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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 May, 2024 and 15 July, 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment filed 10 July, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The express incorporation by reference to European Application No. 21211667.7 and International Appl. Ser. No. PCT/NL2022/050690 is considered new matter. While the Applicant may claim priority to the European Application No. 21211667.7 and International Appl. Ser. No. PCT/NL2022/050690, it is new matter to further provide the entirety of each are incorporated by reference within the instant application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). See MPEP 608.01(p) – I(B). Further, an international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. See MPEP 1893.03(b). In this case, the filing date of the instant application is 1 December, 2022. As such, the inclusion of the incorporation by reference within the specification, by way of preliminary amendments, filed on 10 July, 2024, is new matter not supported by the originally-filed specification of the original disclosure at the time the application was effectively filed(i.e., the originally-filed disclosure of the International Appl. Ser. No. PCT/NL2022/050690 effectively filed on 1 December, 2022, which is the same filing date as the instant US application).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of recitations of implied phrases (“The invention is directed to”, “The invention is”, “The invention is further directed to”) and utilization of legal phraseology (“means of maritime transportation”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 , 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A carbon capture and liquefaction system (1) comprising”, which should be corrected to - - A carbon capture and liquefaction system (1) comprising: - -.
As to claim 1, there are multiple recitations of a limitation employing “during use”, which includes a grammatical error. Each instance should be amended to include commas before and after the recitation, such as - - , during use, - -. This includes the recitations in lines 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 22.
As to claim 2, there is a recitation of a limitation employing “during use”, which includes a grammatical error. Each instance should be amended to include commas before and after the recitation, such as - - , during use, - -. This includes the recitation in line 2.
As to claim 3, there is a recitation of a limitation employing “during use”, which includes a grammatical error. Each instance should be amended to include commas before and after the recitation, such as - - , during use, - -. This includes the recitation in line 3.
As to claim 4, there is a recitation of a limitation employing “during use”, which includes a grammatical error. Each instance should be amended to include commas before and after the recitation, such as - - , during use, - -. This includes the recitation in line 3.
Claim 8 is directed to a method using the exergy recovery section set forth by claim 1. As such it is clear the connection between the elements recited by the method and that previously within the apparatus. As such, the claim should be amended to connection these elements as second recitations(i.e., use of “the” in front of the element) not first recitations (i.e., use of “a” in front of the element). Claim 8 should be amended to recite - - A method for recovering exergy from LNG in an exergy recovery section (300) according to claim 1, where the method comprises: providing the LNG tank with the LNG; leading [[an]] the LNG stream (301 to the pressurization section (3) to obtain [[a]] the pressurized LNG stream (302); leading the pressurized LNG stream (302) to the vaporizer section (4) to obtain [[a]] the pressurized NG stream (401); leading the pressurized NG stream (401) to the turbine section (5) to obtain [[a]] the depressurized NG stream (501); wherein the method further comprises exchanging heat of [[a]] the CO₂ rich gas stream(1010) and the pressurized LNG stream (302). - -
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Means of maritime transportation” in claims 12-13 and 20, which is being interpreted as the structure defined at page 7, lines 6-8 and the equivalents thereof.
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 14 is 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 14 recites “Use of the system (1) according to claim 1 for liquefaction of CO₂ gas to obtain CO₂ liquid from a CO₂ containing gas.”, but fails to set forth any steps or acts involved to use the system which renders the claim indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is actually practiced. See MPEP § 2173.05(q). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a mere intended use of the system of claim 1 which only requires capability of the system of claim 1 being usable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because "Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 "). In Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967). See MPEP § 2173.05(q). For examination purposes, it is being interpreted as a mere intended use of the system of claim 1 which only requires capability of the system of claim 1 being usable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is AUDUN (US 2010/0251763 A1 – published 7 October, 2010) and WU (CN 113586953 A – published 2 November, 2021). While AUDUN effectively teaches an LNG exergy recovery section (figure 12), AUDUN is not concerned with combining such with a CO₂ capture system. In fact, AUDUN is merely directed to processing of CO₂ from a tank in conjunction with LNG. For this AUDUN fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest “A carbon capture and liquefaction system comprising (a) a CO₂ capture system adapted to during use provide a CO₂ rich gas stream, (b) a CO₂ liquefaction section adapted to during use liquefy at least part of said CO₂ rich gas stream to provide a liquefied CO₂ stream… wherein said CO₂ liquefaction section is in thermal connection to the vaporizer section, such that during use heat can be transferred from the pressurized LNG stream to the CO₂ rich gas stream”. Furthermore, WU teaches an LNG storage system joined with a CO₂ capture system (CO₂ is captured through the discharge of the flue gas emission device downstream of the marine gas engine for storage in 200). However, WU fails to reasonably disclose, teach, and/or otherwise suggest the LNG exergy recovery section, as required by the claims. Absent some teaching, motivation, and suggestion to modify the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence suggests the claimed invention is allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA M MARONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM to 4PM, 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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/JENNA M MARONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 2/21/2026
JENNA M. MARONEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763