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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s Amendment and Response filed May 18, 2026 has been entered and considered. Claims 1 and 23 are amended. No claims have been canceled and no claims have been added. Claims 1–23 are pending and stand rejected.
claim 1 substitutes, for the previously rejected recitation "and not seawater is used," the recitation that "the system is operable at the at-shore location where cooling consists of air cooling via the air cooler to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process." Amended claims 1 and 23 each further recite that the interconnected modules form a first refrigeration train and a second refrigeration train, that a substantial portion of the first refrigeration train is aft of the mid-ship axis and a substantial portion of the second refrigeration train is forward of the mid-ship axis, and that a weight of the first refrigeration train is balanced against a weight of the second refrigeration train about the mid-ship axis.
The rejection of claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is maintained as set forth below. The amendment did not cure the defect; it replaced one unsupported exclusion with a narrower and likewise unsupported recitation. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and § 112(d), and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of newly cited art, are set forth below.
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.
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:
(1) "a source of electricity and feed gas" in claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 — the term "source" is a generic placeholder coupled with the functional language "of electricity and feed gas" without recitation of sufficient structure, and the placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure described in the specification is power plant 7 (which may comprise a gas-powered generator or a connection to an electrical grid) together with preprocessing plant 5, and equivalents thereof (¶¶ 0036–0038, 0043 of the publication; figs. 1, 1A).
(2) "the means for connecting the water-based apparatus to the land-based facilities" in claims 11 and 14 — this limitation uses the word "means" coupled with the function of connecting the water-based apparatus to the land-based facilities. The corresponding structure described in the specification is the transit bridge and cable transit bridge attached to at-shore anchor 4, together with the walkway structure of anchor 4, and equivalents thereof (¶¶ 0036, 0038, 0044; figs. 1, 1A). See also the rejection of claims 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below for lack of antecedent basis.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, in the final paragraph recitation, that "the system is operable at the at-shore location where cooling consists of air cooling via the air cooler to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process.". The specification describes an air-cooled electric refrigeration module 20 comprising refrigeration trains that utilize "any combination of electric compressors, air coolers, and/or knock-out drums" (¶ 0034), and describes discharging substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process to ambient air with air coolers (¶¶ 0006, 0034, 0050). Nowhere, however, does the original disclosure describe a system in which cooling consists of — that is, is limited to and excludes anything other than — air cooling via the air cooler.
To the contrary, the original disclosure affirmatively describes cooling within the refrigeration process that is not air cooling. Paragraph 0049 describes pre-cooling heat exchangers 24 and 25 that input the preprocessed feed gas and cool it against warm-mixed refrigeration circuits 28 and 29, and main cryogenic heat exchangers 26 and 27 that input the first cooled gas and cool it against cold-mixed refrigeration circuits 30 and 31. Paragraph 0069 likewise describes a converting step 220 comprising a pre-cooling process that cools a portion of the preprocessed feed gas against a warm-mixed refrigeration circuit, and a refrigeration process that cools the first cooled gas against a cold-mixed refrigeration circuit. Each of these is a cooling operation performed by means other than air cooling via an air cooler. The recitation that cooling "consists of" air cooling is thus not merely unsupported, it is contradicted by the very embodiment relied upon for the balance of the claim.
The recitation "consists of" excludes any element, step or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.03(II). As drafted, the limitation is a negative limitation excluding all forms of cooling other than air cooling via the air cooler. A negative limitation must have support in the original disclosure; the mere absence of a positive recitation is not a sufficient basis for a negative limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05(i). Applicant’s statement that support is found at ¶ 0011 has been considered; ¶ 0011 describes a closed loop ballast water system and the constituent components of the refrigeration trains, and states that the water-based apparatus may not comprise a primary power generation system or a gas preprocessing system. It contains no description of cooling being limited to air cooling.
Claims 2-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 23 each recite that "a substantial portion of the first refrigeration train is aft of the mid-ship axis and a substantial portion of the second refrigeration train is forward of the mid-ship axis such that a weight of the first refrigeration train is balanced against a weight of the second refrigeration train about the mid-ship axis." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the mid-ship axis." The hull recited earlier in each claim is defined only as "defining a bow, a stern, and a centerline axis extending from the bow to the stern." No mid-ship axis is previously introduced in either claim. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine from the claim itself where the mid-ship axis lies or how it relates to the recited centerline axis, and the metes and bounds of the fore-and-aft distribution and weight-balance requirement are therefore unascertainable. For purposes of applying prior art in this Office action only, "the mid-ship axis" is interpreted, consistent with ¶ 0032 of the publication, as a transverse axis X–X extending from starboard to port at the middle of the hull. Correction is required; Applicant may, for example, positively recite the mid-ship axis in the hull clause of each independent claim.
Claim 1 recites that the AER System is configured to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process to ambient air "with air coolers," and later recites that cooling consists of air cooling "via the air cooler." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the air cooler." It is unclear whether Applicant intends the singular recitation to refer to the previously recited plurality of air coolers, to one air cooler of that plurality, or to a further, separate air cooler.
Claim 1 recites "cooling consists of air cooling via the air cooler" wherein independently of the antecedent-basis defect and of the written description rejection above, the "consists of" recitation renders claim 1 indefinite because it is irreconcilable with the body of the claim. The body of claim 1 requires the AER System to "perform a refrigeration process for converting the feed gas into a liquefied natural gas ... using a plurality of electrically-driven compressors and a cryogenic heat exchanger." A cryogenic heat exchanger performs cooling, and it is not an air cooler. Claim 9 further requires the interconnected modules to utilize dual-mixed refrigerants, which necessarily cool the process stream by refrigerant heat exchange rather than by air. It is therefore unclear whether the recitation is intended (i) to exclude only cooling media other than ambient air for rejecting the process heat to the environment, or (ii) to exclude all cooling of any kind other than air cooling, in which case the limitation directly contradicts the recited cryogenic heat exchanger and refrigeration circuits. Because the claim reasonably admits of both readings and the two are mutually exclusive in scope, the claim fails to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its bounds.
Claim 1 recites that "the air coolers are arranged to at least partially or only partially cover the one or more refrigeration trains," and claim 23 recites that "the air coolers at least or only partially cover the one or more refrigeration trains." The recited alternatives are not mutually exclusive and are not co-extensive: "at least partially" encompasses complete coverage, whereas "only partially" affirmatively excludes complete coverage. Presenting these as alternatives leaves it unclear whether an arrangement in which the air coolers fully cover a refrigeration train falls within or outside the claim. Alternative expressions are permissible only where the scope of each alternative is clear and the alternatives are not internally inconsistent. See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim 1 first recites that "the one or more interconnected modules form a first refrigeration train and a second refrigeration train," and then recites "the one or more interconnected modules comprising one or more refrigeration trains, wherein each refrigeration train of the one or more refrigeration trains comprises a portion of the electrically-driven compressors and a portion of the air coolers." Claim 23 contains a parallel duplication in its wherein clause. It is unclear whether the later-recited "one or more refrigeration trains" is the same as, encompasses, or is in addition to the first and second refrigeration trains recited earlier. If the two recitations are intended to refer to the same trains, "one or more" is inconsistent with the antecedent requirement of two trains; if they are intended to be distinct, the relationship between the two sets of trains is not defined. Clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 23 recites the term "a substantial portion" in "a substantial portion of the first refrigeration train is aft of the mid-ship axis" is a relative term of degree which renders the claims indefinite. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree; ¶ 0051 offers only a parenthetical example ("e.g., more than 50%"), which is expressly exemplary and does not define the term. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claim 3 recites "wherein the source of feed gas generates the feed gas by removing unwanted elements." There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the source of feed gas." Claim 1 recites a single element, "a source of electricity and feed gas." It is unclear whether claim 3 is directed to that single source or introduces a separate feed-gas source, particularly in view of claim 10, which recites that the source of electricity and feed gas comprises a first source for the electricity and a second, separate source for the feed gas.
Claims 11 and 14 each recite "the means for connecting the water-based apparatus to the land-based facilities." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1, which recites no means for connecting and instead recites only that the at-shore water-based apparatus is "separate from but capable of connecting to the land-based facilities." It is unclear whether claims 11 and 14 affirmatively require a connecting means as a positive element of the claimed system or merely characterize a capability recited in claim 1. See also the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) set forth above.
Claim 22 recites "wherein top surfaces the plurality of LNG storage tanks LNG storage tank are spaced apart from an upper deck of the hull to define a void space." The recitation is grammatically incomplete and contains a duplicated and unmatched reference to the storage tanks, such that it cannot be determined whether the top surfaces are those of the plurality of tanks collectively, of a single tank, or of some further tank. Correction is required.
Claim 22 further recites that "the void space is sized and shaped to be capable of containing an amount of fluid having a weight that is approximately equal to a weight of the AER System." The claim thereby defines the required volume of the void space by reference to the weight of the AER System, but neither claim 22 nor claim 1 recites any weight, size, capacity or other quantitative attribute of the AER System. The dimensional requirement placed on the void space therefore varies without limit with an unclaimed variable, and the term "approximately equal" further compounds the uncertainty. One of ordinary skill in the art could not determine whether a given void space infringes the claim.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12, 13 and 15-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites, in relevant part, that "the at-shore location comprises a jetty, a quayside, a shoreline or a position proximate to a shoreline location." Claim 1 already requires that the water-based apparatus be "configured to be moored to an at-shore location" and that the apparatus be "at-shore." Under the alternatives "a shoreline" and "a position proximate to a shoreline location," claim 7 recites nothing beyond what the at-shore location of claim 1 already requires, and the claim is therefore co-extensive in scope with claim 1 with respect to that limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3–14 and 17–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2016/0046354 A1) in view of Christensen et al. (US 2017/0074558 A1, hereinafter "Christensen-1"), Faka (US 2016/0231050 A1), Christensen et al. (US 2020/0003489 A1, hereinafter "Christensen-2"), and further in view of Finn, A.J., "New FPSO design produces LNG from offshore sources," Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 26, 2002 (hereinafter "Finn").
In regard to claims 1 and 23, Scott teaches a system for liquefaction of natural gas (floating dockside liquefaction system of figs. 2A–2B) comprising:
land-based facilities (onshore pretreatment facility 280 including gas process area 290, natural gas receiving area 305, cooling water heat exchangers 310 and office 300) connected to a source of feed gas (gas conduit 320 delivering pipeline quality gas to facility 280, which outputs pretreated gas to pipeline 270) (¶¶ 0037, 0039, 0044; figs. 2A, 2B);
an at-shore water-based apparatus (floating liquefaction unit 100) separate from but capable of connecting to the land-based facilities (280), wherein the source of feed gas is external to the at-shore water-based apparatus (280 is onshore, remote from unit 100), the water-based apparatus configured to be moored to an at-shore location (unit 100 moored to dock 200 and/or shoreline 210 by mooring lines 220 to deadman anchors 230) (¶¶ 0038–0039, 0042; figs. 2A, 2B);
a hull configured to be operable when moored to the at-shore location, the hull defining a bow, a stern, and a centerline axis extending from the bow to the stern (unit 100 is a ship-shaped floating liquefaction, storage and offloading unit having deck 115 and a hull containing tanks 120) (¶¶ 0034–0035, 0042; figs. 1A–1C);
a refrigeration system comprising one or more interconnected modules operatively configured to (i) receive feed gas from the source (high pressure gas arm 330 delivers the pretreated gas from pipeline 270 to liquefaction module 110), (ii) perform a refrigeration process for converting the feed gas into a liquefied natural gas (liquefaction of the natural gas by liquefaction module 110 at step 425), and (iii) output the LNG (LNG transferred to storage tank 120 at step 430), wherein the refrigeration system comprises a first refrigeration train and a second refrigeration train (unit 100 may include one, two, three, four or more liquefaction trains 110, four like liquefaction modules 110 each of about one MTPA processing capacity being shown, and figs. 1A and 1B showing the four modules 110 spaced apart from one another in a single line running along the length of deck 115 of the ship-shaped hull, with modules 110 positioned on both sides of the transverse midpoint of the hull) (¶¶ 0034, 0043–0045; figs. 1A, 1B);
a plurality of LNG storage tanks (120) that are on a lower deck of the hull, the plurality of LNG storage tanks operatively configured to receive the LNG from the refrigeration system (LNG stored in tanks 120 below deck 115 in the hull), and operatively configured to output the LNG to an LNG transport vessel that is separate from the water-based apparatus (LNG transferred from tanks 120 to LNG carrier 250 via hose 325) (¶¶ 0034–0035, 0046–0047; figs. 1A, 1C, 2A, 2B); and
wherein the system processes and converts the feed gas into LNG at the at-shore location using a closed-loop cooling system that does not use the surrounding sea water for cooling (cooling water heat exchangers 310 of a closed-loop cooling system, which reduces environmental impact because the temperature of the sea water is not raised) (¶¶ 0033, 0037).
Scott does not explicitly teach that the refrigeration system is an air-cooled refrigeration system configured to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process to ambient air with air coolers operatively configured on the water-based apparatus, or that the system is operable at the at-shore location where cooling consists of air cooling via the air cooler to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process.
However, Christensen-1 teaches a floating natural gas liquefaction facility (floater 10) in which the refrigerant of the liquefaction process is cooled by a plurality of air-coolers (1) arranged on one or more air-cooler ducts (15) carried along a side of the floater, the air-coolers withdrawing cooling air from inside the duct and releasing the heated air to the surroundings, whereby the waste heat of the liquefaction process is rejected to ambient air rather than to seawater (¶¶ 0033–0037, 0067–0074; figs. 6–9). Christensen-1 expressly identifies the reason for doing so: in coastal waters where marine life is abundant, certain jurisdictions do not permit the use of seawater for cooling at all, and the discharge of heated seawater is harmful to marine life (¶ 0012), and the liquefaction plant must be adapted so that the refrigerants in the compressor inter- and after-cooler systems are warmer than normal and are therefore able to transfer waste heat into ambient air (¶ 0074).
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 refrigeration trains of Scott so that substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process is discharged to ambient air with air coolers carried on the floating unit, and so that cooling at the at-shore location is performed by air cooling rather than by seawater, as taught by Christensen-1, in order to avoid the intake and discharge of seawater for cooling in coastal waters where such discharge is harmful to marine life and is prohibited in certain jurisdictions (Christensen-1, ¶¶ 0012, 0033).
Scott as modified does not explicitly teach that the refrigeration process is performed with the received electricity using a plurality of electrically-driven compressors and a cryogenic heat exchanger operatively configured on the water-based apparatus, that the land-based facilities are connected to a source of electricity, that the water-based apparatus does not include onboard power generation for the refrigeration system, or that electrical power for the refrigeration system is supplied substantially from the land-based facilities.
However, Faka teaches a near-shore LNG processing plant (10) in which the liquefaction facilities (124, 224, 324) are located remotely from the power source and are driven electrically: power is supplied to the liquefaction modules from a power generation facility (62) via a subsea power cable, with the compressors and liquefaction equipment being driven by electric motors (¶ 0106; figs. 22, 23). Faka further teaches that the power generation facility (20) may be located onshore, offshore on the deck of the structure, or near shore as a separate facility, and that it may be a pre-existing onshore power generation facility (¶¶ 0026, 0132; claim 41), and that the power generation facility supplies power both to the liquefaction facility and to the other services and utilities of the structure (¶ 0094). Faka also teaches that the liquefaction facility receives pre-treated gas from a gas pre-treatment facility that removes acid gas, water, mercury and heavy hydrocarbons (¶¶ 0024, 0082, 0084) and that placing facilities off the deck of the floating structure allows the deck to be dedicated to liquefaction capacity (¶¶ 0011, 0073).
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 Scott as modified so that the compressors of the liquefaction trains are electrically driven and are supplied with electricity transmitted from a land-based power generation facility of the onshore facilities, and so that the floating unit does not carry its own power generation for the refrigeration system, as taught by Faka, in order to drive the liquefaction compressors from a power generation facility that is located off the liquefaction structure, including a pre-existing onshore power plant, using electric motors and a power cable (Faka, ¶¶ 0026, 0106, 0132).
Scott as modified does not explicitly teach that the air coolers are operatively configured on or above an upper deck of the hull, that each refrigeration train comprises a portion of the electrically-driven compressors and a portion of the air coolers, or that the air coolers are arranged to at least partially or only partially cover the one or more refrigeration trains.
However, Christensen-2 teaches an air-cooled floating liquefaction, storage and offloading vessel (106) in which the liquefaction process is distributed among parallel liquefaction trains (111, 111a, 111b), each train having its own compressors (614, 616) and process heat exchangers (613, 615), and in which the air coolers (200, 200a–e) are mounted on cantilevers carried on the deck of the vessel and extending along most of the vessel length alongside and over the liquefaction trains, cooling water circulating between the process heat exchangers of each train and its air coolers so that the final result is a fully air-cooled gas liquefaction process (¶¶ 0059, 0071, 0076, 0079, 0095–0101; figs. 1, 2, 6).
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 Scott as modified so that the air coolers are carried on or above the upper deck of the hull, so that each refrigeration train comprises a portion of the compressors and a portion of the air coolers, and so that the air coolers at least partially cover the refrigeration trains, as taught by Christensen-2, in order to maximize the available air-cooler area and thereby minimize the process-fluid-to-air approach temperature for each train (Christensen-2, ¶¶ 0059, 0079).
Scott further teaches the physical distribution of the refrigeration trains along the hull. Figures 1A and 1B of Scott depict floating liquefaction unit 100 as a ship-shaped hull carrying four like liquefaction modules 110 spaced apart from one another in a single line extending along the length of deck 115, with the crane 130, the power generation system 150, the control room 125 and the fractionation system 135 grouped toward the bow end and the boil-off gas system 140 and refrigerant make-up system 145 toward the stern end, such that modules 110 are located on both sides of the transverse midpoint of the hull. Scott states that each of the four modules 110 has about one million tons per annum processing capacity, so that the modules so distributed are of like size and like weight (¶ 0034; figs. 1A, 1B).
Scott does not, however, expressly characterize the placement of the liquefaction trains by reference to a mid-ship axis, and does not expressly state that the weight of one train is balanced against the weight of another train about that axis.
However, Finn teaches the design of a ship-shaped floating LNG production, storage and offloading plant in which the liquefaction plant is built as either two or four parallel trains, and expressly teaches that parallel operation enables the plant to be laid out symmetrically on the vessel, which maintains vessel stability and ensures minimal effects due to vessel movement, that the topsides are arranged in discrete module categories distributed along the hull, and that integral tanks are allocated and arranged to maintain satisfactory trim (Finn, Sec. "Marine design basis" and Sec. "Modularization"; fig. 3). Christensen-1 likewise teaches that equipment on a floater is deliberately arranged symmetrically about the vessel so that the forces produced by opposed items of equipment counteract each other and no net force acts on the floater, and that the arrangement of heavy air-cooling structures must be controlled to avoid instability of the floating structure (Christensen-1, ¶¶ 0034, 0078; fig. 7).
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 arranged the first and second refrigeration trains of Scott as modified symmetrically about the transverse mid-ship axis of the hull, with a substantial portion of the first train aft of that axis and a substantial portion of the second train forward of it, so that the weight of the first train is balanced against the weight of the second train about the mid-ship axis, as taught by Finn, in order to maintain vessel stability, ensure minimal effects due to vessel movement, and maintain satisfactory trim of the hull (Finn, Sec. "Marine design basis" and Sec. "Modularization"). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Scott carries two or more like-sized liquefaction trains 110 on the deck 115 of a ship-shaped hull whose LNG containment system is deliberately configured to minimize sloshing and provide mid-span deck support for the installed trains, so that the longitudinal placement of those trains relative to amidships is a design variable that the ordinary artisan necessarily addresses in laying out the deck (Scott, ¶¶ 0034–0035; figs. 1A–1C). See MPEP § 2143(I)(x).
Applicant is advised that reliance on figures 1A and 1B of Scott is proper notwithstanding the statement at ¶ 0020 that the drawings may not be to scale. The rejection does not rely on Scott’s drawings for any precise dimension, spacing or proportion; it relies on them only for the arrangement they disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art, that a plurality of like liquefaction trains are spaced apart along the length of a ship-shaped hull, with trains on both sides of the hull’s transverse midpoint. A drawing that is not to scale may not be relied upon to prove particular proportions, but it remains available for what it reasonably teaches concerning the relative arrangement of the disclosed elements. See MPEP § 2125(II).
Further, the balancing of two like items of topside equipment about the mid-ship axis of a hull is no more than a rearrangement of parts that yields the predictable result of an evenly distributed load, and the mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is not a patentable distinction absent evidence of a new or unexpected result. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Duplication of the essential working parts of a device — here, the provision of first and second like refrigeration trains, is likewise not patentably distinguishing.
In regard to claim 3, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of feed gas generates the feed gas by removing unwanted elements (onshore pretreatment facility 280 processes pipeline quality gas at gas process area 290 for removal of carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, water and mercury, and dehydrates and compresses the gas, to produce near-LNG or LNG quality pretreated gas) (Scott, ¶¶ 0039, 0044).
In regard to claim 4, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the unwanted elements include at least heavy hydrocarbons (Scott, ¶¶ 0034, 0039: fractionation system 135 for the removal of heavier hydrocarbons and removal of lighter components which tend to freeze; Faka, ¶¶ 0069, 0084: the gas pre-treatment facility 22 includes equipment for acid gas removal, dehydration and, optionally, mercury removal and heavy hydrocarbon removal, a heavy hydrocarbon being a hydrocarbon compound with more than three carbon atoms in the chain). 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 Scott as modified to remove heavy hydrocarbons in the onshore pre-treatment step as taught by Faka, in order to produce a clean gas that avoids freezing of the liquefaction equipment and allows the liquefaction process to run more smoothly (Faka, ¶¶ 0069, 0084).
In regard to claim 5, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the feed gas is at least partially pre-processed (pipeline quality gas is brought to near-LNG quality at onshore pretreatment facility 280, final gas processing to LNG quality optionally taking place onboard unit 100) (Scott, ¶¶ 0039, 0045).
In regard to claim 6, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the AER System outputs a fuel gas to the source of electricity and feed gas (boil-off gas system 140 handles natural boil-off from tanks 120 and the boil-off gas is used as fuel for liquefaction module 110 and power generation system 150, which per Scott may be located at onshore pretreatment facility 280) (Scott, ¶ 0036; Faka, ¶¶ 0094, 0129: unodorized natural gas derived from natural or forced boil off gas from the first cryogenic storage tank is used as the source of fuel gas for the gas turbines of the power generation facility). 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 Scott as modified to route the boil-off gas produced on the water-based apparatus to the land-based power generation facility as fuel, as taught by Faka, in order to fuel the gas turbines of the power generation facility with unodorized vaporized gas that produces a lower level of emissions and pollutants than burning oil or coal (Faka, ¶¶ 0129–0130).
In regard to claim 7, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of electricity generates a portion of the electricity received by the AER System (power generation facility 20/62 generating electricity for the liquefaction modules, as applied to claim 1 in view of Faka, ¶¶ 0026, 0106, 0132) and the at-shore location comprises a jetty, a quayside, a shoreline or a position proximate to a shoreline location (unit 100 is moored at dock 200, a fixed mooring structure extending from shoreline 210 into the navigable body of water, or at a sea island) (Scott, ¶¶ 0038, 0042).
In regard to claim 8, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the source of electricity comprises a gas-powered generator operative to generate the portion of the electricity received by the AER System (power generation facility 20 including one or more gas-fired power generation units, in this example a gas turbine arranged to use unodorized natural gas as a source of fuel gas, each gas turbine producing energy by combustion of fuel gas to drive a first generator) (Faka, ¶¶ 0129–0130). 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 Scott as modified so that the land-based source of electricity comprises a gas-fired generator set, as taught by Faka, in order to generate the electricity required by the liquefaction equipment from gas that is already available at the site while producing a lower level of emissions than burning oil or coal (Faka, ¶¶ 0129–0130).
In regard to claim 9, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more interconnected modules utilize dual-mixed refrigerants (Scott, ¶ 0034: liquefaction module 110 may be a liquefaction system provided by Black & Veatch Corporation, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. or CB&I Lummus; Christensen-1, ¶ 0014: known refrigerants such as hydrocarbons or nitrogen circulate in cooling systems comprising compressors, air-cooled heat exchangers and LNG exchangers, and base-load systems are distinguished from simpler peak-shaving systems; Finn, Sec. "Mixed refrigerant": the dual mixed-refrigerant cycle is suitable for capacities up to and potentially more than 4 million tpy and has a lower specific power than the single mixed-refrigerant cycle). 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 Scott as modified so that the refrigeration trains utilize dual-mixed refrigerants, as taught by Finn, in order to obtain the lower specific power and the capacity range appropriate to a multi-train floating plant (Finn, Sec. "Mixed refrigerant").
In regard to claim 10, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of electricity and feed gas comprise a first source for the electricity (the land-based power generation facility applied to claim 1 in view of Faka, ¶¶ 0026, 0132) and a second source for the feed gas (onshore pretreatment facility 280 supplying pretreated gas through pipeline 270), such that the first source is separate from the second source (Scott, ¶¶ 0039, 0044; Faka, ¶¶ 0026, 0132; figs. 2A, 2B of Scott).
In regard to claim 11, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the means for connecting the water-based apparatus to the land-based facilities comprises a transit bridge extendable between the land-based facilities and the water-based apparatus (dock 200 extending from shoreline 210 into the navigable body of water and carrying pipeline 270 and high pressure gas arm 330 to unit 100, dock 200 including mobile access roads providing points of ingress and egress to and from unit 100) (Scott, ¶¶ 0038, 0041, 0043; figs. 2A, 2B). See also the rejection of claim 15 below.
In regard to claim 12, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising: a first line for transmitting the electricity from the land-based facilities to the water-based apparatus (subsea power cable transmitting power from the power generation facility to the liquefaction modules driven by electric motors) (Faka, ¶ 0106); and a second line for carrying the feed gas from the land-based facilities to the water-based apparatus (pipeline 270 coupled to unit 100 through high pressure gas arm 330) (Scott, ¶¶ 0043–0044; figs. 2A, 2B).
In regard to claim 13, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the first line comprises one or more conductors transmitting the electricity (subsea power cable supplying power from the power generation facility 62 to the liquefaction modules) (Faka, ¶ 0106).
In regard to claim 14, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 13, wherein: the means for connecting the water-based apparatus to the land-based facilities comprises a transit bridge extendable between the land-based facilities and the water-based apparatus (dock 200 extending from shoreline 210 and carrying the pipeline and access roads to unit 100) (Scott, ¶¶ 0038, 0041); and the transit bridge supports at least one of the first line and the second line (pipeline 270 extends onshore and along dock 200 to the high pressure gas arm 330 that transfers the gas to unit 100) (Scott, ¶¶ 0040, 0043–0044; fig. 2A).
In regard to claim 17, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system processes and converts the feed gas into LNG without discharging substantial amounts of contaminants to the environment (the closed-loop cooling system of cooling water heat exchangers 310 does not use the surrounding sea water and therefore does not raise the temperature of the sea water; waste water treatment area 295 is located onshore) (Scott, ¶¶ 0033, 0037; Christensen-1, ¶¶ 0012, 0033).
In regard to claim 18, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the water-based apparatus comprises a closed loop ballast system operable with a ballast fluid to assist in stabilizing the water-based apparatus moored in proximity to the at-shore location without discharging the ballast fluid to water proximate the at-shore location.
However, Faka teaches a near-shore LNG processing structure (28) provided with at least one ballast storage compartment (56), and preferably a plurality of such compartments arranged around the periphery of or toward the base of the structure, for ballasting the structure to secure and stabilize its position at the selected location, and further teaches that the liquid ballasting material may be water, condensate, monoethylene glycol, methanol, diesel, demineralised water, LPG or combinations thereof, and may be stored in a non-cryogenic storage tank aboard the structure (¶¶ 0021, 0090; figs. 1, 2).
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 Scott as modified to provide the floating unit with a plurality of ballast compartments holding a retained liquid ballast that is circulated to stabilize the moored unit rather than discharged to the surrounding water, as taught by Faka, in order to adjust the level of ballasting to suit the conditions at the selected near-shore location and thereby secure the position of the structure (Faka, ¶¶ 0021, 0090).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, including a control room (125) aboard the floating liquefaction unit and an office (300) at the onshore pretreatment facility, together with operable equipment at both locations — the liquefaction trains, boil-off gas system and cargo pumps aboard the unit, and the gas process area 290, cooling water heat exchangers 310 and power supply components onshore (Scott, ¶¶ 0036–0037, 0044), and further teaches, in view of Faka, a fuel gas conditioning unit at the power generation facility provided with a temperature regulator for measuring and adjusting the temperature of the vaporized gas as required to improve the combustion efficiency of the gas turbine (Faka, ¶ 0131).
The modified Scott does not explicitly teach a controller operable with both the land-based facilities and the at-shore water-based apparatus, or a plurality of sensors comprising sensors of the land-based facilities and sensors of the at-shore water-based apparatus, wherein the controller operates the refrigeration system and at least a power supply component at the land-based facilities based on data output from both sets of sensors.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the effective filing date, it was well known and conventional in the natural gas processing art to monitor and control a process facility with a supervisory control system that receives measured data from field sensors distributed across the several physically separated portions of the facility and that issues corresponding control signals to the operable equipment — including power supply equipment — at each of those portions, in order to coordinate the operation of interdependent units and to match generation to process demand.
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 provided the modified Scott with a controller in communication with sensors at both the onshore facility and the moored floating unit, the controller operating the refrigeration trains and a power supply component of the onshore facility based on the data from those sensors, in order to coordinate the electrical output of the onshore power generation facility with the electrical demand of the liquefaction trains it supplies and to permit automatic control of both portions of the plant from a single control room. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because the modified Scott places the power generation for the liquefaction trains onshore and the trains themselves on a separately moored hull, so that the two must be operated as one interdependent plant, and because Scott already provides a control room 125 aboard the unit and an office 300 onshore for that purpose (Scott, ¶¶ 0036–0037).
In regard to claim 21, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each tank of the plurality of LNG storage tanks is a membrane tank (LNG storage tanks 120 may be membrane type cargo tanks, the containment system being a membrane design in a two row/ten tank configuration) (Scott, ¶ 0035; fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 22, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein top surfaces of the plurality of LNG storage tanks are spaced apart from an upper deck of the hull to define a void space (LNG storage tanks 120 are located below deck 115 in a two row/ten tank membrane configuration that provides mid-span deck support for the installed liquefaction trains, the deck being supported above the tanks) (Scott, ¶¶ 0034–0035; figs. 1A, 1C), but does not explicitly teach that the void space is sized and shaped to be capable of containing an amount of fluid having a weight that is approximately equal to a weight of the AER System. However, the space between the tops of the cargo tanks and the deck of a membrane-tank hull is a volume whose dimensions the ordinary artisan selects, and sizing that volume so that it could hold a quantity of liquid of a weight comparable to the topside module it supports is no more than an obvious matter of engineering design that yields the predictable result of a hull whose deck-supporting structure is dimensioned to the topside load it carries. 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 dimensioned the void space of Scott as modified to be capable of containing a fluid weight approximately equal to the weight of the refrigeration system, as an obvious matter of design choice, in order to obtain a balanced distribution of weight and to minimize sloshing in the tanks (Scott, ¶ 0035). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regard to claim 23, see the rejection of claim 1 above. Claim 23 is directed to the at-shore water-based apparatus alone, moored to an at-shore location and connected to a land-based source of electricity and feed gas that is external to the apparatus, and recites the same hull, AER System, first and second refrigeration trains balanced about the mid-ship axis, air coolers and plurality of LNG storage tanks addressed above. The rejection of claim 1 is therefore applied in full to claim 23.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka, Christensen-2 and Finn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernays et al. (US 9,933,119 B2, hereinafter "Bernays").
In regard to claim 2, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the LNG storage tanks (120) are arranged in the hull below the deck (Scott, ¶ 0035; fig. 1C), but does not explicitly teach that the plurality of LNG storage tanks is spaced apart in a single row along the centerline axis of the hull such that the storage volume of each tank is approximately centered on the centerline axis.
However, Bernays teaches a floating LNG plant (1) converted from an LNG carrier in which the plurality of LNG storage tanks (4) are spherical Moss-type tanks arranged in a single row spaced apart along the length of the hull (5) on the longitudinal centerline of the vessel, the vessel having four or five such tanks, the spherical Moss type of tank providing slosh-tolerant storage for LNG and LPG (col. 5, ll. 30–52; col. 6, ll. 1–20; figs. 1, 2).
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 Scott as modified so that the LNG storage tanks are spaced apart in a single row along the centerline axis of the hull with the storage volume of each tank approximately centered on that axis, as taught by Bernays, in order to obtain slosh-tolerant storage of the LNG aboard the floating plant (Bernays, col. 5, ll. 44–52).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka, Christensen-2 and Finn as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Murty et al. (AU 2012207059 B2, hereinafter "Murty").
In regard to claim 15, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 14, including the first line and the second line supported between the land-based facilities and the water-based apparatus (Scott, ¶¶ 0040, 0043–0044; Faka, ¶ 0106), but does not explicitly teach that the transit bridge is attached to an at-shore anchor, that the transit bridge comprises a walkway structure, and that the at least one of the first line and the second line that the transit bridge supports is positioned under or adjacent to the walkway structure.
However, Murty teaches a fixed offshore or near-shore liquefied natural gas facility in which a plurality of spaced-apart modules (16), including a gas processing module (18), a liquefaction module (20) and a storage module (22), are linked by bridges (36) that are elevated at a clearance of at least 25 to 30 meters above the splash zone, and in which a supply system (30) in the form of piping and associated pumps, manifolds and valves transfers treated gas from the gas processing module to the liquefaction module and LNG from the liquefaction module to the storage module, the bridges performing various functions including serving as walkways or roadways to facilitate access between the spaced-apart modules (p. 8, ll. 10–27; figs. 1, 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 modified Scott as modified so that the transit bridge is anchored at the shore end and comprises a walkway structure with the gas and power lines carried under or adjacent to that walkway, as taught by Murty, in order to provide personnel access between the shore-side facilities and the water-based apparatus while carrying the interconnecting process and utility lines on the same elevated structure (Murty, p. 8, ll. 10–27).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka, Christensen-2 and Finn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardy et al. (US 2020/0354027 A1, hereinafter "Hardy").
In regard to claim 16, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the water-based apparatus is moored alongside the dock with one side facing the dock and the opposite side facing open water (Scott, ¶¶ 0042, 0046; figs. 2A, 2B), but does not explicitly teach that the water-based apparatus comprises a containment system operatively configured to direct spills of cryogenic fluid over the other one of a port side or a starboard side of the water-based apparatus.
However, Hardy teaches a moored marine barge (100) having a hull (101) and a deck (102) from which cryogenic-capable liquid fuel is transferred to a visiting vessel, and which contains a two-stage spill containment system having the capacity to handle any possible spills: a first form of spill containment is a wall around the barge that is sealed to stop any fluids from spilling off the barge, and a second form of spill containment captures fluids through grating and collects those fluids in a holding tank below deck (¶¶ 0016, 0023; figs. 1–3).
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 modified Scott as modified to provide the deck of the water-based apparatus with a containment system that collects liquid spills and directs them over the side of the hull remote from the dock, as taught by Hardy, in order to handle any possible spills on a moored marine structure and prevent fluids from escaping uncontrolled from the deck.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections, unless otherwise noted below.
Applicant argues that Scott does not disclose or suggest an air-cooled, electrically-driven refrigeration system, and that Scott relies on water cooling and onboard power generation.
This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Scott alone for these features, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Air cooling of the liquefaction refrigerant aboard a floating LNG facility is supplied by Christensen-1 (¶¶ 0033–0037, 0067–0074) and Christensen-2 (¶¶ 0059, 0071, 0079, 0101), and electric-motor drive of the liquefaction compressors is supplied by Faka (¶ 0106). Further, Scott is not confined to onboard power generation: Scott recites the power generation system 150 permissively and expressly states that one, some or all of the listed elements may instead be located at the onshore pretreatment facility 280 (¶ 0036), and teaches that placing equipment onshore allows the floating unit to be lighter, smaller and to carry approximately 25% greater liquefaction capacity (¶ 0039). Scott likewise does not rely on the surrounding seawater; its cooling water heat exchangers 310 form a closed-loop system that expressly does not use surrounding sea water for cooling (¶¶ 0033, 0037).
Applicant argues that Christensen-1 does not disclose electrically-driven compressors and is directed only to airflow management and air cooler placement.
The Examiner agrees that Christensen-1 does not identify the compressor drive as electric, and Christensen-1 is no longer relied upon for that feature. The present rejection relies on Christensen-1 for what it does teach, the rejection of substantially all of the waste heat of a floating liquefaction process to ambient air with air coolers carried on the floating structure, and the express reasons for doing so in coastal waters (¶¶ 0012, 0033–0037, 0067–0074), and on Faka for the electrically-driven compressors (¶ 0106).
Applicant argues that Faka does not disclose or suggest supplying electrical power from land-based facilities to operate an offshore LNG liquefaction refrigeration system, and that Faka’s electric motors are tied to an onboard power generation facility.
This argument is not persuasive. Faka teaches that power is supplied to the liquefaction modules from the power generation facility 62 via a subsea power cable, with the compressors and liquefaction equipment being driven by electric motors (¶ 0106), that is, electrical power transmitted over a cable from a physically separate facility to drive liquefaction compressors. Faka separately and expressly teaches that the power generation facility may be located onshore, and that it may be a pre-existing onshore power plant (¶¶ 0026, 0132; claim 41). The two teachings are not confined to different embodiments: Faka states that the first phase power generation facility 20 may be located onshore, offshore on the deck of the structure, or near shore as a separate facility (¶ 0132), and it is the same facility that supplies the liquefaction facility and the other services and utilities of the plant (¶ 0094). A reference is good for all that it teaches, including nonpreferred embodiments and disclosed alternatives. See MPEP § 2123. Taken as a whole, Faka teaches an electrically-driven liquefaction plant powered from a remote generation facility that may be onshore, which is what the rejection relies upon.
Applicant argues that Christensen-2 is directed to large-scale floating LNG production explicitly offshore, not at-shore or dockside, and uses gas turbine drives.
This argument is not persuasive. Christensen-2 is not the primary reference and is not relied upon for the at-shore location or for the compressor drive. Scott supplies the at-shore, dockside floating liquefaction unit moored to a fixed dock or sea island at the shoreline (¶¶ 0038, 0042; figs. 2A, 2B), and Faka supplies the electric drive. Christensen-2 is relied upon only for the arrangement of air coolers on or above the deck alongside and over parallel liquefaction trains, with each train having its own compressors and its own air coolers in an indirect cooling loop (¶¶ 0059, 0071, 0079, 0095–0101). It is not necessary that the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary reference; the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); MPEP § 2145(III).
Applicant argues that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight and that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to make the several modifications together.
This argument is not persuasive. Each modification set forth above is supported by a reason drawn from the references themselves rather than from Applicant’s disclosure: Christensen-1 supplies the environmental and regulatory reason for air cooling in coastal waters (¶ 0012); Faka supplies the reason for electric drive powered from a remote, optionally onshore, generation facility (¶¶ 0026, 0106, 0132); Christensen-2 supplies the reason for placing the air coolers over the trains to maximize cooling area and minimize approach temperature (¶¶ 0059, 0079); and Finn supplies the reason for the symmetric, balanced layout of parallel trains (Sec. "Modularization"). Scott itself supplies the reason for moving equipment ashore (¶¶ 0036, 0039). Any judgment on obviousness is necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP § 2145(X)(A).
Applicant argues that the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of Scott because Scott includes onboard power generation.
This argument is not persuasive. Scott’s principle of operation is the bifurcation of natural gas processing, treatment and liquefaction systems between onshore and offshore facilities so that a compact floating unit moored at a dock performs the liquefaction while the supporting facilities are placed ashore (¶¶ 0031–0033, 0039). Relocating the power generation for the liquefaction trains to the onshore facility does not frustrate that principle; it advances it, and Scott expressly contemplates it by stating that one, some or all of the listed shipboard elements, a list that includes power generation system 150, may be located at the onshore pretreatment facility 280 (¶ 0036). Nor does the substitution of air cooling for the closed-loop water cooling circuit change Scott’s principle of operation: Scott’s stated object is to avoid raising the temperature of the surrounding sea water (¶¶ 0033, 0037), and air cooling serves that same object.
Applicant argues that LNG systems are complex, that air and water cooling are not simple trade-offs, and that the Office has treated features of four references as interchangeable.
This argument is not persuasive. Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success; all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.02. Christensen-1 does not treat air cooling as a drop-in substitute for water cooling; it sets out in detail the process consequences of the substitution, that the refrigerants in the compressor inter- and after-cooler systems must run warmer, that the specific compressor duty and hence the cooling duty increase, and how the air-cooler area, LMTD and approach temperature must then be sized, and quantifies those consequences in Tables 1–5 (¶¶ 0014–0018, 0074–0076, 0081–0100). Christensen-2 sets out the corresponding indirect water-to-air cooling loop and the resulting specific liquefaction energy (¶¶ 0071, 0095–0101, 0109). That is precisely the engineering knowledge attributed to one of ordinary skill, and it establishes a reasonable expectation of success rather than undermining it. The cited quality-assurance guidance concerning modification of equipment in service speaks to the discipline required in executing a modification, not to whether the modification would have been obvious to make.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights