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 1-14), Species 1 (Fig. 1, pg. pub. para. 31), subspecies A (pg. pub. para. 26, 50), subspecies 3 (static mixer) in the reply filed on 5/26/2026 without traverse is acknowledged. Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, species, or subspecies, there being no allowable generic or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. Note that claim 3 depends from withdrawn claim 2 and is therefore necessarily withdrawn.
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.
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, 9, 14 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, “, , ” in the preamble is grammatically errant.
The recitation, “a liquefied gas store” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing that which was already previously introduced.
The recitation, “the fluid” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “the fluid aspirated by subcooling circuit” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing subcooling circuit and for lacking proper antecedent basis for “the fluid”.
The recitation, “to recover the boil-off gas” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
The recitation, “a consumer of boil-off gas” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing boil-off gas and it is unclear if this is the same or other fluid.
The recitation, “to enable boil-off gas” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing boil-off gas and it is unclear if this is the same or other fluid.
The recitation, “cold” is indefinite for being relative and patently indistinct and there is no way to determine what temperature is included and excluded by the recitation thereof.
The recitation, “the recovery pipe” is indefinite for not being consistent with the previous recitations and it is unclear if this is the same or different pipe from the boil-off gas recovery pipe.
The recitation, “the store” is indefinite for failing to consistently reference the “liquefied gas store” and it is unclear if this the same or other storage.
The recitation, “a second end connected to the subcooling circuit” is indefinite since the disclosed and elected invention and species shows that the second end is connected to a mixer (12) not the subcooling circuit itself and therefore it is unclear how to interpret the present recitation.
In regard to claim 9, the recitation, “the junction” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 14, the recitations of the claim are indefinite for referencing claim 1 but reintroducing structures that were already introduced in claim 1. The recitation, “a device for keeping the fluid contained in the store cold,” is indefinite since claim 1 already introduces recitation of a device and it is unclear how the presently recited device is any different or is the same. Further, the previously recited device was for keeping a liquefied gas store cold not “the fluid” and therefore the present recitation is inconsistent. The recitation, “at least one liquefied gas store” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing what was already presented in claim 1. The recitation, “the cold maintenance device” is indefinite for being inconsistent with the device of claim 1 which is “a device for keeping a liquefied gas store cold” not a cold maintenance device.
Lastly, the recited “liquefied gas storage facility” is indefinite for appearing to have no additional structure than what is already present in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear what additional structure is required to provide the recited structure of claim 14.
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.
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that the mixing unit does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph at least because of the structure recited able to perform the function (static mixer).
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, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jong (KR 20230087633). 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(s) 1, 14, Jong teaches a device (see all figures and whole disclosure) for keeping a liquefied gas store (101) cold (relatively), comprising:
a cryogenic refrigerator (having at least 152, 154, para. 51-53),
a subcooling circuit (at least L17, L10) comprising a set of pipes (L17, L10), the subcooling circuit (at least L17, L10) comprising an aspiration end (at P) configured to be seated (located) in a lower portion (near bottom of 101) of the liquefied gas store (101) and configured to aspirate the liquefied gas (the LNG goes into the end with P),
a heat exchanger (125) exchanging heat between a fluid (in line to 125 from 120) in the subcooling circuit (at least L17, L10) and the refrigerator (having at least 152, 154), the subcooling circuit (at least L17, L10) comprising at least one injection end (127) configured to inject the fluid (in line to 125 from 120) cooled in the heat exchanger (125) into the liquefied gas store (101),
a boil-off gas recovery pipe (at least L11) having an upstream end (near 101) configured to be connected to an upper portion (near top of 101) of the liquefied gas store (101) to recover a boil-off gas (gas entering L11), the boil-off gas recovery pipe (at least L11) comprising a downstream end (after 110) configured to be connected to a consumer (E2 at least) of the boil-off gas (gas entering L11), and
a bypass pipe (part of L12) and a set of valves (see on L12) configured to enable at least some of the boil-off gas (gas entering L11) to be transferred from the recovery pipe (L11) to the subcooling circuit (L17, L10), the bypass pipe (part of L12) having a first end (upstream end) connected (fluidly) to the boil-off gas recovery pipe (at least L11) and a second end (downstream end) connected to the subcooling circuit (L17, L10), wherein the second end (downstream end) of the bypass pipe (L12) is connected to the subcooling circuit (L17, L10) upstream of the heat exchanger (125).
In regard to claim 9, Jong teaches a static mixer (120; para. 45) mixing the boil-off gas (gas entering L11) into the subcooling circuit (L17, L10), the static mixer (120) being located at a junction (connection location) between the second end (downstream end) of the bypass pipe (L12) and the subcooling circuit (L17, L10).
In rehearsed regard to claim 14, Jong teaches a liquefied gas storage facility (see all figures) comprising the liquefied gas store (101) and the device (see all figures and whole disclosure) for keeping the liquefied gas cold as claimed in claim 1.
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). 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
Prosecution Insights