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 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 (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 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent number 9,273,899 Kevenaar et al. (hereinafter Kevenaar).
Regarding claim 1, Kevenaar discloses (figures 1 and 4) A system for liquefying a pressurized feed gas, the system comprising: a high-temperature refrigerant circuit 130, comprising: a first compression arrangement 109, a first heat rejection device 13, and a first pressure reduction device (7 or 8);a low-temperature refrigerant circuit 230, comprising: a second compression arrangement 209, a second heat rejection device 14, and a second pressure reduction device 15 (figure 4); a first high-temperature heat exchanger 2, wherein the feed gas 10 is in heat exchange with a first stream of vaporizing first refrigerant 155 and is cooled thereby; and a second high-temperature heat exchanger 3, wherein compressed first refrigerant of the first refrigerant circuit 130 and compressed second refrigerant of the second refrigerant circuit 230 are in heat exchange with a second stream of vaporizing first refrigerant 170a and are cooled thereby; and a low-temperature heat exchanger 5, wherein cooled feed gas 40 from the first high- temperature heat exchanger and cooled second refrigerant 240 from the second high-temperature heat exchanger are further cooled and liquefied in heat exchange with a flow of vaporizing second refrigerant (in heat exchanger 5); wherein the high-temperature refrigerant circuit comprises: a main refrigerant line 32/36, which extends through a hot side of the second high- temperature heat exchanger 3 to the first pressure reduction device (7/8) (ii);a first secondary refrigerant line 140/155, which extends from the main refrigerant line 36, downstream of the second high-temperature heat exchanger 3, through the first pressure reduction device 7 and to the first high- temperature heat exchanger 2; and a second secondary refrigerant line 170, which extends from the main refrigerant line, downstream of the second high-temperature heat exchanger, through the first pressure reduction device 8/9 and to the second high- temperature heat exchanger 3.
Regarding claim 2, Kevenaar discloses wherein a vaporized first refrigerant collection duct from the first high-temperature heat exchanger and a vaporized first refrigerant collection duct from the second high-temperature heat exchanger are fluidly coupled to a single compressor train of the first compression arrangement (refrigerant cycle, 170B and 160 return to compressor 109 (see column 7, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 3, Kevenaar discloses wherein the first pressure reduction device (7/8) comprises: a first pressure reduction unit 7 between the first heat rejection device and the first high- temperature heat exchanger; and a second pressure reduction unit 8 between the first heat rejection device and the second high-temperature heat exchanger.
Regarding claims 7-8, Kevenaar discloses further comprising a heavy hydrocarbon removal system and pre-treatment unit (see column 6, lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the feed gas pre-treatment unit 6/4 comprises a feed gas pre-cooler 4; wherein the feed gas pre-cooler comprises a pre-cooling heat exchanger with a hot side adapted to circulate feed gas (41 into 4) and a cold side adapted to circulate first refrigerant from the first refrigerant circuit (180A sent cold side at 44 of 4).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the feed gas is natural gas (see column 6, lines 17-18, column 7, lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the first refrigerant is a mixed refrigerant and the second refrigerant is a mixed refrigerant (see column 6, lines 56-58).
Regarding claims 12-13, see the rejections of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above (see 180 sent through 9 to precooling heat exchanger 4).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
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 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.
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) 4-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevenaar as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US patent application publication number 2018/0087832 Roberts et al. (hereinafter Roberts).
Regarding claim 4, Kevenaar doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: the first compression arrangement comprises: a first compressor and a second compressor arranged in sequence; an intercooler is arranged between a discharge side of the first compressor and a suction side of the second compressor; a liquid/gas separator is arranged between the intercooler and the second compressor; the liquid/gas separator being adapted to separate liquid from a flow of partially compressed first refrigerant delivered by the first compressor; a liquid outlet of the liquid/gas separator is fluidly coupled to the second high- temperature heat exchanger; and, a third pressure reduction unit being arranged between the liquid outlet of the liquid/gas separator and the second high-temperature heat exchanger. This is disclosed by Roberts as a well-known compressor arrangement within refrigerant cycles (see figure 4, compressors 412 and 421, intercooler 414, separator 416, liquid 418 is later expanded in 437 before providing cooling in heat exchanger 460). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to utilize the refrigerant cycle and combination of compressors/intercooler/separator of Roberts with the cycles of Kevenaar in order to allow for additional condensation and recovery of any remaining vapor streams and to provide efficient composition control of said refrigerant. Further this is use of known technique (compressing, intercooling, separating, compressing and expanding liquid stream of a refrigerant cycle) to improve similar devices (refrigerant cycle in natural gas liquefaction plant) in the same way and Applying a known technique (the refrigerant cycle compressor/separator arrangement to a known device (refrigerant cycle in a natural gas liquefaction plant ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Roberts discloses comprising a further liquid/gas separator 316 between a compression arrangement and a heat exchanger (see separator 316 between 312 and 360); wherein the further liquid/gas separator comprises: a gas outlet fluidly coupled to the low-temperature heat exchanger (317 cycles back through to separator 316 as reflux and sent off as liquid 318 to 360, all of the components in figure 3 are fluidly connected); and a liquid outlet fluidly coupled to the low-temperature heat exchanger (318 sent to HE). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to utilize the refrigerant cycle and combination of compressors/intercooler/separator of Roberts with the low temperature refrigerant cycle of Kevenaar in order to allow for additional condensation and recovery of any remaining vapor streams and to provide efficient composition control of said refrigerant. Further this is use of known technique (compressing, intercooling, separating, compressing and expanding liquid stream of a refrigerant cycle) to improve similar devices (refrigerant cycle in natural gas liquefaction plant) in the same way and Applying a known technique (the refrigerant cycle compressor/separator arrangement to a known device (refrigerant cycle in a natural gas liquefaction plant ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Roberts further discloses wherein the second pressure reduction device comprises: a fourth pressure reduction unit 328 between the gas outlet of the further liquid/gas separator and the low-temperature heat exchanger; and, a fifth pressure reduction unit 337 between the liquid outlet of the further liquid/gas separator and the low-temperature heat exchanger. See motivation above with respect to claims 4 and 5 to utilize the refrigerant cycle of Roberts in the system of Kevenaar.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, see the rejection of claims 4 and 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights