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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (figures 1-3) in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8, 10-13, and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/10/2026.
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.
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: “monitoring unit” (claim 4), “monitoring device” (claim 5), “a measurement means” (claim 6), and “a management device” (claim 6).
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 which respectively will be a valve, a valve, a temperature sensor, and an electronic control unit and known equivalents.
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 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 1-6, 9, and 14-16 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.
Claim 1 states “at least one high pressure gas-consuming device” and “at least one low-pressure gas-consuming device” which are found to be indefinite as it is unclear what sort of pressures would be considered low and high pressure. It is also pointed out further for the prior art rejection that the specific pressure gas-consuming devices are not positively recited or part of the gas supply system being claimed.
Claim 1 states “them” in line 16 which is found to be indefinite as it is unclear what “them” is previously referring to. It will be assumed to states ---of the first heat exchanger and second heat exchanger---.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the vapor-state gas flowing through the gas return line" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally it is unclear how a gas can be in liquid state.
Claim 1 states in lines 19-20 that “the gas supply system comprises a heat treatment branch of the vapor-state gas through the gas return line” which is found indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by the wording of this limitation or how you can get a branch of the gas.
Claims 2-6, 9, and 14-16 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the 35 USC 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by EP 3483419 A1 Kawasaki.
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki (figure 7) discloses a gas supply system of at least one high-pressure gas-consuming device 16 and at least one low-pressure gas-consuming device 13 for a floating structure (ship, abstract) comprising at least a tank 11 configured to contain the gas at least in liquid state, wherein the gas supply system comprises: at least a first gas supply circuit for the high-pressure gas-consuming device (14/31/32); at least a high pressure evaporator 53/35 configured to evaporate the gas that flows through the first gas supply circuit, at least a second gas supply circuit 78/21/22 for the low-pressure gas-consuming device comprising at least a compressor 12 configured to compress some gas removed from the tank in vapor state up to a pressure that is compatible with the needs of the low- pressure gas-consuming device (functional language and the gas would be compressed to be used by 13 or the system wouldn’t work), at least a gas return line 41 connected to the second supply circuit downstream from the compressor and extending to the tank, at least a first heat exchanger 52 and at least a second heat exchanger 53, wherein each of them is configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas flowing through the gas return line and the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit, characterized in that wherein the gas supply system comprises a heat treatment branch (from 78 through 63/64) of the vapor-state gas through the gas return line, wherein the heat treatment branch is connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compressor (connected to circuit 77), the gas supply system comprising a third heat exchanger 64 configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the heat treatment branch and the vapor-state gas through the gas return line (in 61 from 23 and 72).
Regarding claim 2, Kawasaki discloses wherein the third heat exchanger 64 comprises a first line on the gas return line (from 76) between the first heat exchanger 52 and the second heat exchanger 53, and a second line on the heat treatment branch (from 78).
Regarding claim 3, Kawasaki discloses wherein the second supply circuit comprises a divergence zone where the heat treatment branch and the second supply circuit separate (at 78), and a convergence zone (77 rejoins the stream from 63/64) where the heat treatment branch and the second supply circuit join, wherein the heat treatment branch extends between the divergence zone and the convergence zone (path through 63/64).
Regarding claim 4, Kawasaki further discloses comprising a monitoring unit for the circulation of the gas through the second supply circuit, wherein the heat treatment branch is mounted parallel to the monitoring unit (valve 78 runs a stream parallel to the heat branch through 63/64).
Regarding claim 5, Kawasaki further discloses wherein the heat treatment branch comprises a monitoring device configured to monitor the flow of the vapor-state gas through the heat treatment branch (valve 76).
Regarding claim 6, Kawasaki discloses comprising a measurement means for the temperature of the gas removed in vapor state from the tank, and a management device that commands the monitoring unit and the monitoring device (see 8, see paragraphs 66-67, both control valves utilize temperature sensors and controller 8).
Regarding claim 15, Kawasaki discloses wherein: at a measurement step, the temperature of the vapor-state gas removed from the tank is measured, then the vapor-state gas is circulated through the second gas supply circuit if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is higher than a temperature threshold, or the vapor-state gas is circulated through the heat treatment branch if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is lower than the temperature threshold (see paragraphs 66-68 and figure 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki.
Regarding claim 9, Kawasaki discloses the limitations of parent claim 1. Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein at least the second heat exchanger, the third heat exchanger and the high-pressure evaporator constitute a single heat exchanger module however the examiner goes on official notice that providing multiple heat exchangers in a single module or cold box is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize multiple heat exchangers in a single module to save on space and complexity of the system. Additionally by combining heat exchangers in a single module or cold box, this allows for less heat leak to atmosphere by flowing said supply circuits externally between heat exchangers.
Regarding claim 16, Kawasaki discloses the limitations of parent claim 15. Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose where the temperature threshold is -110°C. The specific temperature threshold utilized in Kawaski if considered a result effective variable that can be optimized through routine experimentation. Kawasaki discloses the specific structures of the control gas supply system in addition to the process of measuring temperature and controlling flow rate through the bypasses and heat treatment branch based on temperature. The specific temperature utilized for said threshold is dependent on the use of the gas system and what the preferred temperatures, pressures, and heat exchanges are at based on the gas consuming devices and composition of the gas supply. Setting the temperature at -110 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in order to optimize the downstream temperatures and pressures being fed to the use devices. Additionally Kawasaki also provides phase change ranges for solidifying points to be in the range of -140 to -100 Celsius (see paragraph 78). It would have been obvious to utilize the heat treatment branch at lower temperatures to avoid freezing of any of the materials and clearly the -100 degrees Celsius being claimed by the applicant is well within known ranges dependent on composition of the boil off.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2008/0190352 Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 14, Kawasaki discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the first gas supply circuit comprises a pump between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger. Lee discloses a similar boil off treatment system onboard a ship and further provides that the removed (see figure 11, liquid removed and pumped in 52 L11, and then heated in heat exchanger 53 prior to further pumping in 54 before further heat exchange in 55. It would have been obvious to provide for pumps downstream of heat exchangers as disclosed by Lee in the first gas supply circuit of Kawasaki in order to ensure the liquid is brought up to the proper pressures and to avoid needing a larger pump upstream. The addition of a pump along these lines are further found to be well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of applicant’s filing to apply pumps to the supply circuits in order to bring stream sup to proper optimized pressures for downstream heat exchange and to ensure proper pressures are acquired for feeding into the gas consuming devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights