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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 19 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 1; the phrase “comprising at least two compression” should be changed to --further comprising at least two compressions-- to set a further limitation of the subjected matter claimed.
In claim 16, line 2; the phrase “a turbine” should be changed to --the turbine-- for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 19, line 3; the phrase “a compression stage” should be changed to --the compression stage-- for proper antecedent basis.
In claim 22, line 3; the phrase “wherein the facility comprises, for the gas flow rich in nitrogen, successively from the outlet of the treatment unit:” should be changed to -- wherein the facility comprises, --
In claim 22, line 8; the phrase “a compression stage” should be changed to --the compression stage-- for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: None of the drawings reference characters are cited in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 INTERPRETATION
3. 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
© 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: compression stage for, expansion stage capable, a thermal device, a compression stage and a device for in claim 1; and gas/heat transfer fluid heat exchangers for in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
4. 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 13-24 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation " the expansion of the gas flow rich in nitrogen" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as best understood and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the recited limitation to mean “an expansion of the gas flow rich in nitrogen”.
Claims 14-24 are rejected based upon their dependency from claim 13.
Claim 13, calls for the limitation of " least one compression stage for compressing the feed gas flow before it enters the treatment unit " in lines 7-8. It is unclear what constitutes the “it”.
Claims 14-24 are rejected based upon their dependency from claim 13.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "each expansion stage of the turbine being arranged so as to transmit mechanical energy to the compression assembly, the arrangement is irrespective of whether directly to one of the compression stages or to a rotational shaft common to several compression stages or to a shaft of a motor which actuates the compression stages” in lines 3-7. The limitations render the claim indefinite as the recitation amount to process steps, while the claim is drawn to a device (as provided by the preambles of the claims). Accordingly, the apparent conflicts between the limitations render the claims indefinite as it is unclear which statutory category the claimed invention fall within. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17, calls for the limitation of "in such a way, that the gas flow rich in nitrogen" in line 2. It is unclear what constitutes the “a way”. As best understood, for the purposes of examination, the limitation “in such a way, that the gas flow rich in nitrogen” has been interpreted as “such that, the gas flow rich in nitrogen.”
Claim 18, lines 1-3, the term “the expansion stage or stages are dimensioned to provide at least 25% of the mechanical energy required for operating the compression stages” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least 25%” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 22, line 2, calls for the limitation of the "successively from the outlet of the treatment unit”; this phrase renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of “successively” is unclear and potentially could lead to multiple interpretations; the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 23, calls for the limitation of " the gas flow rich in nitrogen and the feed gas flow by way of the intermediate heat transfer fluid" in lines 4-5. It is unclear what constitutes the “by way”.
Claim 24, recites the limitation "the wet feed gas flow” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220267147-A1 to RAVIKUMAR; Ravi.
US-20220259042-A1 to RAVIKUMAR; Ravi.
US-20210188632-A1 to LIM; Chin Han.
US-20200386155-A1 to Younes; Mourad.
US-10315150-B2 to Huntington; Richard A.
US-20190135626-A1 to Rafati; Mohammad.
US-20190093884-A1 to BOULET; Andre.
US-20180154300-A1 to Huntington; Richard A.
US-20170204335-A1 to Ravikumar; Ravi.
US-20170138222-A1 to SUNDARAM; Narasimhan.
US-20160256820-A1 to KULKARNI; Sudhir S.
US-20140230401-A1 to Dunn; Paul M.
US-20130333391-A1 to SUNDARAM; NARASIMHAN.
US-20120125194-A1 to Caram; Hugo S.
US-5724805-A to Golomb; Dan S.
US-4797141-A to Mercader; Juan P.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL E DUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5290. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, 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.
/EMMANUEL E DUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 07/15/2026
Prosecution Insights