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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Publication number 2023/0243302 A1 to PRETINI (PRETINI) in view of U.S Publication number 2013/0068284 A1 to BEARDSWORTH et al. (BEARDSWORTH), U.S Patent number 5449568 to MICHELI et al. (MICHELI), and U.S Patent number 8250847 B2 to RAPP et al. (RAPP).
Re: Claim 1:
PRETINI discloses:
A low emission compression station for pipe line (¶0001, ¶0033: compressors for compressing gas in pipeline for transportation and optimization of emissions as explained in ¶0033, therefore using compressor for its intended use in transporting and optimization of emission for a pipe line is therefore explicitly taught by PRETINI), wherein the compression station comprises :
one or more compressors (¶0001, ¶0033: compressors), each compressor being coupled with an electric machine (See Fig. 1: ¶0033: gas turbines, electric motors/generators, and compressors/pumps may be coupled together and as recited in claim 15), wherein the electric machine (See Fig. 1: ¶00085-¶0086: electric motor/generator 32 can be connected to a solar panel power plant 432, to a wind power plant 433, to a hydrothermal power plant 434, or to a thermal power plant 435, or to any general power grid, such a grid is not a requirement as it has been specified as one of the options, therefore it is implied that the system is operable as an off-grid power plant) is coupled with at least one mechanical drive gas turbine and/or at least one fuel cell, wherein the electric machine and/or the mechanical drive gas turbine and/or the at least one fuel cell are sized to comply with both process needs and electric loads (See Fig. 1: ¶00085-¶0086: the sizing to comply with both process needs and electric loads are inherent/implied to regulate the system as a matter of design choice depending on the system requirement) and are controlled by a supervision system (See Fig. 1: control logic unit 2), the station lacking a connection to a power grid of power generation island (See Fig. 1: ¶00085-¶0086: it implicitly discloses a grid-independent operation , since PRETINI discloses that the electric motor/generator 32 may be connected to a solar panel power plant 432 or to a wind power plant 433 or to a hydrothermal power plant 434 or thermal power plant 435 or to a grid , therefore grid is only one of the options not necessity for the claimed low emission compression station).
As regards sizing and as explained above, such a sizing of off-grid power plants is well known in the art as explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2013/0068284 A1 to BEARDSWORTH et al. (BEARDSWORTH: See Figs. 1-5: ¶0003: discloses Off-grid systems are typically small (e.g., 10s of kilowatts at most) and tied closely to an energy storage system such as a system of deep-cycle lead acid batteries or, in some cases, to a fueled gen-set. In an off-grid configuration, the energy stored in the battery acts as a buffer between energy production and demand, therefore, short-term variability, such as peak collection, in the solar resource may not be an issue) , therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the claimed apparatus in accordance to the off-grid system requirement, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the claimed apparatus, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have sized the electric machine accordingly. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
As regards deploying fuel cells coupled with compressor and gas turbine system, this is well known in the art to deploy fuel cells instead of electric machines/electric generators, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Patent number 5449568 to MICHELI et al. (MICHELI: See Fig.1: col. 5 lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ solid oxide fuel cells as explicitly taught by MICHELI, because MICHELI discloses deploying fuel cells can be provided either before or after gas turbines, since such turbine systems will provide an indirect-fired gas-turbine cycle bottomed with a fuel-cell cycle whereby the gas turbine can be operated at optimum pressures for efficient power conversion (MICHELI: See Fig.1: col. 1 lines 61-66).
PRETINI , BEARDSWORTH and MICHELI are silent regarding:
However, it is well known in the art that hydrogen storage system is configured to generate hydrogen to supply hydrogen to a pipe line and onward to a mechanical drive gas turbine, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Patent number 8250847 B2 to RAPP et al. (RAPP: See Fig. 1, discloses hydrogen storage 122 supplying hydrogen via a pipe line to a mechanical drive gas turbine 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to position a hydrogen storage in the low emission compressor station to supply hydrogen via pipe to a mechanical drive gas turbine, which is beneficial since using hydrogen in gas turbines reduces upfront construction costs of such a gas turbine system (RAPP: col. 2 lines 41-56).
Re: Claim 2:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the supervision system is interfaced with the compression station components digital optimizers (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: ¶0043, ¶0045-¶0048: control system interfaces compression station components digital optimizers which includes driven compressor outlet pressure or temperature or inlet flow or outlet temperature of outlet pressure).
Re: Claim 3:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the supervision system includes a digital optimizer (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: ¶0035: the control logic unit 2 is configured to receive data from several sources 4, and therefore as much types of variables and data, used as input of the monitoring and controlling method, based on an optimization algorithm).
Re: Claim 4:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the compression station is integrated with energy storage devices (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: ¶0040: grid energy storage 431).
Re: Claim 6:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the compression station is integrated with auxiliary energy sources (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: ¶0040: discloses solar or wind energy plants 432, 433).
Re: Claim 7:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 6, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the auxiliary energy sources include renewable energy sources (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: ¶0040: discloses renewable energy auxiliary sources such as solar or wind energy plants 432, 433).
Re: Claim 8:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the supervision system is configured to manage the at least one mechanical drive gas turbine (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: as recited in claim 1) and/or at least one fuel cell.
Re: Claim 10:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the electric machines coupled with the mechanical drive gas turbines form hybrid mechanical drive gas turbines (PRETINI : See Fig. 1: ¶0034, ¶0040: discloses hybrid gas turbine system).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable BEARDSWORTH, PRETINI in view of MICHELI and RAPP as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Patent number 3866433 A to KRUG (KRUG).
Re: Claim 5:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and modified PRETINI is silent regarding:
wherein the compression station is integrated with a battery pack . however it is well known in the art to position storage battery to power pumps or compressor motors , such a system is explicitly taught by b U.S Patent number 3866433 A to KRUG (KRUG: col. 8 lines 55-68 and col. 9 lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify PRETINI to position a storage batter for operating compressor in the event of motor failure as explicitly taught by KRUG which would have been advantageous and yielded similar advantages in the system of PRETINI.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable BEARDSWORTH, PRETINI in view of MICHELI and RAPP as applied to claim 1 above, and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Publication number 2007/0100503 A1 to BALAN et al. (BALAN).
Re: Claim 9:
PRETINI modified by BEARDSWORTH , MICHELI and RAPP discloses:
The low emission compression station according to claim 1, modified PRETINI discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the electrical supervision system is configured to manage the loads shedding although PRETINI is silent regarding electrical supervision system is configured to manage the loads shedding, however such a supervision is well known in the art, such a controller supervision is explicitly taught by b U.S Publication number 2007/0100503 A1 to BALAN et al. (BALAN: ¶0021: uncontrollable loads are included to facilitate making decisions about load shedding by the controller 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify control logic disclosed by PRETINI as explicitly taught by BALAN which would have been advantageous and yielded similar advantages in the system of PRETINI.
PRIOR ART
The examiner notes that U.S Patent 9404623 to KAPOOR prior art of record is also pertinent to claim 1 in the logical intended use of compression system for pipelines in well-sites for transporting gas more efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights