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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because of the coloring of drawings making drawing interpretation difficult, such as in fig 2-4b and 9-12. Furthermore, drawings contain small writing which is difficult to read, such as in drawings 6-8c and 14a 18b Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more LNG storage tank” should read “the one or more LNG storage tank”. 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: “an interlocking device” in claims 21 and 22. These are being interpreted to mean any mechanical device which restricts movement between two structures.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto (JP 2014122563A).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a floating power generation system (11, fig 4), comprising: a vessel (10, fig 4), the vessel including: a vessel frame (the vessel would need some kind of support frame to provide structural support), a hull (the outer wall of the vessel 10) around the vessel frame and defining fore and aft sections (side next to 50b being the fore end and side next to 100 being aft, fig 4), and a deck supported by the vessel frame; a gas turbine (30, fig 10) on the vessel to generate electrical power from combustion of natural gas; an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator (70, fig 10) on the vessel to generate electrical power from heat recovery (the claim does not specify where the heat is recovered from, so coming from the fuel line meets this claim); a gas supply line on the vessel for supplying liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the gas turbine (f76, fig 10); and a power supply subsystem (351, fig 10) to receive electrical power from at least one of the gas turbine or the ORC generator and to supply power to at least one remote power sink (Goto’s invention is an offshore power plant so the power production would be wired to somewhere on the shore that needs power) that is away from the vessel.
Regarding claim 2, Goto discloses wherein the vessel is free of propulsion means (the vessel is a floating body tethered by 10b and thus would not have the means of propulsion).
Regarding claim 5, Goto discloses wherein the vessel is formed as a barge (a barge is merely a flat bottomed boat, the floating structure would meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Goto discloses at least one LNG storage tank on the vessel (20, fig 10).
Regarding claim 8, Goto discloses wherein the ORC generator is configured to be used for electrical power generation in addition to the gas turbine (72, fig 10).
Regarding claim 9, Goto discloses wherein the ORC generator has a first electrical power generation capacity and the gas turbine has a second electrical power generation capacity that is higher than the first electrical power generation capacity (the ORC generator has a first power generated by the vaporizing liquid while the gas turbine generates power from combustion of said liquid, the order of magnitude of power generated by the gas turbine will be far higher).
Regarding claim 10, Goto discloses wherein the power supply subsystem is configured to vary operation of the ORC generator in response to variation of load drawn by the at least one remote power sink when the gas turbine and the ORC generator are operating simultaneously to generate electrical power and when the variation of load is within the first electrical power generation capacity (this represents intended use of said subsystem, the power can be varied by the systems and thus the power supply would match power pulled from an end load).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Grimm (US-Pub 20140318434).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Goto does not disclose wherein the vessel has a recess defined in a central part of the aft section to receive a prow of a driving vessel, and wherein the fore section of the hull has an acutely angled surface to facilitate forward passage of the vessel through water.
Grimm teaches a vessel (100, fig 1) which contains LNG which has a recess (110, fig 1) defined in a central part of the aft section to receive a prow of a driving vessel (140, fig 1), and wherein the fore section of the hull has an acutely angled surface to facilitate forward passage of the vessel through water (101, fig 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vessel hull disclosed by Goto by using the hull shape of Grimm. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is a known way to propel an unpowered vessel and would make moving said vessel easier.
Regarding claim 7, Goto discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one LNG storage tank includes a plurality of LNG storage tanks disposed below the deck.
Grimm teaches a vessel (100, fig 1) for storing LNG, wherein there are multiple LNG tanks(150, fig 1) disposed within the hull (par. 0025) which would be formed below the deck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the LNG tank disclosed by Goto by using multiple LNG tanks formed below the deck. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that multiple smaller tanks below the main body would reduce the danger of leaks to the crew above the deck by reducing the chances of them interacting it as well as the scale of a leak from a single point.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Kopecek (8813498).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Goto does not disclose wherein the ORC generator comprises a radial expander, the radial expander including variable inlet vanes that are controllable to enable adjustment of electrical power output of the ORC generator.
Kopecek teaches an ORC generator (10, fig 1) wherein the turbine comprises a radial expander, the radial expander including variable inlet vanes that are controllable to enable adjustment of electrical power output of the ORC generator (col 3, lines 32-45, the turbine is a radial turbine with guide vanes controlled via a controller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the turbine disclosed by Goto be a radial turbine with controllable variable inlet vanes. Doing so would allow for the system to optimize power output and system efficiency (col 3, lines 35-40), as suggested by Kopecek.
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Fourgaut (FR2586227).
Regarding claim 18, Goto discloses a power generation installation (11, fig 4), at least one floating power generation system of claim 1 (see claim 1); and at least one floating LNG storage vessel (100, fig 4) to supply LNG to the at least one floating power generation system.
Goto does not disclose a floating pier coupled to fixed pylons and configured to move up and down with water level relative to the fixed pylons, the floating pier being positioned to allow access to the floating pier from a shoreline.
Fourgaut teaches: a floating pier (annotated fig A) coupled to fixed pylons (annotated fig A) and configured to move up and down with water level relative to the fixed pylons (the pier floats and thus would move with the Pylons), the floating pier being positioned to allow access to the floating pier from a shoreline (annotated fig A) which ships can moor too.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the floating power system disclosed by Goto by be moored to a floating pier based on the teachings of Fourgaut. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that mooring boats to a pier is a common occurrence for vessels and would be obvious when they need to be worked on or launched.
PNG
media_image1.png
872
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Goto as modified by Fourgaut discloses wherein the floating pier comprises: a gangway (annotated fig 1) to allow human access; at least one first bay for receiving the at least one floating power generation system, respectively; and at least one second bay for receiving the at least one floating LNG storage vessel, respectively (front half and back half).
Regarding claim 20, Goto discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the at least one floating power generation system is moored closer to the shoreline than the at least one floating LNG storage vessel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the floating power generation system moored closer to the shoreline than the at least one floating LNG storage vessel, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 21, Goto as modified by Fourgaut discloses wherein the at least one floating power generation system is moored to the floating pier through the use of an interlocking device (annotated fig 1 above, it is known to use ropes to restrict movement between a vessel and a pier to prevent it from floating away and thus interlocking them).
Regarding claim 22, Goto as modified by Fourgaut discloses wherein the at least one floating LNG storage vessel is moored to the floating pier through the use of an interlocking device (annotated fig 1 above, it is known to use ropes to restrict movement between a vessel and a pier to prevent it from floating away and thus interlocking them).
Claims 1, 6-10, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (9771824) in view of Freund (US-Pub 2012/0000200).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a floating power generation system (100, fig 1), comprising: a vessel (col 1, lines 17-20), the vessel including: a vessel frame (the vessel would need some kind of support frame to provide structural support), a hull (the outer wall of the vessel) around the vessel frame and defining fore and aft sections (the front and back of the vessel), and a deck (top of the vessel) supported by the vessel frame; a gas turbine (108, fig 1) on the vessel to generate electrical power from combustion of natural gas; a generator (116, 136, fig 1) on the vessel to generate electrical power from heat recovery (116 is a heat recovery system which supplies heat to generator 136, fig 1); a gas supply line on the vessel for supplying liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the gas turbine (line from 104 to 108 and 106, fig 1); and a power supply subsystem (114, fig 1) to receive electrical power from at least one of the gas turbine or the generator and to supply power to at least one remote power sink that is away from the vessel (this represents intended use of the power supply, thus it must merely be capable of it, and since power can easily be tapped off to a separate location it meets this limitation).
Park does not disclose an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator.
Freund discloses uses an organic Rankine cycle generator (16, fig 1) to produce power from the heat generated from a gas turbine exhaust gas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steam powered waste heat recovery system disclosed by Park by using an organic Rankine cycle generator based on the teachings of Freund. Doing so would increase efficiency of heat recovery at lower grade heat from the exhaust due to its lower critical temperature relative to water (par. 0022), as suggested by Freund.
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses at least one LNG storage tank on the vessel (104, fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses wherein the at least one LNG storage tank includes a plurality of LNG storage tanks (104, fig 1).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses wherein the generator is configured to be used for electrical power generation in addition to the gas turbine (72, fig 10).
Regarding claim 9, Park as modified by Freund discloses wherein the ORC generator has a first electrical power generation capacity and the gas turbine has a second electrical power generation capacity that is higher than the first electrical power generation capacity (the ORC generator has a first power generated by the vaporizing liquid while the gas turbine generates power from combustion of said liquid, the order of magnitude of power generated by the gas turbine will be far higher).
Regarding claim 10, Park as modified by Freund discloses wherein the power supply subsystem is configured to vary operation of the ORC generator in response to variation of load drawn by the at least one remote power sink when the gas turbine and the ORC generator are operating simultaneously to generate electrical power and when the variation of load is within the first electrical power generation capacity (this represents intended use of said subsystem, the power can be varied by the systems and thus the power supply would match power pulled from an end load).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses wherein the gas turbine has a power output of between about 5 MW and about 20 MW (col 8, lines 7-33, the total power between the generator and turbine is 28.5 and the generator is 8.5, thus the max power of the turbine is 20 MW).
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses wherein the generator has a power output of between about 2 MW and about 6 MW (the generator max power is 8.5 MW, thus when operating at partial load it would have a power output within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses a damper (120, fig 1) which, in a first position allows the gas turbine and the ORC generator to operate together (mode 2, fig 2) , and in a second position allows the gas turbine and ORC generator to operate independently of each other (mode 5, fig 2).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses wherein the ORC generator includes a fresh air firing stack (stack which leads air to burner 106, fig 1).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over park as modified by Freund as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Billig (9611981).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses a supplementary burner (106, fig 1) to burn the boil-off gas to generate supplemental heat for operation of the ORC generator.
Park does not disclose at least one storage tank to receive boil-off gas from one or more LNG storage tank
Billig teaches an LNG fuel system for a vehicle (110, fig 2) with at least one storage tank (218, fig 2) to receive boil-off gas from one or more LNG storage tank (212, fig 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boil off line disclosed by Park as modified by Freund by having a storage tank to receive the boil off gasses based on the teachings of Billig. Doing so would give the engine a ready source of fuel for engine start (col 8, lines 45-52), as suggested by Billig.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights