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 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 10-11: “to compress some gas” should read “to compress some of the gas”
Claim 1, line 16: “each of them is configured” should read “the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger each are configured”
Claim 1, line 16: “an heat exchange” should read “a heat exchange”
Claim 8, line 4: “at least the monitoring unit” “the at least one monitoring unit”
Claim 15, line 2: “the process” should read “the control process”
Claims 2, 5-6, and 9-13 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 7 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 14 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
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:
Claim 1, line 10 recites, “compression device” which draws corresponding structure from the following recitation of the specification, “a compression device 13, in particular a compressor (Pg. 9)”, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 6, line 3 recites, “monitoring unit” which draws corresponding structure from the following recitation of the specification, “This monitoring unit and/or this monitoring valve is, for example, a valve or an on-off valve (Pg. 13)”, or equivalents thereof.
Claim 8, line 3 recites, “management device” which draws corresponding structure from the following recitation of the specification, “This management device 49 is an electronic control module that receives the data from the measurement means 48 and that monitors the opening and the closing of the monitoring unit 46 and/or of the monitoring valve 47. The management device 49 implements the process and its various steps, except the step of measurement of the temperature of the vapor-state gas removed from the tank 8 (Pg. 13)”, or equivalents thereof.
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.
The following limitations follow the standard means plus function format and are being interpreted as described below:
Claim 8, lines 2-3 recites, “measurement means for the temperature of the gas…” which draws corresponding structure from the following recitation of the specification, “The measurement means 48 of the temperature is, for example, a temperature sensor located on the second gas supply circuit 3 between the tank and the divergence point 44. Alternatively, the sensor can be mounted in the tank blanket 12 (Pg. 13)”, or 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.
Claims 1-15 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 recites the limitation "the gas" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing “the gas” in line 3 of claim 1 to “a gas”.
Claim 15, line 2 recites, “where the reference threshold is not less than -150°C” which is unclear to the Examiner as claim 14 from which claim 15 depends requires “where the reference threshold is -90°C”. The recitation of claim 15 is further broadening the claims and making it unclear which of the two temperatures is required. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 15 to require also require a reference threshold of -90°C. The Examiner recommends swapping the reference temperatures to resolve this issue (i.e., claim 14 to require a reference threshold is not less than -150°C and claim 15 to require the reference threshold is -90°C).
Claims 2, 5-6, and 9-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 14 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 13.
Claim 15 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 14.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth (US 20230184380), hereinafter Schroth in view of Shinmura et al. (EP 3483 419), hereinafter Shinmura.
Regarding claim 1, Schroth discloses a gas supply system of at least one high-pressure gas-consuming device and at least one low-pressure gas-consuming device for a floating structure comprising at least a tank configured to contain the gas at least in liquid state (Fig. 3, fuel gas supply system 1, high-pressure gas injection engine 2, low-pressure consumer 11, LNG tank 3; Pg. 3, paragraph 29, Pg. 4, paragraph 33, explained in detail on the basis of the following example. In contrast to a liquefied gas tanker, the stowage space of which consists largely of LNG tanks, a common merchant ship has a relatively small LNG tank, since the stowage space is available for goods to be transported. The high-pressure gas injection engine 2 of such a merchant ship has a gas demand of, for example, about 10 t / h during the voyage. In the LNG tank of the merchant ship, the boil-off rate (BOR), therefore the amount of liquid gas Fl evaporated to boil-off gas F2 is, for example, about 800 kg/h), wherein the gas supply system comprises:
at least a first gas supply circuit for the high-pressure gas-consuming device (Fig. 3, low-pressure fluid line 16a, pressure fluid line 17a, high-pressure fluid line 17b, line 19a),
at least a high-pressure evaporator configured to boil off the gas that flows through the first gas supply circuit (Fig. 3, high-pressure evaporator 7; Pg. 3, paragraph 29, This high-pressure liquid gas is then fed via a high-pressure fluid line 17a, a high-pressure heat exchanger 13 and a high-pressure fluid line 17b to a high-pressure evaporator 7, which evaporates the high-pressure liquid gas to a gaseous or supercritical high-pressure gas, this high-pressure gas, having a pressure of about 300 hara in the embodiment shown, being fed to the high-pressure gas injection engine 2),
at least a second gas supply circuit for the low-pressure gas-consuming device comprising at least a compression device 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 (Fig. 3, gas line 15a, suction line 15b, discharge line 15c, fluid line 15e, line 20a, compressor 9; Further, the compressor 9 of Schroth has the same structure as the claimed compressor device and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed),
at least a gas return line connected at the second supply circuit downstream from the compression device and extending to the tank (Fig. 3 of Schroth depicts return line 21 connected to discharge line 15c downstream of the compressor 9 and extending to LNG tank 3),
at least a first heat exchanger configured to implement an heat exchange between the gas flowing through the return line and the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit (Fig. 3, condenser 6; Pg. 4, paragraph 31, FIG. 6 shows an embodiment of a condenser 6 in detail, as it could be used in the fuel gas supply system 1 according to FIG. 1. The boil-off gas F2 is introduced into the inner space 6d of the condenser 6 via the gas line 15c and the inlet 15d at the top. A side stream of the high-pressure liquid gas is injected into the inner space 6d of the condenser 6 via the high-pressure line 18a and the condensation core generator 10, forming a plurality of droplets 10a serving as condensation cores. A return line 21 opens into the bottom of the inner space of the condenser 6 to discharge the liquid gas F1 located in the lower portion of the inner space. The high-pressure heat exchanger 13 extends in the inner space 6d of the condenser 6 preferably in a vertical direction from bottom to top, the high-pressure liquid gas being supplied via the high-pressure fluid line 17a and discharged via the high-pressure fluid line 17b; Further, the condenser 6 of Schroth has the same structure as the claimed first heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
However, Schroth does not disclose a second heat exchanger configured to implement an heat exchange between the gas flowing through the return line and the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit; and
wherein the gas supply system comprises at least a cooling branch for the gas removed in vapor state from the tank connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, wherein the gas supply system comprises at least one thermal exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the cooling branch and the liquid-state gas through the first supply circuit.
Shinmura teaches a second heat exchanger configured to implement an heat exchange between the gas flowing through the return line and the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit (Fig. 5, second heat exchanger 52, a third heat exchanger 53; Pg. 5, paragraph 28, The present embodiment further includes four heat exchangers for cooling the excess gas flowing through the return line 41 (a first heat exchanger 51, a second heat exchanger 52, a third heat exchanger 53, and a non-regular-use heat exchanger 61). Between the on-off valve 42 and the expansion device 43, the return line 41 passes through the third heat exchanger 53, the first heat exchanger 51, the second heat exchanger 52, and the non-regular-use heat exchanger 61 in this order. The gas feed line 21 passes through the first heat exchanger 51. The liquid feed line 31 passes through the non-regular-use heat exchanger 61 and the second heat exchanger 52 in this order); and
wherein the gas supply system comprises at least a cooling branch for the gas removed in vapor state from the tank connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, wherein the gas supply system comprises at least one thermal exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the cooling branch and the liquid-state gas through the first supply circuit (Fig. 5, bypass line 24, non-regular use heat exchanger 61; Further, the non-regular use heat exchanger 61 of Shinmura has the same structure as the claimed thermal exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Schroth fails to teach a second heat exchanger configured to implement an heat exchange between the gas flowing through the return line and the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit; and wherein the gas supply system comprises at least a cooling branch for the gas removed in vapor state from the tank connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, wherein the gas supply system comprises at least one thermal exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the cooling branch and the liquid-state gas through the first supply circuit, however Shinmura teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas supply systems to include a second heat exchanger configured to implement an heat exchange between the gas flowing through the return line and the liquid-state gas flowing through the first gas supply circuit; and wherein the gas supply system comprises at least a cooling branch for the gas removed in vapor state from the tank connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, wherein the gas supply system comprises at least one thermal exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the cooling branch and the liquid-state gas through the first supply circuit. This is strong evidence that modifying Schroth as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing desired heat exchanger characteristics throughout the system to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroth by Shinmura and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing desired heat exchanger characteristics throughout the system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 2, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the thermal exchanger comprises at least a first line on the first gas supply circuit upstream from the high-pressure evaporator and a second line on the cooling branch (Fig. 5 of Shimura depicts the non-regular use heat exchanger 61 is disposed upstream of the forcing vaporizer 15,which corresponds to the high-pressure evaporator, and includes the liquid feed line 31, which corresponds to the first gas supply circuit, and the bypass line 24, which corresponds to a second line on the cooling branch). Further, the limitations of claim 2 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 2 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 2 above).
However, Schroth as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first line of the thermal exchanger is located between the second heat exchanger and the high-pressure evaporator.
Shinmura teaches including the at least one thermal exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the cooling branch and the liquid-state gas through the first supply circuit including the first line.
Further, it is noted there are only a finite number of ways to arrange the first line at least one thermal exchanger in relation to the second heat exchanger and the high-pressure evaporator. The following finite arrangements including: locating the first line of the at least one thermal exchanger upstream of both the second heat exchanger and high-pressure evaporator, locating the first line of the at least one thermal exchanger between the second heat exchanger and high-pressure evaporator, or locating the first line of the at least one thermal exchanger downstream of both the second heat exchanger and high-pressure evaporator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the first line of the at least one thermal exchanger wherein the first line of the thermal exchanger is located between the second heat exchanger and the high-pressure evaporator in order to provide desired heat transfer characteristics to the at least one thermal exchanger to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 4, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the second line of the thermal exchanger is located upstream from the compression device according to the direction of the gas flow through the second gas supply circuit (Fig. 5 of Shimura depicts line 2 of the non-regular use heat exchanger 61 to be disposed upstream of the compressor 12, which corresponds to the compression device and would maintain this configuration when modified as described herein). Further, the limitations of claim 4 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising a divergence point where the cooling branch and the second supply circuit separate, and a convergence point where the cooling branch and the second supply circuit join, wherein the cooling branch extends between the divergence point and the convergence point (See annotated Fig. 5 of Shimura below, bypass line 24 separates from gas feed line 21, which corresponds to the second gas supply circuit, via divergence point A and extends to a convergence point B). Further, the limitations of claim 5 are the result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
515
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Shinmura
Claims 6-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth as modified by Shinmura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (KR 20180033734), hereinafter Lim.
Regarding claims 6-8, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second gas supply circuit comprises at least one monitoring unit for the circulation of the gas through said second gas supply circuit (Schroth, Fig. 3, controllable valve 25c; Pg. 6, paragraph 45, It may also prove advantageous to supply at least part of the boil-off gas F2 to a low-pressure consumer 11 via a fluid line 15e, preferably a controllable valve 25c and preferably also a controllable valve 25b being provided to control the flow of gas to the low-pressure consumer 11 and, if necessary, to control a division of the gas quantities between the condenser 6 and the low-pressure consumer 11).
However, Schroth as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooling branch is mounted parallel to the monitoring unit of the circulation of gas through said second gas supply circuit,
wherein the cooling branch comprises at least a monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch, and
comprising at least one measurement means for the temperature of the gas removed in vapor state from the tank, and a management device that commands at least the monitoring unit of the gas flow through said second gas supply circuit and the monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch.
Lim teaches wherein the cooling branch is mounted parallel to the monitoring unit of the circulation of gas through said second gas supply circuit (Fig. 4 of Lim depicts bypass line L6 which includes heat exchanger bypass valve 541, which corresponds to the cooling branch monitoring valve, respectively, to be mounted in parallel to evaporation gas supply line L2 which includes heat exchanger supply valve 542, which corresponds to the second gas supply circuit and monitoring unit, respectively),
wherein the cooling branch comprises at least a monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch (Fig. 4, bypass line L6, heat exchanger bypass valve 541), and
comprising at least one measurement means for the temperature of the gas removed in vapor state from the tank, and a management device that commands at least the monitoring unit of the gas flow through said second gas supply circuit and the monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch (Fig. 4, bypass line L6, evaporation gas supply line L2, heat exchanger supply valve 542, heat exchanger bypass valve 541, preheater 53, second controller 92, temperature sensor 93; Pg. 12, When the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a is in operation, the second control unit 92 closes the heat exchanger bypass valve 541 and opens the heat exchanger supply valve 552, Gas heat exchanger 52a and then the temperature of the evaporation gas discharged from the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a is controlled to be equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature The amount of the heat source supplied to the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a is controlled so that the load of the evaporative gas cooler 61 is increased when the temperature of the evaporated gas heat exchanged in the gas heat exchanger 52a is equal to or higher than the preset temperature) And the temperature of the evaporation gas discharged from the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a is lower than the preset temperature (the evaporation gas heat exchanged in the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a received from the temperature sensor 93) Is less than the predetermined temperature), the evaporation gas And controlled so that each (61) of the load is reduced, it is possible to control so that the amount of heat source is supplied to the first boil-off gas heat exchanger (52a) increases).
Schroth as modified fails to teach wherein the cooling branch is mounted parallel to the monitoring unit of the circulation of gas through said second gas supply circuit, wherein the cooling branch comprises at least a monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch, and comprising at least one measurement means for the temperature of the gas removed in vapor state from the tank, and a management device that commands at least the monitoring unit of the gas flow through said second gas supply circuit and the monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch, however Lim teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas supply systems to include wherein the cooling branch is mounted parallel to the monitoring unit of the circulation of gas through said second gas supply circuit, wherein the cooling branch comprises at least a monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch, and comprising at least one measurement means for the temperature of the gas removed in vapor state from the tank, and a management device that commands at least the monitoring unit of the gas flow through said second gas supply circuit and the monitoring valve for the gas flow through said cooling branch. This is strong evidence that modifying Schroth as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing flow control within the system based on real time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroth as modified by Lim and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing flow control within the system based on real time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 13, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Schroth as modified does not disclose a control process for the gas supply system according to claim 1, 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 cooling branch if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is higher than a reference threshold, or
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 lower than the reference threshold.
Lim teaches a control process for the gas supply system (Fig. 4, gas processing system 3), wherein:
at a measurement step, the temperature of the vapor-state gas removed from the tank is measured (Fig. 4, temperature sensor 93; Pg. 12, the temperature of the evaporation gas discharged from the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a is lower than the preset temperature (the evaporation gas heat exchanged in the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a received from the temperature sensor 93), then
the vapor-state gas is circulated through the cooling branch if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is higher than a reference threshold (Pg. 12, Specifically, when the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a is not operating, the second control unit 92 opens the heat exchanger bypass valve 541, closes the heat exchanger supply valve 552, It is possible to bypass the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a through the heat exchanger bypass line L6 and supply it to the preheater 53), or
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 lower than the reference threshold (Pg. 12, When the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a is in operation, the second control unit 92 closes the heat exchanger bypass valve 541 and opens the heat exchanger supply valve 542, Gas heat exchanger 52a and then the temperature of the evaporation gas discharged from the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a is controlled to be equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature The amount of the heat source supplied to the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a is controlled so that the load of the evaporative gas cooler 61 is increased when the temperature of the evaporated gas heat exchanged in the gas heat exchanger 52a is equal to or higher than the preset temperature) And the temperature of the evaporation gas discharged from the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a is lower than the preset temperature (the evaporation gas heat exchanged in the first evaporation gas heat exchanger 52a received from the temperature sensor 93) Is less than the predetermined temperature), the evaporation gas And controlled so that each (61) of the load is reduced, it is possible to control so that the amount of heat source is supplied to the first boil-off gas heat exchanger (52a) increases; Further, the teachings of switching the flow to run through the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a by closing the heat exchanger bypass valve 541 and opening the heat exchanger supply valve 542 to ensure the fluid exiting the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature and sending the flow through the bypass line L6 when not operating the first evaporative gas heat exchanger 52a at least implies the vapor-state gas is circulated through the cooling branch if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is higher than a reference threshold or 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 lower than the reference threshold since it has been held it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)).
Schroth as modified fails to teach a control process for the gas supply system according to claim 1, 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 cooling branch if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is higher than a reference threshold, or 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 lower than the reference threshold, however Lim teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas supply systems to include a control process for the gas supply system, 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 cooling branch if the temperature of the vapor-state gas as measured at the measurement step is higher than a reference threshold, or 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 lower than the reference threshold. This is strong evidence that modifying Schroth as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing flow control within the system based on real time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroth as modified by Lim and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing flow control within the system based on real time sensor data to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 14, Schroth as modified discloses the control process according to claim 13 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 13 above), wherein the control process comprises a step of condensation of the vapor-state gas through the return line (Schroth, Pg. 4, paragraph 32, During operation, the condenser 6 can be operated, for example, with the following process parameters. The high-pressure liquid gas is fed to the high-pressure heat exchanger 13 at a pressure of 300 bara, and leaves it at essentially the same pressure. The boil-off gas F1 is introduced at a pressure of 17 barn and a temperature of +40° C. via the inlet 15d from above into the inner space 6d of the condenser 6. The boil-off gas Fl flowing downward inside the condenser 6 from the inlet 15d is cooled by the high-pressure heat exchanger 13 so that a condensation section 6a is formed between the surface 6b of the liquid gas F1 and a boundary region 6c, within which the boil-off gas F2 has a temperature which, taking into account the pressure present in the inner space 6d, is below the boiling temperature of liquid gas F1).
Further, Schroth as modified teaches the claimed invention except for where the reference threshold is -90°C. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include where the reference threshold is -90°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of where the reference threshold is -90°C, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Schroth as modified discloses the control process according to claim 14 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the process comprises a step of feeding the low-pressure gas-consuming device via the second gas supply circuit (Schroth, Pg. 6, paragraph 42, It may also prove advantageous to supply at least part of the boil-off gas F2 to a low-pressure consumer 11 via a fluid line 15e, preferably a controllable valve 25c and preferably also a controllable valve 25b being provided to control the flow of gas to the low-pressure consumer 11 and, if necessary, to control a division of the gas quantities between the condenser 6 and the low-pressure consumer 11).
Further, Schroth as modified teaches the claimed invention except for where the reference threshold is not less than -150°C. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include where the reference threshold is not less than -150°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of where the reference threshold is not less than -150°C, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth as modified by Shinmura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR 20190025302), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding claims 9, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Schroth as modified does not disclose wherein the first gas supply circuit comprises a pump between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger.
Choi teaches a pump disposed in a first gas supply circuit between two heat exchangers (Fig. 4, pressurizing pump 152, condenser 140, first vaporizer 154).
Schroth as modified fails to teach wherein the first gas supply circuit comprises a pump between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger, however Choi teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas supply systems to include a pump disposed in a first gas supply circuit between two heat exchangers. This is strong evidence that modifying Schroth as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing sufficient pressure to move the fluid throughout the system to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroth as modified by Choi and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing sufficient pressure to move the fluid throughout the system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth as modified by Shinmura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song et al. (WO 2018124815), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claims 10-11, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Schroth as modified does not disclose wherein at least the high-pressure evaporator and the thermal exchanger constitute a single heat exchanger module; or
wherein at least the high-pressure evaporator, the second heat exchanger and the thermal exchanger constitute a single heat exchanger module.
Song teaches a plurality of heat exchangers of a gas supply system to constitute a single heat exchanger module (Fig. 1, heat exchanger unit 500, vaporizer 510, heater 520; Pg. 9, The heat exchange unit 500 includes a vaporizer 510 to vaporize the liquefied gas supplied from the first compression unit 210 toward the demand destination 10 through the supply destination L30. In addition, the heat exchange unit 500 may further include not only the vaporizer 510 but also a heater 520 that heats the fluid passing through the vaporizer 510 at the rear end of the vaporizer 510 to a temperature required by the customer 10).
Schroth as modified fails to teach wherein at least the high-pressure evaporator and the thermal exchanger constitute a single heat exchanger module; or wherein at least the high-pressure evaporator, the second heat exchanger and the thermal exchanger constitute a single heat exchanger module, however Choi teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas supply systems to include a plurality of heat exchangers of a gas supply system to constitute a single heat exchanger module. This is strong evidence that modifying Schroth as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. reducing the overall footprint of the system). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroth as modified by Choi and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of reducing the overall footprint of the system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroth as modified by Shinmura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borisevich et al. (WO 2019145342), hereinafter Borisevich.
Regarding claim 12, Schroth as modified discloses the gas supply system according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Schroth as modified does not disclose comprising a heat treatment branch of the vapor state gas through the return line, wherein the heat treatment branch is connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, the gas supply system comprising a third heat exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the heat treatment branch and the vapor-state gas through the return line.
Borisevich teaches a heat treatment branch of the vapor state gas through the return line, wherein the heat treatment branch is connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, the gas supply system comprising a third heat exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the heat treatment branch and the vapor-state gas through the return line (Fig. 4, heat exchanger 66, secondary circuit 66b, primary circuit 66a, pipe 64; Further, the heat exchanger 66 of Borisevich has the same structure as the claimed third heat exchanger and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Schroth as modified fails to teach a heat treatment branch of the vapor state gas through the return line, wherein the heat treatment branch is connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, the gas supply system comprising a third heat exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the heat treatment branch and the vapor-state gas through the return line, however Borisevich teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas supply systems to include a heat treatment branch of the vapor state gas through the return line, wherein the heat treatment branch is connected to the second supply circuit upstream from the compression device, the gas supply system comprising a third heat exchanger configured to implement a heat exchange between the vapor-state gas through the heat treatment branch and the vapor-state gas through the return line. This is strong evidence that modifying Schroth as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing desired heat exchanger characteristics throughout the system to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schroth as modified by Borisevich and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing desired heat exchanger characteristics throughout the system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinmura et al. (WO 2018008685) discloses a similar gas supply system for at least one high-pressure gas-consuming device and at least one low-pressure gas-consuming device for a floating structure.
Andoh et al. (WO 2017104698) discloses a similar gas supply system for at least one high-pressure gas-consuming device and at least one low-pressure gas-consuming device for a floating structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 July 07th, 2026
Prosecution Insights