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.
Preliminary Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment filed on 8/30/2024.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 04/10/2026. Claims 15-20 are new. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 5-20, in the reply filed on 4/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that a thorough and complete search of the subject matter of the claims of Group II would likely encompass the subject matter of, at least, the non-elected claims of Group I, where both claims 1 and 5 incorporate limitations to a “multi-stage compressor”. This is not found persuasive because as pointed out in MPEP 1850, the decision in Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks resulted in a determination that “when the Office considers international applications . . . during the national stage as a Designated or Elected Office under 35 U.S.C. 371, PCT Rule 13.1 and 13.2 will be followed when considering unity of invention of claims of different categories without regard to the practice in national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111.” (italics added). The section of the MPEP cited by the applicant regarding establishing burden concerns national US restriction practice applied to applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111; since this application is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, arguments regarding burden are not applicable.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected ammonia-production compression unit, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/10/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024, 02/28/2025, 08/06/2025 was filed before the first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "4" and "41" have both been used to designate a chiller, see at least 0043 and 0061 of Applicant Specification. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The methanation reaction O2+4H2↔CH4+2H2O in 0059 of Applicant Specification should be - - CO2+4H2↔CH4+2H2O - -.
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.
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:
A refrigerant compression unit in claim 5;
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.
the refrigerant compression unit is featured by the second set of compressor stages 317F, 317G and 317H, 0043 of Applicant Specification; the refrigerant compression unit and the syngas compression unit are combined in the same multi-stage compressor 31; 0044 of Applicant Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claim 5, contains new matter as it comprises “An ammonia production system, including: a syngas compression unit; an ammonia converter…” which is disclosed as being a part of the embodiments of figures 1-4, and has been amended to include “a multi stage compressor having a first set of compressor stages and a second set of compressor stages, the first set forming a syngas compression unit and the second set of compressor stages forming an ammonia converter” where there is no embodiment that includes a second set of compressor stages forming an ammonia converter. Thus, claim 5 is an embodiment that includes compressor stages forming a syngas compression unit and compressor stages forming an ammonia converter. However, there is no disclosure in Applicant's originally filed Specification for an invention that includes compressor stages forming an ammonia converter.
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 5-20 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation “a multi stage compressor having a first set of compressor stages and a second set of compressor stages, the first set forming a syngas compression unit and the second set of compressor stages forming an ammonia converter” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, in light of Applicant Specification 0036-0038, the original disclosure describes the syngas flow is sequentially compressed at increasingly higher-pressure values in the compressor stages 317A, 317B, 317C, 317D and the delivery side of the compressor stage 317D is fluidly coupled to an ammonia converter 37, and an ammonia converter 37 is where the synthesis reaction takes place. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a set of compressor stages and an ammonia converter are different structures with distinct functions.
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 examination purposes, the limitation “…and the second set of compressor stages forming an ammonia converter” has been interpreted generically as - - … ; an ammonia converter - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation “the stage of the first set of compressor stages” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend the limitation “the stage” to recite - - a stage - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation “compressing syngas in the first set of compressor stages” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes the recitation is interpreted as - - compressing the syngas in the first set of compressor stages - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 13, the recitation “feeding ammonia from the ammonia converter” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For examination purposes the recitation is interpreted as - - feeding the ammonia from the ammonia converter - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 14, the recitation “recirculating the recovered syngas through one of the compressor stages of the second set of compressor stages of the multistage compressor” renders the claim unclear.
In particular, claim 5 recites the first set of compressor stages as forming a syngas compression unit. Claim 13 further recites removing heat from the refrigerant and compressing the refrigerant in the second set of compressor stages. In the embodiment of Figure 1 of the applicant specification one group of stages is dedicated to syngas compression and the other is dedicated to refrigerant compression, 0044. Further 0046 of Applicant Specification describes recovered syngas from ammonia separator 45 is merged with compressor 317D from the first set of compressor stages in the embodiment of Figure 2. However, there is no disclosure in Applicant's originally filed Specification for an invention that includes recovered syngas through one of the compressor stages of the second set.
For examination purposes the recitation is interpreted as - - recirculating the recovered syngas through one of the compressor stages of the first set of compressor stages of the multistage compressor - - for clarity.
Regarding Claim 20, the recitation “wherein all compression of syngas and refrigerant occurs in the multi-stage compressor” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Please amend the claims to recite - - wherein all compression of the syngas and the refrigerant occurs in the multi-stage compressor - - for clarity.
Claims 6-7, 9-14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Fiori (US20190210885A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fiori discloses an ammonia production system [ammonia production plant 1, Figure 1], comprising:
a multi stage compressor [see embodiments of combined compressor trains in Figures 7-12, where the overall layout of the remaining sections and components of the ammonia production system can remain as shown in Fig. 1; 0053] having a first set of compressor stages [syngas compression section 34, Figures 7-12] and a second set of compressor stages [refrigerant compression train 46, feed gas compression section 8, or air compression section 22, embodiments of multi stage compressor trains in Figures 7-12, where the refrigerant compression section 46 can be an integrally geared compressor; 0080; where the air compression section 22 can comprise an integrally geared compressor 129; 0082; where the feed gas compression section 9 can include an integrally geared compressor; 0093], the first set forming a syngas compression unit [syngas compression section 34, Figure 14; 0075];
an ammonia converter [ammonia converter 43, Figure 1];
an ammonia chiller [chiller 45, Figure 1] having a hot side [where ammonia from ammonia converter passes through, Figure 1; 0017] and a cold side [where refrigeration cycle passes through; 0017], the hot side fluidly coupled to the ammonia converter [where ammonia from the ammonia converter 43 is chilled in a chiller 45; 0017];
an ammonia refrigeration circuit fluidly coupled to the cold side of the ammonia chiller [where chilling is achieved by means of a refrigeration cycle; 0017]; and
a refrigerant compression unit [refrigerant compression section 46; 0017] adapted to circulate a refrigerant in the ammonia refrigeration circuit [where chilling is achieved by means of a refrigeration cycle which comprises a refrigerant compression section 46; 0017].
Regarding Claim 7, Fiori, discloses the invention of claim 5, and further discloses an ammonia separator [liquid/gas separator 55, where the gaseous ammonia is removed; 0018] downstream of the ammonia chiller [where the chilled ammonia from chiller 45 flows through a liquid/gas separator 55, Figure 1; 0018]; and
a syngas recirculation line [line 57, Figure 1] fluidly connected to the ammonia separator and a stage of the first set of compression stages [where gaseous ammonia is removed and recycled through the syngas compression train from separator 55, as pictorially represented by line 57; 0018].
Claim 11 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “syngas recirculation” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, a line fluidly connected to the ammonia separator and a stage of the first set of compressor stages, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding Claim 9, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5 and further discloses where an ammonia separator [liquid/gas separator 55, where the gaseous ammonia is removed; 0018] downstream of the ammonia chiller [where the chilled ammonia from chiller 45 flows through a liquid/gas separator 55, Figure 1; 0018]; and
a syngas recirculation line [line 57, Figure 1] fluidly connected to the ammonia separator [where gaseous ammonia is removed and recycled through the syngas compression train from separator 55, as pictorially represented by line 57; 0018] and to a stage of the first set of compressor stages [compressor 116 of compressor train 111, embodiment of Figure 7 in Figure 14], wherein the stage of the first set of compressor stages is fluidly coupled to a delivery side of an upstream stage of the first set of compressor stages [where compressor 117 is upstream of compressor 116 in compression train 111, embodiment of Figure 14].
Regarding Claim 17, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5 and further discloses where the second set of compressor stages [refrigerant compression train 46, feed gas compression section 8, or air compression section 22, embodiments of multi stage compressor trains in Figures 7-12, where the refrigerant compression section 46 can be an integrally geared compressor; 0080; where the air compression section 22 can comprise an integrally geared compressor 129; 0082; where the feed gas compression section 9 can include an integrally geared compressor; 0093] comprises between 2 and 4 compressor stages [where integrally geared compressors provides for different rotational speeds for the different compressor stages, where each pinion in turn rotates one or more compressor wheels; 0047].
Regarding Claim 20, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5 and further wherein all compression of the syngas and the refrigerant occurs in the multi-stage compressor [compressor train 111 of the embodiment of Figure 7 and Figure 14 where syngas compression section 34 and refrigerant compression section 46 share driver 113; 0075].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiori (US20190210885A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Sugimura (JP2000154020A).
Regarding Claim 6, Fiori disclose the invention of claim 5 and does not disclose the refrigerant is ammonia.
However, Sugimura teaches a compressor system for ammonia production [0001] including an ammonia liquefaction device [28, Figure 5; 0007] where the refrigerant is ammonia [where an ammonia liquefaction device 28 is for liquefying ammonia by cooling with ammonia refrigerant; 0007] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements, ammonia refrigerant and a refrigeration cycle, as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., cooling ammonia to the temperature necessary to liquify ammonia [Sugimura; 0019]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to have where the refrigerant is ammonia in view of the teachings of Sugimura where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., cooling ammonia to the temperature necessary to liquify ammonia [Sugimura; 0019]
Claims 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiori (US20190210885A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Vaughan (US2198098A).
Regarding Claim 8, Fiori discloes the invention of claim 5 and further discloses an ammonia separator [liquid/gas separator 55, where the gaseous ammonia is removed; 0018] downstream of the ammonia chiller [where the chilled ammonia from chiller 45 flows through a liquid/gas separator 55, Figure 1; 0018]: and a syngas recirculation line fluidly connected to the ammonia separator [line 57, Figure 1] and to a stage of the first set of compressor stages [compressor 116 of the compressor train 111 embodiment of Figure 7 and Figure 14] but does not teach where a stage of the first set of compressor stages is adapted to process only syngas recirculated from the ammonia separator.
However, Vaughn teaches recovering desirable liquefiable consituents from high pressure gas [col. 1, lines1-5] where wherein the multi-stage compressor [compressor C, Figure 1] includes a stage of the first set of compressor stages [cylinders 25 and 26, Figure 1] is adapted to process only syngas recirculated from the ammonia separator [where residue gas from separator 16 is compressed in cylinders 25 and 26 to then be recycled in the recovery process; p.2, right col., lines 11-29] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., saving power by distributing loading requirements to different compressor stages [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 59-p.5, left col., line 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to where a stage of the first set of compressor stages is adapted to process only syngas recirculated from the ammonia separator in view of the teachings of Vaughn where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., saving power by distributing loading requirements to different compressor stages [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 59-p.5, left col., line 6].
Regarding Claim 16, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5, but does not wherein the multi-stage compressor comprises a second set of cylinders that compresses the refrigerant.
However, Vaughn teaches recovering desirable liquefiable consituents from high pressure gas [p. 1, left col., lines 1-5] where wherein the multi-stage compressor [compressor C, Figure 1] comprises a second set of cylinders [cylinders 36 and 36a, Figure 1] that compresses the refrigerant [where expansion of liquid ammonia in cooling raw gas in chiller 13 is drawn into a low stage cylinder 36 of compressor C and a high stage cylinder 36a of compressor C, Figure 1; p. 3, right col., lines 30-51] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., saving power by distributing loading requirements to different compressor stages [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 59-p.5, left col., line 6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to where the multi-stage compressor comprises a second set of cylinders that compresses the refrigerant in view of the teachings of Vaughn where the substitution of two elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., saving power by distributing loading requirements to different compressor stages [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 59-p.5, left col., line 6].
Regarding Claim 19, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5 and does not disclose where the second set of compressor stages is adapted to provide a compression ratio between 12 and 17.
However, Vaughn teaches a method of recovering desirable liquefiable constituents from high pressure gas [p. 1, left col., lines 1-5] where the second set of compressor stages [stages 36 and 36a, Figure 1] is adapted to provide a compression ratio [from 5 to 10 lbs. per sq in. to about 190 lbs. per sq. in.; p.4, right col., lines 15-36, where the compression ratio would be at least about 19] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, power distribution where any savings are immediately reflected in increased capacity in the gas compression end [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 67-74], to achieve a recognized result, i.e., saving power by distributing loading requirements to different compressor stages while providing sufficient cooling [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 50-p.5, left col., line 6].
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the second set of compressor stages of a multi-stage compressor, were disclosed in the prior art by Fiori, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Fiori by employing a compression ratio between 12 and 17 to achieve a recognized results, i.e., saving power by distributing loading requirements to different compressor stages while providing sufficient cooling [Vaughn; p.4, right col., lines 50-p.5, left col., line 6].
Claims 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiori (US20190210885A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Kniskern (US1936167A).
Regarding Claim 10, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5, and does not teach where the multi- stage compressor is a reciprocating compressor.
However, Kniskern teaches an apparatus for manufacturing synthetic ammonia [col. 1, lines 1-8] where the multi- stage compressor is a reciprocating compressor [where numerals 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 indicate the compression units or cylinders of a five-stage compressor; p. 1, line 108 – p. 2, line 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., providing cost-effective pressure control under changing operating conditions [Kniskern, p.2, lines 18-41]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to where the multi-stage compressor is a reciprocating compressor in view of the teachings of Kniskern where the substitution of an element for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing cost-effective pressure control under changing operating conditions [Kniskern, p.2, lines 18-41]
Regarding Claim 11, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5, and does not teach wherein the first set of compressor stages comprises between 3 and 5 compressor stages
However, Kniskern teaches an apparatus for manufacturing synthetic ammonia [col. 1, lines 1-8] wherein the first set of compressor stages [11, 12 and 13, Figure 1] comprises between 3 and 5 compressor stages [where there stages, 11-13, are arranged ahead of purification system 64 where numerals 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 indicate the compression units or cylinders of a five-stage compressor; p. 1, line 108 – p. 2, line 6] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization, where number of stages of compression to which the gas is subjected may be more or less than five [p.4, lines 9-19], of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing cost-effective pressure control under changing operating conditions [Kniskern, p.2, lines 18-41]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to where wherein the first set of compressor stages comprises between 3 and 5 compressor stages in view of the teachings of Kniskern where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized results, i.e., providing cost-effective pressure control under changing operating conditions [Kniskern, p.2, lines 18-41]
Regarding Claim 15, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5, but does not teach wherein the multi-stage compressor comprises a first set of cylinders that compresses syngas.
However, Kniskern teaches an apparatus for manufacturing synthetic ammonia [col. 1, lines 1-8] where a first set of cylinders [where there stages, 11-13, are arranged ahead of purification system 64 where numerals 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 indicate the compression units or cylinders of a five-stage compressor; p. 1, line 108 – p. 2, line 6] that compresses syngas [a gas of nitrogen and hydrogen; p.2, lines 138-149] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., providing cost-effective pressure control under changing operating conditions [Kniskern, p.2, lines 18-41]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to wherein the multi-stage compressor comprises a first set of cylinders that compresses syngas in view of the teachings of Kniskern where the substitution of an element for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing cost-effective pressure control under changing operating conditions [Kniskern, p.2, lines 18-41]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiori (US20190210885A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Nass (US20130058761A1).
Regarding Claim 12 Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5 and further discloses where wherein the multi- stage compressor [compressor train 111, embodiment of Figure 14] comprises a first intercooler [intercooler 44, Figure 1 and visible in Figure 14] between two sequentially arranged stages of the first set of compressor stages [compressor 117 and compressor 116, Figure 14] but does not teach a second intercooler between two sequentially arranged stages of the second set of compressor stages.
However, Nass teaches a multi-stage integrally geared compressor [0002], where an intercooler [coolers 22, Figure 1] is between two sequentially arranged stages of the set of compressor stages [where a cooler cools compressed fluid between first process stage 4 and second process stage 8 of integrally geared compressor 2; 0041], where there is a lack of criticality for the numbering of the intercoolers and sets of compressor stages and the numbering appears to be for identification purposes without limiting the scope of the invention, where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed, a multi-stage compressor and intercooler, by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., providing effective compression of a high volume flow [Nass;0030]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to a second intercooler between two sequentially arranged stages of the second set of compressor stages in view of the teachings of Nass where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., providing effective compression of a high volume flow [Nass;0030]
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiori (US20190210885A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Lei (CN109269224B).
Regarding Claim 13, Fiori discloses a method for producing ammonia, comprising: on the ammonia production system of claim 5, [ammonia production plant 1, Figure 1, refer to Fiori as applied to the rejection of claim 5 above], compressing syngas in the first set of compressor stages of the multi-stage compressor [syngas compression section 34 of any of the embodiments compression trains of Figure 7-12; 0014];
feeding the syngas to the ammonia converter [where compressed gas is delivered to an ammonia converter 43; 0016] and producing ammonia therein [where ammonia converter 43 produces end-product ammonia according to the ammonia synthesis reaction; 0016];
feeding the ammonia from the ammonia converter through an ammonia chiller in heat exchange relationship [where ammonia from the ammonia converter 43 is chilled in a chiller 45; 0017] with the refrigerant circulating in the ammonia refrigeration circuit [where the chilling of ammonia is achieved by means of a refrigeration cycle; 0017]; and
compressing the refrigerant in the second set of compressor stages of the multi-stage compressor [via refrigerant compressor section 46 of compressor train 111 of the embodiment of Figure 7].
Fiori does not explicitly teach the refrigeration cycle [0017] removes heat from the refrigerant.
However, Lei teaches ammonia refrigeration system in ammonia synthesis production [0002] where the refrigeration cycle [where ammonia cooler 2 receives liquid from ammonia from storage tank 1, the gaseous ammonia produced enters the compressor 6 and condenser 7 is used to condense gaseous ammonia compressed by compressor 6 before returning as a liquid to storage tank 1; 0026 ] removes heat from the refrigerant [via condenser 7; 0026] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, where ammonia refrigeration is one of the most important and widely used processes in the ammonia synthesis production process [Lei, 0004], that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., cooling the refrigerant in the refrigeration cycle for reuse in the chiller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to have where the refrigeration cycle removes heat from the refrigerant in view of the teachings of Lei where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., cooling the refrigerant in the refrigeration cycle for reuse in the chiller.
Regarding Claim 14, Fiori, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 13 and further discloses processing chilled ammonia in the ammonia separator [where chilled ammonia flows through a liquid/gas separator 55; 0018]; and
recovering gas from the ammonia separator [where the gaseous ammonia is removed and recycled through the syngas compression train, as pictorially represented by a recycling line 57; 0018] and recirculating gas through one of the compressor stages of the first set of compressor stages of the multistage compressor [to compressor 116 of compressor train 111 via a recycling line 57; 0018, embodiment of Figure 7 and Figure 14].
Fiori teaches the structure a recycling line from the separator but does not explicitly discuss where the gaseous ammonia includes syngas.
However, Lei teaches ammonia refrigeration system in ammonia synthesis production [0002] where the gas includes syngas [where during ammonia synthesis reaction only a small portion of hydrogen and nitrogen are synthesized into gaseous ammonia under the action of a catalyst; 0027; where the purpose of the coolers is to reduce temperature of synthesis gas to separate ammonia, hydrogen and nitrogen better; 0029] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, recycling unreacted syngas, to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., recycling unreacted syngas in the syngas compression train.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to have where the gas includes syngas in view of the teachings of Lei where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., recycling unreacted syngas in the syngas compression train.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiori (US20190210885A1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Moore (US20030211026A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Fiori discloses the invention of claim 5 and does not disclose wherein the first set of compressor stages is adapted to provide a compression ratio between 4 and 7.
However, Moore teaches an apparatus for producing synthesis gas [0001] wherein the first set of compressor stages is adapted to provide a compression ratio between 4 and 7 [where synthesis gas stream 1 enters at 300 to 400 psia and is compressed in the third stage compressor 57 to 2030 to 2080 psia; 0038;0042, where the compression ratio calculates up to 2080/300 = 6.93] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, compression ratio, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., providing an optimal operating pressure for the ammonia synthesis loop [Moore; 0031]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Fiori to wherein the multi-stage compressor comprises a first set of cylinders that compresses syngas in view of the teachings of Moore where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized results, i.e., providing an optimal operating pressure for the ammonia synthesis loop [Moore; 0031]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights