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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 03/04/2026.
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 Patent number 5449568 to MICHELI et al. (MICHELI) and U.S Publication number 2013/0068284 A1 to BEARDSWORTH et al. (BEARDSWORTH).
Re: Claim 1:
PRETINI discloses:
A low emission compression station (¶0001, ¶0033: compressors for compressing gas in pipeline transportation and optimization of emissions as explained in ¶0033), 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).
Re: Claim 2:
PRETINI modified by MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 over U.S Publication number 2023/0243302 A1 to PRETINI (PRETINI) in view of U.S Patent number 5449568 to MICHELI et al. (MICHELI) and U.S Publication number 2013/0068284 A1 to BEARDSWORTH et al. (BEARDSWORTH) 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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 over U.S Publication number 2023/0243302 A1 to PRETINI (PRETINI) in view of U.S Patent number 5449568 to MICHELI et al. (MICHELI) and U.S Publication number 2013/0068284 A1 to BEARDSWORTH et al. (BEARDSWORTH) 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 MICHELI and BEARDSWORTH 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.
Response to Arguments filed 03/04/2026
The applicant alleges:
Applicant has amended claim 1 to require: "the station lacking a connection to a power grid or power generation island". Addition of the limitation is supported throughout the specification as it is a central point of the teaching and the reason for the specific and counterintuitive sizing of the electric machine, mechanical drive gas turbine and/or fuel cell. This is not taught in the prior art. Rather the prior art expects that the station taught therein will be connected to a power grid. The related teaching therein of the sizing of the electric machine, mechanical drive gas turbine and/or fuel cell that might be used will be in accordance with more traditional concepts of how to size the devices. Traditionally, the focus would be only on the power required for the mechanical drive. Devices are sized to be just sufficient to operate the station in connection with grid power that supplies additional needed power and accepts excess power at other times. Building in this way has and does make sense since it is always desirable to reduce CAPEX and moving power from and to the grid is efficient.
It is counterintuitive to oversize devices, as the present inventors have done, since
this is more costly than the traditional design paradigm. The inventors hereof however,
have gone in a new direction not within the prior art to produce a station that while
initially more expensive to build and is also more expensive to operate, will operate
without need for a grid and in fact operates without any connection to a grid, as claimed.
The inventors hereof have taken an entirely different approach by sizing these
components to instead support the entirety of the process loads and electrical needs for
the station rather than using grid power or island power to support these needs.
The examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the above, the applicants’ arguments above hinge around the grid-independent station and accordingly sizing of the plant , however PRETINI explicitly teaches the grid being one of the options, nowhere PRETINI teaches that grid is essential as argued above, PRETINI teaches 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 (PRETINI: ¶0085-¶0086: discloses several options of power plants or grid) , therefore grid is only one of the options not a necessity for the claimed low emission compression station, therefore it is evident that low emission compression station may be operated without the option of a grid , therefore the disclosed plant by PRETINI may be operated without a grid, and the sizing of the station may be sized for stable operation of the claimed station, specifically when PRETINI discloses managing load of a turbine as explained in paragraphs [0033] and [0039] and figure 2, further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size the claimed low emission compression station as one of the design choices depending on the requirement of the system , further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144 II A).
The applicant alleges:
Pretini, the primary reference in the above rejection teaches that the station must
be connected to a power grid, or power island, and all of the design parameters of the
teaching are in concert with that paradigm. The turbines or fuel cells would be sized only
to reduce cost and be sufficient in view of the connection to the grid or power island.
This reduces cost of the station, which is always desirable in traditional thought. Pretini
also specifically teaches injecting excess energy back into the grid (for which a grid
connection is necessary). There is no teaching of a sizing "to comply with both process
needs and electric loads". Further, there is no teaching (and in fact a contrary teaching in
Pretini) of the condition claimed in amended claim 1 "the station lacking a connection
to a power grid or power generation island".
The examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees to the above, the applicant’s arguments hinge around:
Sizing of the plant and excess energy supply, the sizing has already been explained in rejection of claim 1 above, further regarding supply of excess energy injecting into the grid, the examiner respectfully submits that:
Applicant's argument is directed towards subject matter that is not claimed. It is preferred that Applicant argues limitations that are present in the pertinent claims. Since there is no nexus between subject matter argued and the limitations claimed this argument is found so as to be without persuasion. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (MPEP 2145.VI).
Additionally, it is well known in the art that in absence of a grid, the surplus energy may be supplied to an energy storage system as explicitly taught by WO 2020/244808A1 (See Fig.1 and ¶0034-¶0036)
In view of the foregoing the applicant’s arguments were fully considered but found unpersuasive.
Therefore claims 1-10 have been rejected as above.
Notice of Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
March 24, 2026