vacuum state of the vacuum insulation layer, while ¶ 0056 describes the connection to the reliquefaction apparatus as being made through a hard pipe and a flexible pipe “when purging of the pipes and equipment of the reliquefaction apparatus is required” — that is, as a connection established on demand rather than a permanent one. Claim 1 nevertheless recites both connections in identical structural terms, and the hard pipe and flexible pipe by which the on-demand connection is disclosed to be made were removed from the claims by the cancelation of claim 3. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether claim 1 requires a permanent fluid connection to the reliquefaction apparatus, a connection that is established only during purging, or either. For purposes of applying prior art in the rejections set forth below, the Examiner interprets claim 1 as requiring a vacuum pump having a fluid connection to a vacuum-insulated portion of the storage tank and a fluid connection to the reliquefaction apparatus, either connection being direct or by way of intervening piping and valving and being either permanent or established on demand, and as not requiring any particular sequence of operation.
Claims 4–6 are rejected as indefinite for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, and further because each recites acts performed upon the claimed system rather than structure of the system. Claim 4 recites that “the gas in the reliquefaction apparatus is suctioned and vented by the vacuum pump” and that “nitrogen is supplied to and vented from the reliquefaction apparatus.” Claim 5 recites that those operations “are sequentially performed twice or more.” Claim 6 recites that “the gas in the reliquefaction apparatus is suctioned and vented for 1 hour by the vacuum pump at a vacuum pressure of about 7 mbara” and that “nitrogen is supplied to the reliquefaction apparatus … until an internal pressure reaches about 5 barg.” In each instance it cannot be determined whether the claim is infringed by making the system or by operating it, for the reasons and on the authority set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and adds only recitations of the manner in which the vacuum pump and the reliquefaction apparatus already recited in claim 1 are operated. Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and adds only the number of times those operations are repeated. Claim 6 depends from claim 2 and adds only the duration, the vacuum pressure, and the terminal purge pressure at which those operations are carried out. None of claims 4–6 adds any structural component, any structural relationship between components, or any structural configuration not already present in the claim from which it depends. Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor the material or article worked upon further limits an apparatus claim. MPEP §§ 2114(II), 2115; Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) (“Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Because the added recitations impart no limitation to the system of the parent claim, claims 4–6 do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
In view of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth above, the claims are examined below as best understood by the Examiner and in accordance with the interpretation stated in that rejection. Consistent with MPEP §§ 2114 and 2115, the recitations directed to the manner of operating the claimed system — namely the “wherein” clause of claim 1 and the operational recitations of claims 4–6 — are accorded no patentable weight. Evidence bearing on those recitations is nevertheless set forth below.
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
Statements in the specification that identify subject matter as conventional, as the state of the art, or as the work of another constitute admissions available as prior art against the applicant. See MPEP § 2129. The examiner relies upon the following statements, each of which appears in the “Background Art” or “Technical Tasks” portion of the specification and each of which characterizes the state of the art rather than the invention:
AAPA-1: All equipment and piping in a ship are subjected to N₂ purging immediately after fabrication or before initial start-up after equipment maintenance, in order to reduce an oxygen concentration in the equipment and piping while preventing moisture in air from condensing at low temperature (¶ 0010); and in a reliquefaction cycle using nitrogen refrigerant, moisture remaining in equipment and piping condenses and freezes and can damage the heat exchanger, measurement instruments, and piping, so that adjusting the dew point is very important (¶ 0011).
AAPA-2: Conventionally, the purging operation is performed by repeating a process of checking the dew point several times in order to meet the N₂ dew point after the purging operation (¶ 0012).
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard (WO 2019/145643 A1) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art and Epstein et al. (US 2015/0330575 A1), further in view of Boll et al. (US 2020/0018307 A1), and further in view of Cur et al. (US 7,908,873 B1).
In regard to claim 1, Bernard teaches a system of a ship (a storage tank 24 and a liquefied gas treatment device incorporating cryogenic heat pump 10 and a recondensation installation) comprising:
a storage tank (24) disposed in a ship to store a low-temperature liquefied gas (GNL, liquefied at approximately –163°C at atmospheric pressure and loaded into specialized vessels) (figs. 27, 29);
a reliquefaction apparatus (recondensation installation comprising compressor 48, the unique heat exchanger integrating the eighth and ninth circuits 50, 52, and the closed circuit of cryogenic heat pump 10) comprising:
a compressor (48) configured to compress boil-off gas (BOG withdrawn from the tank 24 by way of the BOG outlet 26 and the fifth circuit 36) generated from the storage tank (24) (fig. 29);
a heat exchanger (E2/E3, integrated in the fig. 29 variant as the unique heat exchanger carrying the eighth and ninth circuits 50, 52) in which the boil-off gas compressed in the compressor (48) is cooled (the compressed BOG delivered to the eighth circuit 50 at 20–60 °C is cooled and, in the ninth circuit 52, recondensed to a temperature at or below –160 °C) (fig. 29); and
a refrigerant circulation line (the closed circuit of heat pump 10, comprising compressor 12, expansion device 14, the first/third cold-receiving circuits 16, 20, and the second/fourth cold-transmitting circuits 18, 22) in which a refrigerant (cryogenic fluid selected from nitrogen, methane, oxygen, ethane, ethylene, butane, isobutane, propane, isopropane, argon, or a mixture thereof) to be subjected to heat exchange with the boil-off gas in the heat exchanger (E2) circulates (figs. 27, 29).
Bernard does not explicitly teach a storage tank comprising an insulating portion in a vacuum state, or a vacuum pump connected to the insulating portion to maintain the vacuum state of the insulating portion of the storage tank and connected to the reliquefaction apparatus to suction and vent a gas from the reliquefaction apparatus.
Epstein independently teaches the same arrangement, disclosing a cryogenic fuel storage system (10) for a liquefied natural gas boil-off management assembly, comprising a cryogenic fuel tank (22, 122) having a first wall (23) forming a storage volume (24) storing a cryogenic liquid fuel (12) that is liquefied natural gas, and a second wall (25) that substantially encloses the first wall (23) so as to define a gap (26) between the first wall (23) and the second wall (25) in order to thermally insulate the tank and reduce heat flow across the tank walls, wherein there is a vacuum in the gap (26) between the first wall (23) and the second wall (25) and that vacuum is created and maintained by a vacuum pump (28) (¶¶ 0044, 0047; fig. 3). Epstein further characterizes the resulting construction as a double wall vacuum feature providing improved insulation and greatly reduced heat flow to the LNG (¶ 0053), and describes the vacuum pump (28) as designed for active evacuation of the space between the double walled tank (¶ 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage tank of Bernard to comprise an insulating portion in a vacuum state and to provide a vacuum pump connected to that insulating portion to maintain the vacuum state thereof, in view of the teachings of Epstein, in order to obtain the improved insulation and greatly reduced heat flow to the stored liquefied gas that Epstein attributes to the double wall vacuum construction (Epstein, ¶¶ 0047, 0053, 0055), and thereby to reduce the rate at which boil-off gas is generated and, correspondingly, the reliquefaction duty imposed upon the shipboard plant. The need for the improvement is established by Bernard, which provides its boil-off management and cooling unit for that very reason.
Bernard as modified does not explicitly teach that the vacuum pump is further connected to the reliquefaction apparatus to suction and vent a gas from the reliquefaction apparatus.
However, Boll teaches a system attachable to a refrigerant circuit (10) comprising an evaporator (15), a compressor (20), a condenser (25), an expansion valve (30), and interconnecting conduit lines (17, 22, 27, 32), the system comprising a vacuum pump (45) that is attachable to the refrigerant circuit (10) through a port (35) and an electrically actuated valve (80) so as to be placed in fluid communication with the circuit (10), the vacuum pump (45) comprising a motor (65), a pump (70) operable to draw suction, an inlet port (77) for drawing gas from the circuit (10), and an outlet port (78) for discharging that gas to atmosphere, the vacuum pump (45) being operated to draw a deep vacuum in the circuit (10) so as to remove gas such as air and contaminants such as moisture from the components and interconnecting conduit lines thereof (¶¶ 0024–0025, 0028–0029, 0033, 0042; figs. 1, 3, 6, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Bernard as modified so that the vacuum pump is additionally connected to the reliquefaction apparatus to suction and vent a gas therefrom, in view of the teachings of Boll, in order to remove air, moisture, and other non-condensable contaminants from the refrigerant circulation line and the associated pipes and devices before the plant is placed in service. The motivation is expressly supplied by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art: AAPA-1 establishes that all equipment and piping in a ship are subjected to contaminant removal immediately after fabrication or before initial start-up after equipment maintenance, precisely in order to prevent moisture in air from condensing at low temperature, and that in a nitrogen-refrigerant reliquefaction cycle residual moisture condenses and freezes and damages the heat exchanger, measurement instruments, and piping (¶¶ 0010–0011). Boll’s vacuum pump is directed to removing those same contaminants from a closed refrigerant circuit (¶ 0042).
The modified Bernard teaches a vacuum pump connected to the insulating portion of the storage tank and a vacuum pump connected to the reliquefaction apparatus, but does not explicitly teach that a single vacuum pump is connected to, and performs the evacuation duty of, both.
However, Cur teaches a refrigeration system (10) in which a cooling system and an active insulation system are supported by a single machine, comprising a cooling system (12) including a compressor (14), a condenser (16), and a refrigerant (18); an active insulation system (20) including an insulation portion (22) comprising a vacuum insulation panel (50) held in a vacuumed condition; a valve (43) connecting the machine (14) both to a refrigeration suction line (45) and to an insulation suction line (49); and a controller (26) that opens the valve (43) to the insulation suction line (49) when the panels (50) have lost vacuum through diffusion of atmospheric gases, whereupon the machine (14) acts as a vacuum and evacuates the gas (24) from the panels (50), and that returns the valve (43) to the refrigeration suction line (45) once a predetermined depressurization level is reached, the machine (14) thus being usable either to compress the refrigerant (18) or to act as a vacuum pump for refrigerant or air (Abstract; Background of the Present Invention; Detailed Description of Embodiments; claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 16; figs. 1–3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Bernard as modified so that a single vacuum pump is connected both to the insulating portion of the storage tank, to maintain the vacuum state thereof, and to the reliquefaction apparatus, to suction and vent a gas therefrom, in view of the teachings of Cur, in order to dispense with the need for a second, dedicated machine, as Cur teaches. Cur further supplies the switching structure by which the sharing is accomplished, namely a valve (43) and a controller (26) that direct the machine to one duty or the other, and the two duties in Bernard as modified are of the same character as the two duties in Cur, each requiring the withdrawal of gas from an enclosed volume and each being performed intermittently rather than continuously. The modification is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, yielding the predictable result of one fewer machine to purchase, install, power, and maintain. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
With respect to the recitation “wherein the reliquefaction apparatus is evacuated by the vacuum pump prior to N₂ purging,” this limitation is directed to the manner in which the claimed system is operated and to the temporal ordering of two acts performed by means of the system. Neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor the material or article worked upon further limits an apparatus claim, and such limitations do not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. MPEP §§ 2114, 2115; Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Bernard as modified teaches every structural limitation of claim 1, and the vacuum pump thereof is fully capable of evacuating the reliquefaction apparatus before nitrogen is supplied to it.
Notwithstanding that the recitation carries no patentable weight, Boll further teaches evacuation of the circuit (10) by the vacuum pump (45) both after and before a nitrogen purge. Boll teaches releasing nitrogen into the circuit (10) to purge it of contaminants such as moisture, as indicated by step 128, and thereafter operating the vacuum pump (45) to draw a deep vacuum in the circuit (10), as indicated by step 130, followed by a decay test at step 132 (¶¶ 0040–0042; figs. 8, 9). Boll further teaches that where the desired vacuum level is not reached at step 130 or the decay test is not passed at step 132, the process returns for repair and the nitrogen purge of step 128 is performed again (fig. 8). The evacuation performed at step 130 therefore necessarily precedes the succeeding nitrogen purge performed at step 128, so that Boll teaches a vacuum pump that evacuates a refrigerant circuit prior to N₂ purging.
Note: In the Office action mailed February 6, 2026, the Examiner took Official Notice that it was well known in the cryogenic refrigeration and liquefaction arts to recover expansion work from an expander, such as a turboexpander, and to use that recovered energy to drive or assist in driving a compressor in the same refrigerant circuit, in order to improve overall system efficiency and reduce external power consumption. Applicant did not traverse that assertion in the response now under consideration. Where an applicant does not seasonably traverse a well-supported statement of Official Notice, the noticed fact is taken to be admitted prior art. MPEP § 2144.03(C). The noticed fact is accordingly relied upon below as admitted prior art.
In regard to claim 2, Bernard as modified teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the refrigerant circulation line (the closed circuit of heat pump 10) comprises:
a refrigerant expander (14) configured to expand and cool the refrigerant to be supplied to the heat exchanger (the cryogenic fluid discharged from the expansion device is in a diphasic state and is supplied to the second/fourth cold-transmitting circuits 18, 22 of the heat exchanger as the cold source, at an outlet temperature between –160 °C and –200 °C) (figs. 27, 29); and
a refrigerant compressor (12) configured to compress the refrigerant discharged after heat exchange in the heat exchanger (the cryogenic fluid, after being warmed in the fourth circuit 22 and the tenth circuit 22′ of the heat exchanger, is delivered to the inlet of compressor 12 for compression) (fig. 27),
wherein the refrigerant in the refrigerant circulation line is nitrogen (fig. 27, legend “N₂”).
Bernard does not explicitly teach that the refrigerant compressor is driven by receiving expansion energy of the refrigerant in the refrigerant expander.
However, as set forth above, it is admitted prior art that the recovery of expansion work from an expander and the use of that recovered energy to drive or assist in driving a compressor in the same refrigerant circuit was well known in the cryogenic refrigeration and liquefaction arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the refrigerant circulation line of Bernard as modified so that the refrigerant compressor (12) is driven by receiving expansion energy of the refrigerant in the refrigerant expander (14), in view of the admitted prior art, in order to recover the work of expansion that would otherwise be dissipated across the expansion device and to apply it directly to refrigerant compression, thereby improving the efficiency of the refrigerant cycle and reducing the external power that the vessel must supply to the reliquefaction plant. Configuring an expander in a closed cryogenic refrigerant loop to deliver its expansion work to a compressor of that same loop is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, involves no more than the exercise of ordinary skill, and yields the predictable result of improved cycle efficiency and reduced external power consumption. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
In regard to claim 4, Bernard as modified teaches the system of claim 2. The recitations that 1) the gas in the reliquefaction apparatus is suctioned and vented by the vacuum pump and 2) nitrogen is supplied to and vented from the reliquefaction apparatus are directed to the manner of operating the claimed system and to the material worked upon, and accordingly do not further limit the apparatus. MPEP §§ 2114, 2115. Bernard as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 4, the vacuum pump being connected to the reliquefaction apparatus so as to suction and vent a gas therefrom and being fully capable of the recited operation. Notwithstanding, Boll teaches drawing a vacuum in the circuit (10) with the vacuum pump (45) so as to remove gas and contaminants therefrom and discharging the withdrawn gas to atmosphere through the outlet port (78) (¶¶ 0029, 0042; figs. 1, 9), and teaches releasing nitrogen into the circuit (10) to purge the circuit (10) of contaminants such as moisture and thereafter removing the nitrogen and entrained contaminants from the circuit (10) (¶¶ 0041–0042; fig. 8). AAPA-1 independently establishes that supplying and venting N₂ to and from the equipment and piping of a ship was conventional (¶ 0010).
In regard to claim 5, Bernard as modified teaches the system of claim 4. The recitation that 1) and 2) are sequentially performed twice or more is directed to the manner of operating the claimed system and accordingly does not further limit the apparatus, for the reasons and on the authority set forth with respect to claim 4. Notwithstanding, AAPA-2 establishes that the purging operation was conventionally performed by repeating the process several times in order to meet the N₂ dew point requirement (¶ 0012), and Boll teaches that where the desired vacuum level is not reached at step 130 or the decay test at step 132 is not passed, the process returns for repair and the nitrogen purge of step 128 and the subsequent evacuation of step 130 are performed again, such that the recited evacuation and purge operations are performed sequentially two or more times (¶ 0040; fig. 8).
In regard to claim 6, Bernard as modified teaches the system of claim 2. The recitations that 1) the gas in the reliquefaction apparatus is suctioned and vented for 1 hour by the vacuum pump at a vacuum pressure of about 7 mbara and 2) nitrogen is supplied to the reliquefaction apparatus until an internal pressure reaches about 5 barg are directed to the manner of operating the claimed system and accordingly do not further limit the apparatus, for the reasons and on the authority set forth with respect to claim 4. Notwithstanding, Boll teaches that the vacuum pump (45) is operated until the pressure in the circuit (10) reaches a predetermined vacuum threshold set by the user, at which point a gauge accessory (100) signals the controller (73) and the vacuum pump (45) is deactivated, and further teaches supplying nitrogen into the circuit (10) so as to pressurize and purge it (¶¶ 0035–0036, 0039, 0041–0042; figs. 4, 7A, 8, 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an optimum or workable evacuation duration, evacuation pressure, and terminal purge pressure through routine experimentation, since each is a result-effective variable that directly governs the completeness of moisture and non-condensable removal and the residual dew point in the circuit — a relationship that AAPA-1 and AAPA-2 establish was recognized in the art (¶¶ 0010–0012) — and since the discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). The specification identifies no criticality for the recited values and reports no comparative results demonstrating that they achieve unexpected results relative to neighboring values.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, unless otherwise noted below.
Applicant argues that Bernard, Boll, and Epstein do not disclose that the reliquefaction apparatus is evacuated by the vacuum pump prior to N₂ purging, and that Boll teaches the opposite order.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, and the quoted clause recites the manner of operating the system and the ordering of two acts. Such recitations carry no patentable weight and do not distinguish the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus having the recited structure. MPEP §§ 2114, 2115. The vacuum pump of Bernard as modified is connected to the reliquefaction apparatus and is capable of evacuating it whenever the operator elects, including before nitrogen is supplied. The argument also fails on the merits. The passage relied upon appears at ¶ 0042 of Boll, not ¶ 0045, and describes a single pass through Boll’s service sequence. Boll’s fig. 8 discloses a loop in which a failure at step 130 or 132 returns the process for repair and thence to a repeated nitrogen purge at step 128, so that the evacuation at step 130 precedes the succeeding purge. Boll therefore teaches, and does not teach away from, evacuation prior to N₂ purging. Applicant’s own ¶¶ 0010 and 0012 further establish that the purge serves to remove moisture and was conventionally repeated to reach the required dew point.
Applicant argues that the cited references lack teaching and motivation to use a single vacuum pump for a dual purpose, and that none suggests using one vacuum pump for both storage tank insulation and pipe purging.
This argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection set forth above. Cur discloses a cooling system and an active insulation system supported by a single machine, wherein Cur states that the machine may compress the refrigerant or act as a vacuum pump for refrigerant or air. The dual-purpose use is therefore taught by the art, together with the switching structure that accomplishes it. Applicant’s contention that the arrangement reduces nitrogen consumption and purge time is also not persuasive. Neither result is recited in any claim, both follow predictably from removing gas from a volume before introducing purge gas into it, and no comparison against the closest prior art has been submitted. See MPEP §§ 716.01(c), 716.02(d).
Applicant argues that Boll and Epstein are from completely different fields and that a person of ordinary skill would have no motivation to combine them.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. A reference is analogous if it is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned; either prong suffices. See MPEP § 2141.01(a). In this case, Boll satisfies the second prong. Applicant’s own specification frames the problem as removing oxygen and moisture from the equipment and piping of a reliquefaction apparatus to meet a dew point requirement before start-up (¶¶ 0010–0013), and Boll evacuates and nitrogen-purges a closed refrigerant circuit to remove air and moisture (¶¶ 0024–0025, 0041–0042). A difference in the scale of the circuit does not make the teaching less pertinent; Applicant’s ¶ 0012 identifies scale as affecting only purge flow rate and time.
Epstein satisfies the first prong. Epstein is directed to boil-off management from a liquefied natural gas storage tank, to vacuum insulation of that cryogenic tank (¶¶ 0047, 0053, 0055), and to reliquefaction of the boil-off by a cryo-cooler (42) described as re-liquefying natural gas (¶ 0045). Its aircraft context does not remove it from that field. The same reasoning answers any like objection to Cur, which is directed to the identical problem of allocating one vacuum-generating machine between an insulation space and a refrigerant-side duty — an allocation independent of the scale of either.
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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights