DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-10), species 1 (Fig. 1), and subspecies B in the reply filed on 4/3/2026 with traverse is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: examining all of the alternatives would not be a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the allegation is without merit and support and fails to address the grounds of the lack of unity requirement, which shows that the several inventions, species, and subspecies do not share a special technical feature and therefore do not have unity. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 7, 8, 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, species, or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 7-8 do not read on species 1, but are directed to species 2, as the pipe (61) of species 1 does not form part of the cooling branch. Claim 10 does not describe species 1, since there is no device for cooling “the gas” as claimed.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers are faded, too small, and insufficiently clear. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “designed to” and “intended to” is/are indefinite since there is no way to discern what features, characteristics, or qualities are included by such purpose or intent. This terminology is indefinite throughout the claims and must be corrected in every instance.
The recitation, “the evaporation” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “this cryogenic liquid” is indefinite for failing to properly reference ---the cryogenic liquid--.
The recitation, “at least one compression member” is indefinite for reasons described in the claim interpretation section and also the recitation is entirely indefinite since the ordinary meaning of compression is to increase in pressure or to compress and the depicted valve (57) does not compress any fluid whatsoever. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “compression” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “expansion” or decreasing in pressure, while the accepted meaning of “compression” is to increase in pressure or to compress. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term and is particularly egregious for using a term of opposite meaning. All recitations of “decompression member” throughout the claims are indefinite and presumed amended to read on a structure of a valve (see claim interpretation section below).
The recitation, “wherein the supply system comprises at least one calibrated opening intended to be arranged within the tank between the compression member and one end of a pipe intended to open into the tank” is indefinite for the “intended” language as already explained and further as there is no way to determine what structure is required of the term “calibrated”. The specification fails to define what calibrated requires and there is no way to determine if this requires a particular size or requires some relationship with a fluid flow therethrough or requires some other matching. Additionally, the location recited is entirely unclear. The disclosed and elected species shows an opening (59) which is at one end of a pipe (61) and not between valve (57) and an end. This is a serious inconsistency with the disclosure that must be correctly addressed.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “a flow direction of the cryogenic liquid in the first pass of the heat exchanger” is entirely indefinite since only the recited gas goes through the first pass of the heat exchanger and it is entirely unclear what fluid flow is being referenced.
The recitation, “the cryogenic liquid in the second pass of the heat exchanger” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis for the cryogenic liquid as the claim never states that “the cryogenic liquid” is in the second pass.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “the intake side” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the output side” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “a heat exchanger” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already recited and it is unclear if this is the heat exchanger previously recited or some other heat exchanger.
The recitation, “calories” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already recited and it is unclear if this is the calories previously recited or some other calories.
The recitation, “its compression” is indefinite as it is unclear what its references.
The recitation, “this gas” is indefinite since it is unclear what fluid is being referenced.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “compression device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the specification that defines the structure of this recitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the device is considered to be any compressor.
Claim limitation “compression member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is nothing in the specification that defines the structure of this recitation. In addition, the terminology is expressly inconsistent with the drawings as a valve (as depicted for element 57) does not compress any fluid whatsoever. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For present examination, the member is considered to be any valve capable of decompressing fluid.
Claim limitation “a device for cooling gas” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as a nitrogen refrigerant system.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (KR 10-2069919) hereafter KR919. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, KR919 teaches a supply system (see whole disclosure and Figs. 3, 4, 6, 7) for a consumer (20) supplied with a fuel prepared from a gas (boil-off gas, page 2) generated by evaporation of a cryogenic liquid (in 10) comprising at least methane (page 2), the cryogenic liquid (in 10) being stored in at least one tank (10), the supply system comprising:
at least one compressor (40),
a heat exchanger (33 or 35),
a supply branch (11 to 20) to supply at least a portion (some of) of the gas (Boil-off gas) from the tank (10) to the consumer (20) and a cooling branch (15a, 15b, 15c, 15d, or 11) to cool the gas (boil-off gas in 12 is cooled) taken from the tank (10),
the heat exchanger (33 or 35) comprising a first pass (12 to 13 or 13a) arranged on the supply branch (11 to 20) and a second pass (other pass in 33 or 35) arranged on the cooling branch (15a, 15b, 15c, 15d, or 11),
the second pass (other pass in 33 or 35) to exchange calories (heat) with the first pass (12 to 13 or 13a) in order to at least partially liquefy the gas flowing in the first pass (12 to 13 or 13a; page 8, page 2, page 5),
the compressor (40) arranged on the supply branch (11 to 20) between the tank (10) and the heat exchanger (33 or 35),
a fuel preparation system (see identifications below, hereafter assembly) arranged between the heat exchanger (33 or 35) and the consumer (20),
wherein the fuel preparation system (assembly) comprises:
a phase separator (51) and at least one decompression member (61) arranged between a liquid outlet (at bottom of 51) of the phase separator (51) and the tank (10),
at least one gas outlet (top of 51) of the phase separator (51) connected to the consumer (20) for delivery of the fuel (page 3), and
wherein the supply system comprises a pipe (13b, 16) between the decompression member (61) and the tank (10), the pipe (13b, 16) having at least one calibrated opening (opening in the pipe) at one end of the pipe (13b, 16) within the tank (10).
In regard to claim 2, KR919 teaches that the calibrated opening (opening in 13b, 16) is arranged closer to the end of the pipe (13b, 16) which opens into the tank than to the decompression member (61).
In regard to claim 3, KR919 teaches that the cryogenic liquid is a liquefied natural gas (page 2 “LNG”).
In regard to claim 4, KR919 teaches a flow direction in the first pass (12 to 13 or 13a) of the heat exchanger (33, 35) is oriented in an opposite direction (see figures 3, 4, 6, 7) to a flow direction of the second pass (other pass in 33 or 35) of the heat exchanger (33, 35).
In regard to claim 5, KR919 teaches that an input of the preparation system (assembly as identified) is connected to an output (to 13) of the first pass (12 to 13 or 13a) and an output of the preparation system (assembly as identified) is connected (at least fluidly) to an output (outlet thereof) of the second pass (other pass in 33 or 35) (also see .
In regard to claim 6, KR919 teaches that the supply branch (11) comprises a second heat exchanger (35a) to exchange second calories (other heat) between the gas (BOG) prior to the compressor (40) and a compressed gas (at least some from 40) from the compressor (40).
In regard to claim 9, KR919 teaches that the liquid outlet (at bottom) of the phase separator (51) is connected to the tank (10) directly via the pipe (13b, 16).
Claim(s) 1-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2021/0148514). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Lee teaches a supply system (see whole disclosure and Fig. 2) for a consumer (engine(s)) supplied with a fuel prepared from a gas (boil-off gas, para. 96) generated by evaporation of a cryogenic liquid (in T) comprising at least methane (para. 3), the cryogenic liquid (in T) being stored in at least one tank (T), the supply system comprising:
at least one compressor (200),
a heat exchanger (100),
a supply branch (L2, L3) to supply at least a portion (some of) of the gas (Boil-off gas) from the tank (T) to the consumer (engines) and a cooling branch (L1) to cool the gas (boil-off gas in L3) taken from the tank (T),
the heat exchanger (100) comprising a first pass (in 100 from L3 to L4) arranged on the supply branch (L2, L3) and a second pass (in 100 from L1) arranged on the cooling branch (L1),
the second pass (in 100 from L1) to exchange calories (heat) with the first pass (in 100 from L3 to L4) in order to at least partially liquefy the gas flowing in the first pass (in 100 from L3 to L4),
the compressor (200) arranged on the supply branch (L2, L3) between the tank (T) and the heat exchanger (100),
a fuel preparation system (see identifications below, hereafter assembly) arranged between the heat exchanger (100) and the consumer (engines),
wherein the fuel preparation system (assembly) comprises:
a phase separator (700) and at least one decompression member (581) arranged between a liquid outlet (at bottom of 700) of the phase separator (700) and the tank (T),
at least one gas outlet (top of 700) of the phase separator (700) connected to the consumer (engines) for delivery of the fuel (para. 97), and
wherein the supply system comprises a pipe (L5) between the decompression member (581) and the tank (T), the pipe (L5) having at least one calibrated opening (opening in the pipe) at one end of the pipe (L5) within the tank (T).
In regard to claim 2, Lee teaches that the calibrated opening (opening in L5) is arranged closer to the end of the pipe (L5) which opens into the tank (T) than to the decompression member (581).
In regard to claim 3, Lee teaches that the cryogenic liquid is a liquefied natural gas (“LNG”; para. 2-4).
In regard to claim 4, Lee teaches a flow direction in the first pass (in 100 from L3 to L4) of the heat exchanger (100) is oriented in an opposite direction (see Fig. 2) to a flow direction of the second pass (in 100 from L1) of the heat exchanger (100).
In regard to claim 5, Lee teaches that an input of the preparation system (assembly as identified) is connected to an output (to L4) of the first pass (in 100 from L3 to L4) and an output of the preparation system (assembly as identified) is connected (at least fluidly) to an output (outlet thereof) of the second pass (in 100 from L1).
In regard to claim 6, Lee teaches that the supply branch (L2, L3) comprises the heat exchanger (100) to exchange the calories (heat) between the gas (BOG) prior to the compressor (200) and a compressed gas (at least some from 200) from the compressor (200).
In regard to claim 9, Lee teaches that the liquid outlet (at bottom) of the phase separator (700) is connected to the tank (T) directly via the pipe (L5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights