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 . Claims 1-25 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings fail to meet the standard established in 37 CFR 1.84. Specifically, 37 CFR 1.84(l) states “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning”. Specifically Figures 5, 6, 7a-7e, 8a-8c, 14a-14c, 15a-15c, 16a-16c, 17a-17b, 18a -18b of the drawings provided are not sufficient quality for reproduction
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to
the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing
sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet,
even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing
should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate
figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining
figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the
several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary
to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the
filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or
“New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the
applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office
action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 8-9, 12, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fresh air firing stack" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 depends from Claim 8 and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the supplemental burner" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “a power output of between about 5 MW and about 20 MW” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation claims a range of the power output with an upper and lower limit but the term “about” is not described in such a manner to allow one of ordinary skill to be able to ascertain what is considered to be the upper and low limits. In this case, for example, it is unclear whether 4.9 MW would be considered about 5 MW, but then also be outside the range of 5 MW to 20 MW. Therefore it is unclear if 4.9 MW would read on the limitations of the claim or not. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted to be “a power output of between 5 MW and 20 MW”.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitation “a power output of between about 3 MW and about 7 MW” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation claims a range of the power output with an upper and lower limit but the term “about” is not described in such a manner to allow one of ordinary skill to be able to ascertain what is considered to be the upper and low limits. In this case, for example, it is unclear whether 2.9 MW would be considered about 3 MW, but then also be outside the range of 3 MW to 7 MW. Therefore it is unclear if 2.9 MW would read on the limitations of the claim or not. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted to be “a power output of between 3 MW and 7 MW”.
Regarding Claim 21, the limitation “a working temperature of between about 3°C and about 24°C” renders the claim indefinite. The limitation claims a range of the power output with an upper and lower limit but the term “about” is not described in such a manner to allow one of ordinary skill to be able to ascertain what is considered to be the upper and low limits. In this case, for example, it is unclear whether 2.9°C would be considered about 3 °C, but then also be outside the range of 3°C to 24°C. Therefore it is unclear if 2.9 MW would read on the limitations of the claim or not. For the purposes of this examination the limitation will be interpreted to be “a working temperature of between 3°C and 24°C”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 20-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mendu (Foreign Patent Publication - WO 2018/144024), hereinafter Mendu.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Mendu discloses a power generation system (Figures 1-5), comprising:
a gas turbine, 14 and 16, to generate electrical power from the combustion of natural gas (Paragraph 0043);
a gas supply line, 42, for supplying vaporized liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the gas turbine (Paragraph 0066 – the conduit/line, 42, supplies gasified/vaporized natural gas to the turbine engines of the power plant);
a power supply subsystem, 12, to receive electrical power from the gas turbine and to supply to at least one remote power sink (Paragraphs 0028 and 0047 – the offloader, 12, is a power supply subsystem that receives energy from the gas turbine through the generators and provide it to a shore grid/remote power sink);
a vaporizer, 8,configured to vaporizing the LNG (Paragraph 038); and
a closed loop thermal fluid circuit (64 and 66) configured to recover latent energy of the vaporizing LNG to cool a thermal fluid, 64, in the closed loop thermal fluid circuit (Paragraph 066 – the vaporization of the LNG causes a cooling of a working fluid in the thermal fluid circuit), wherein the gas turbine includes an air inlet, 138, for the intake of ambient air (Paragraph 013); and wherein the air inlet is configured such that ambient air passing there through is cooled by the cooled thermal fluid (Paragraphs 013 and 074 – the thermal fluid is used to cool the inlet air).
Regarding Claim 4, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further disclose a portion of the thermal fluid cooled at the vaporiser is diverted from the thermal fluid circuit for use in cooling air conditioning equipment (Figures 2 and 4 – a portion of the thermal fluid is diverted from the circuit to provide cooling in the air conditioning equipment, 136).
Regarding Claim 20, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further discloses the thermal fluid of the closed loop thermal fluid circuit is glycol (Paragraph 015 – the thermal fluid of the closed loop is glycol).
Regarding Claim 21, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further discloses the thermal fluid of the closed loop thermal fluid circuit has a working temperature of between 3°C and 24°C (Paragraph 015 – the thermal fluid of the closed circuit has a freezing temperature of -45oC and thus has a working temperature that would include temperatures between 3°C and 24°C, since it would not freeze).
Regarding Claim 22, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further discloses a floating power generation system (Figure 1), comprising the system of claim l (See rejection for Claim 1 above) installed on a vessel (Figure 1 – the system is on a vessel, 4) the vessel including a vessel frame (Paragraph 032 – the vessel is a double hull design with cofferdams and voids and thus has a vessel frame), a hull around the vessel frame (Paragraph 032 – the vessel is a double hull design) and defining fore and aft sections (Figure 1 – the right portion of the vessel, as seen in Figure 1 is the fore section and the left portion of the vessel, as seen in Figure 1, is the aft section), and a deck supported by the vessel frame (Paragraph 043 – the vessel has a deck, 50, that is supported by the frame); wherein the power supply subsystem is configured to supply power to at least one remote power sink that is away from the vessel (Paragraph 047 – the power generated is provided to a shore power grid which is remote from the vessel).
Regarding Claim 25, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further discloses at least one LNG storage tank, 6, on the vessel (Figure 1 – the tank, 6, is on the vessel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Colon (U.S. Patent No. 11,221,177), hereinafter Colon.
Regarding Claim 2, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu does not disclose the gas turbine includes a lubricant oil cooler and wherein the thermal fluid circuit is configured to exchange heat energy with lubricant oil in the lubricant oil cooler, to thereby cool the lubricant oil and heat the thermal fluid.
However, Colon teaches a power generation system (Figure 3B – Column 4, Lines 37-42, Column 5, Lines 42-48 and Column 6, Lines 51-59) with a gas turbine (Column 4, Lines 37-42 – the system has a turbine engine) where the gas turbine includes a lubricant oil cooler (Column 4, Lines 37-42, Column 5, Lines 42-48 and Column 6, Lines 51-59 – the turbine engine has a lubricant cooler) and wherein the thermal fluid circuit is configured to exchange heat energy with lubricant oil in the lubricant oil cooler (Column 4, Lines 37-42, Column 5, Lines 42-48 and Column 6, Lines 51-59 – the lubricant in circuit is cooled by a thermal fluid), to thereby cool the lubricant oil and heat the thermal fluid (Column 4, Lines 37-42, Column 5, Lines 42-48 and Column 6, Lines 51-59 – the lubricant in circuit is cooled).
Further, Mendu further teaches the use of the thermal fluid to provide cooling in separate power elements (Paragraph 069).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu by making the gas turbine includes a lubricant oil cooler and wherein the thermal fluid circuit is configured to exchange heat energy with lubricant oil in the lubricant oil cooler, to thereby cool the lubricant oil and heat the thermal fluid, as taught by Colon, in order to further improve the efficiency of the turbine engine (Colon – Column 5, Lines 42-48).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Colon as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Klochko (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2006/0236699), hereinafter Klochko.
Regarding Claim 3, Mendu in view of Colon disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu in view of Colon do not disclose the thermal fluid circuit includes a heat exchanger in which the thermal fluid exchanges heat energy with seawater passing through the heat exchanger, to thereby further heat the thermal fluid prior to its return to the vaporiser.
However, Klochko teaches system (Figure 5) with a vaporizer, 30a, for LNG, 40A, and a closed thermal fluid circuit, 10A, with a thermal fluid where the thermal fluid circuit includes a heat exchanger, 20A, in which the thermal fluid exchanges heat energy with seawater passing through the heat exchanger (Paragraph 0040), to thereby further heat the thermal fluid prior to its return to the vaporizer (Figure 5 – the thermal fluid is heated by the seawater prior to its return to the LNG vaporizer, 30a).
Further, Mendu further teaches the heating of the thermal fluid by different locations (Paragraph 012).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Mendu in view of Colon by including the thermal fluid circuit includes a heat exchanger in which the thermal fluid exchanges heat energy with seawater passing through the heat exchanger, to thereby further heat the thermal fluid prior to its return to the vaporizer, as taught by Klochko, in order to provide a larger temperature differential and therefore a more efficient system for energy/electrical production (Klochko - Paragraph 0038).
Claim(s) 5-6, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Klochko.
Regarding Claim 5, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Mendu further discloses the power supply subsystem is configured to receive electrical power from at least one of the gas turbine to supply power to the at least one remote power sink (Paragraphs 0028 and 0047 – the offloader, 12, is a power supply subsystem that receives energy from the gas turbine through the generators and provide it to a shore grid/remote power sink).
Mendu does not disclose including an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator to generate electrical power from heat recovery.
However, Klochko teaches a power generation system (Figure 5) that includes an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator (Figure 5) to generate electrical power from heat recovery (Paragraph 0040 – the heat recovery by a thermal fluid that is provided for vaporization is also used to drive the turbine to drive the generator to produce electrical power).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu by including an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator to generate electrical power from heat recovery, as taught by Klochko, in order to allow the use of the LNG in the vaporizer as a cold sink in a power cycle to increase the efficiency of a power generation system (Klochko – Paragraph 0038).
Regarding Claim 6, Mendu in view of Klochko disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Klochko discloses the ORC generator is configured for electrical power generation (Paragraph 0040).
Thus the combination of Mendu in view of Klochko would result in the ORC generator being configured to generate electrical power in addition to the gas turbine, as disclosed by Mendu, thereby resulting in the limitations of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 11, Mendu in view of Klochko disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further discloses the gas turbine has a second electrical power generation capacity (Paragraph 043). Klochko further discloses the ORC generator has a first electrical power generation capacity (Paragraph 0006). Mendu in view of Klochko do not explicitly disclose the second electrical power generation capacity is higher than the first electrical power generation capacity.
However it noted that the problem of providing a desired amount of electrical output was well known in the art, as evidenced by Paragraph 043 of Mendu that shows the gas turbine providing a required output. Further it is noted that there is a finite number of relative capacities of the first and second electrical power generation capacity. In this case they can be equal, the first greater than the second and the second greater than the first. In all three cases there would be a reasonable expectation of success of providing a desired electrical power output.
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu in view of Klochko such that the second electrical power generation capacity is higher than the first electrical power generation capacity because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding Claim 19, Mendu in view of Klochko disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu in view of Klochko do not disclose the ORC generator has a power output of between 3 MW and 7 MW.
However, Klochko teaches the amount of power output effects what the power from ORC generator is able to be used for (Paragraph 0006).
Therefore the power output of the ORC generator is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is the type of uses of the power produced by the ORC generator.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the ORC generator produces a power output, were disclosed in the prior art by Mendu in view of Klochko, it is not inventive to discover the optimum the power output by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and 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 invention of Mendu in view of Klochko to have a power output of between 3 MW and 7 MW in order be used for a particular purpose.
Claim(s) 5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Sami (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2012/0001436), hereinafter Sami.
Regarding Claim 5, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Mendu further discloses the power supply subsystem is configured to receive electrical power from at least one of the gas turbine to supply power to the at least one remote power sink (Paragraphs 0028 and 0047 – the offloader, 12, is a power supply subsystem that receives energy from the gas turbine through the generators and provide it to a shore grid/remote power sink).
Mendu does not disclose including an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator to generate electrical power from heat recovery.
However, Sami teaches a power generation system (Figure 4A) that includes an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator (Figure 4A) to generate electrical power from heat recovery (Paragraph 0040 – the heat recovery by a thermal fluid is used to drive the turbine to drive the generator to produce electrical power).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu by including an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator to generate electrical power from heat recovery, as taught by Sami, in order to provide a method of electric power generation using a waste heat boiler (Sami – Paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 12, Mendu in view of Sami disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Sami further discloses a working fluid of the ORC generator is a thermal fluid (Paragraph 0041 – the ORC generator is a thermal fluid).
Thus the combination of Mendu in view of Sami result in the limitations of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Mendu in view of Sami disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu in view of Sami, as discussed so far, do not disclose a heat exchanger configured to receive heated gases from the supplemental burner and for heating the thermal fluid of the ORC generator.
However, Sami further teaches a heat exchanger, 22 and 23, configured to receive heated gases from a supplemental burner, 16, and for heating the thermal fluid of the ORC generator (Paragraph 0041).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu in view of Sami by including a heat exchanger configured to receive heated gases from a supplemental burner and for heating the thermal fluid of the ORC generator, as taught by Sami, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, Mendu in view of Sami disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu in view of Sami, as discussed so far, do not disclose the ORC generator includes a condenser configured to condense the thermal fluid using seawater as a coolant.
However, Sami teaches the ORC generator includes a condenser, 30, configured to condense the thermal fluid (Paragraph 0042) using seawater as a coolant (Paragraph 0061 – the coolant for the condenser is seawater).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu in view of Sami by making the ORC generator includes a condenser configured to condense the thermal fluid using seawater as a coolant, as taught by Sami, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 5.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Sami as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kopecek (U.S. Patent No. 8,813,498), hereinafter Kopecek.
Regarding Claim 15, Mendu in view of Sami disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Sami further discloses the ORC generator comprises an expander, 12.
Thus the combination of Mendu in view of Sami would result in the ORC generator having an expander.
Mendu in view of Sami do not disclose the ORC generator comprises a radial expander.
However, Kopecek teaches an ORC generator (Figure 1) that comprises a radial expander (Column 3, Lines 32-43 – the expander/turbine, 16, is a variable speed radial expander).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu in view of Sami by making the ORC generator comprises a variable speed radial expander, as taught by Kopecek, in order to allow for optimization of the power output and plant efficiency (Kopecek – Column 3, Lines 32-43).
Regarding Claim 16, Mendu in view of Sami and Kopecek disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Kopecek further discloses the radial expander includes variable inlet vanes (Column 3, Lines 32-43 – the radial expander has variable inlet vanes) that are controllable to enable adjustment of electrical power output of the ORC generator in response to transient power load drawn by the at least one remote power sink (Column 3, Lines 32-43 – the variable vanes allow for the adjustment of the power output in response to difference conditions – the portion of the claim “in response to transient power load drawn by the at least one remote power sink” describe the manner in which the structure is used, in this case the structure would be able to perform the function in a similar manner).
Thus the combination of Mendu in view of Sami and Kopecek would result in the limitations of Claim 16.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Sami as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kopecek and Giraud (U.S. Patent No. 11,193,395), hereinafter Giraud.
Regarding Claim 17, Mendu in view of Sami disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Sami further discloses the ORC generator comprises an expander, 12.
Thus the combination of Mendu in view of Sami would result in the ORC generator having an expander.
Mendu in view of Sami do not disclose the ORC comprises an axial expander controllable to enable adjustment of electrical power output of the ORC generator in response to transient power load drawn by the at least one remote power sink.
However, Kopecek teaches an ORC generator (Figure 1) that comprises a expander, 16, that is controllable to enable adjustment of electrical power output of the ORC generator in response to transient power load drawn by the at least one remote power sink (Column 3, Lines 32-43 – the expander is adjustable to adjustment of the power output in response to difference conditions – the portion of the claim “in response to transient power load drawn by the at least one remote power sink” describe the manner in which the structure is used, in this case the structure would be able to perform the function in a similar manner).
Therefore 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 invention of Mendu in view of Sami by making the expander controllable to enable adjustment of electrical power output of the ORC generator in response to transient power load drawn by the at least one remote power sink, as taught by Kopecek, in order to allow for optimization of the power output and plant efficiency (Kopecek – Column 3, Lines 32-43).
Mendu in view of Sami and Kopecek do not disclose the expander being an axial expander.
However, Giraud teaches the use of axial expanders/expansion turbines in ORC systems (Column 2, Lines 52- Column 3, Line 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the expander with an axial expander, as taught by Giraud, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (the expander of Mendu in view of Sami and Kopecek), for another (the axial expander of Giraud), to obtain predictable results providing an expander for an ORC system (Giraud - Column 2, Lines 52- Column 3, Line 3) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu.
Regarding Claim 18, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu further discloses the size/power output of the gas turbine effects the market that it can be used for (Paragraph 041) and size of the gas turbine engine (Paragraph 043).
Therefore the power output of the gas turbine is recognized as a result effective variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case the recognized result is the size of the gas turbine and the market that the gas turbine can be used with.
Therefore since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the gas turbine produces a power output, were disclosed in the prior art by Mendu, it is not inventive to discover the optimum the power output by routine experimentation (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618,195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977)), and 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 invention of Mendu to have a power output of between 5 MW and 20 MW in order allow use in the desired market and have the desired size.
Claim(s) 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendu in view of Faka (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2016/0231050), hereinafter Faka.
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, Mendu discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above. Mendu does not explicitly disclose the vessel is free of propulsion means.
However, Faka teaches the use of a float in barge/vessel that is free of propulsion means as a vessel for a LNG plant (Abstract – Paragraph 0086).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Mendu by replacing the vessel with a float in barge/vessel free of propulsion means because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (the vessel of Mendu), for another (float in barge/vessel free of propulsion means of Faka), to obtain predictable results providing a vessel for a LNG plant (Faka – Abstract and Paragraph 0086) was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not discuss the use of ORC generator systems in combination with a fresh air firing stack and in combination with other systems such as a gas turbine.
Regarding Claim 7 the ORC system is not described as having a fresh air firing stack with a gas turbine exhaust or with heat recovered from the gases entering the fresh air firing stack.
Regarding Claim 8, the ORC system with a fresh air firing stack is not described with a supplementary burner that burns boil-off from an LNG tank.
Regarding Claim 10, the ORC system is not described as sharing a damper with a gas turbine to adjust operation of the two systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights