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 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:
“a source of electricity” in claim 1 is understood to be any art recognized power plant (see ¶ 0043 of the publication);
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 the limitation wherein “the system is operable at the at-shore location where air cooling via the air cooler and not seawater is used to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process” in line 31-33 introduces a new matter because the claimed language encompassed subject matter that is not supported in the original disclosure. However, contrary to the claimed scope, applicant has only support for the system to have air cooling via an air cooler. Nowhere in applicant’s original disclosure discloses not to use sea water to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process.
Claims 2-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, 17, 18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2016/0046354) in view of Christensen et al. (US 2017/0074558) hereinafter “Christensen-1” in view of Faka (US 2016/0231050) and further in view of Christensen et al. (US 2020/0003489 A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 23, Scott teaches a system for liquefaction of natural gas (100, Abstract, ¶ 0034), the system comprising:
an at-shore water-based apparatus (100) separate from but capable of connecting to a land-based facilities, the water-based apparatus (100) configured to be moored to the at-shore location (fig. 2A, the floating liquefaction unit is moored to a dock and shoreline ¶ 0042), the water-based apparatus comprising:
a hull (floating liquefaction unit 100 Figure 1A-1C is a ship) configured to be operable when moored to the at-shore location (¶ 0042), the hull defining a bow, a stern, a centerline axis extending from the bow to the stern (the longitudinal axis of the ship),
a refrigeration system comprising one or more interconnected modules (one, two, three, four or more liquefaction trains 110) operatively configured to (ii) perform a refrigeration process for converting a feed gas (270, ¶ 0038) into a liquefied natural gas (LNG) using a cryogenic heat exchanger (110, ¶ 0034) operatively configured on water-based apparatus (100) (¶ 0038, 0044), (iv) output the LNG (¶ 0046-0047), wherein the refrigeration system comprises a first refrigeration train and a second refrigeration train (one, two, three, four or more liquefaction trains 110; ¶ 0034)
a plurality of LNG storage tanks (120) that are on a lower deck of the hull, the plurality of LNG storage tanks (12) operatively configured to receive the LNG from the refrigeration system (see fig. 1C, the LNG tanks 120 are located below the deck in a hull (see ¶ 0030), which would be the same as a lower deck, and would receive the produced LNG), and operatively configured to output the LNG (325) to an LNG transport vessel (250) that is separate from the water-based apparatus (see fig. 2B; ¶ 0046-0047).
Scott teaches a refrigeration system operatively configured to perform a refrigeration process for converting a feed gas into a liquefied natural gas (LNG) using a cryogenic heat exchanger, but does not explicitly teach the refrigeration system is an air-cooled electrically-driven refrigeration system ("AER System") configured to ((ii) perform the refrigeration process for converting the feed gas into a liquefied natural gas ("LNG") using a plurality of electrically- driven compressors (iii) discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process to ambient air with air coolers on the water-based apparatus and 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, and the system is operable at the at-shore location where air cooling via the air cooler and not seawater is used to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process.
However, Christensen-1 teaches a system for liquefaction of natural gas, the system comprising an at-shore water base apparatus (10) separate from but capable of connecting to a land-facilities, wherein the feed gas is external to the at-shore water base apparatus (10), the at-shore water base apparatus (10) comprising a hull configured to be operable when moored to the at-shore location (see ¶ 0055-0063), wherein the system comprise an air cooled electrically driven refrigeration system comprising one or more refrigeration trains comprising electrically driven compressors and air coolers (¶ 0067-0072), wherein the system is operable at the at-shore location where air cooling via the air coolers and not seawater is used to discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process (see ¶ 0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the refrigeration trains of Scott to comprises an electrically-driven compressors and air coolers, and to operate the system at the at-shore location via the air coolers and not seawater, and discharge substantially all thermal energy from the refrigeration process, in view of the teachings of Christensen-1, since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby one having ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to use a known liquefaction system type such as that taught by Christensen-1 in order to provide lower refrigeration duty because compressors and cold boxes are relatively smaller, and to reduce overall complexity of the liquefaction system.
Scott teaches the refrigeration system operatively configured to receive the feed gas (270) from an external source being separate from the at-shore water-based apparatus, but does not explicitly teach a land-based source of electricity and electrical power for the AER System is supplied substantially from the land-based facilities.
However, Faka teaches an LNG regasification plant arranged to receive a feed stream of LNG and vaporize the LNG to produce a product stream of natural gas, wherein the plant comprises a an onshore power generation facility to provide power to the offshore the heat exchange system (see ¶ 0026, 0127, 0129).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Faka to provide power/electricity coming from an onshore facility to the AER system of Scott as modified based on the teaching of Faka since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this modification would provide the predictable result of providing the necessary electricity for the refrigeration system.
Scott teaches each refrigeration train of the first refrigeration train and the second refrigeration train comprises a portion of the plurality of electrically-driven compressors and a portion of the air coolers (see the rejection of above in view of Christensen-1), but does not explicitly teach the air coolers are operatively configured on or above the upper deck of the hull; and wherein the air coolers at least or only partially cover the first refrigeration train and the second refrigeration train.
However, Christensen teaches an air-cooled floating liquefaction, storage system, comprising an air coolers (200-200e) are operatively configured on or above the upper deck of the hull (see fig. 2), wherein the air coolers (200-200e) at least or only partially cover a refrigeration train (liquefaction plants 111, 111a and 111b) (see fig. 2; ¶ 0059, 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Scott by configuring the air coolers on the upper deck of the hull at least partially covering the first and second refrigeration trains, in view of the teachings of Christensen, in order to provide cooling to the refrigeration trains.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of feed gas generates the feed gas from a pretreatment facility (see ¶ 0038-0039 of Scott), but does not explicitly teach removing unwanted elements and unwanted elements include at least heavy hydrocarbons.
However, Faka teaches an LNG production plant (10) includes a first phase offshore gas pre-treatment facility (22) for producing a first phase stream of pre-treated gas (25). The gas pre-treatment facility (22) includes equipment for acid gas removal, dehydration and, optionally, mercury removal and heavy hydrocarbon removal of the kind that is known in the art (¶ 0082, 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Scott by pretreating the feed gas by removing unwanted elements include at least heavy hydrocarbons, in view of the teachings of Faka, in order to avoid freezing of liquefaction equipment and produce a clean gas that allows the liquefaction process to run more smoothly.
In regard to claim 5, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the feed gas is at least partially pre-processed (examiner read pre-process mean produced gas may first be treated at a treatment facility to bring the produced gas to pipeline quality) (see ¶ 0038-0039 of Scott).
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 (see ¶ 0036 of Scott).
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 (see the rejection of claim 1 above in view of Faka) and the at-shore location comprises a jetty, a quayside, a shoreline or a position proximate to a shoreline location (see ¶ 0042, the floating liquefaction unit 100 is at a shoreline).
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 (see Faka ¶ 0026, 0127, 0129).
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 (see Scott ¶ 0034). Scott teaches two, three, four or more liquefaction trains 110.
In regard to claim 10, the modified Scott in view of Faka teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the source of electricity and feed gas comprise a first source for the electricity (as modified in claim 1 by Faka) and a second source for the feed gas (as taught by Scott, 270, ¶ 0038), such that the first source is separate from the second source (two separate sources taught by Scott and Faka).
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 (e.g., see fig. 2A, 2B, the pathway for the feed gas would be a connection between them).
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 (the cable for electricity for powering the liquefaction unit, as modified above); and a second line for carrying the feed gas from the land-based facilities to the water-based apparatus (the line passing feed gas from the shore to the floating liquefaction unit).
In regard to claim 13, the modified Scott in view of Faka teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the first line comprises one or more conductors transmitting the electricity (see Faka, fig. 2; ¶ 0127, 0129; the line between the power generation facility 20/120 and the LNG regasification plant).
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; and the transit bridge supports at least one of the first line (the cable for electricity for powering the liquefaction unit, as modified above by Faka) and the second line (the line passing feed gas from the shore to the floating liquefaction unit).
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 (see Scott ¶ 0038-0039). Scott teaches does not teach discharging contaminants to the environment.
In regard to claim 18, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach 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 that based on position sensors and ballast-tank sensors that a flowable ballast substance can be provided to or from ballast tanks based on controller operations using ballast pump to provide a dock deflection management system (abstract, ¶ 0009-0011, 0029, 0083, 0090).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Faka to have provided a ballast system in Scott with a plurality of ballast tanks and one or more pumps operated by a controller to pump fluid to and from the ballast tanks in order to provide control of the location of the moored floating vessel.
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 (see Scott ¶ 0047).
In regard to claim 22, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, wherein Scott teaches top surfaces the plurality of LNG storage tanks LNG storage tank (120) are spaced apart from an upper deck (115) (see ¶ 0035), but does not explicitly teach to define a void space and 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, Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Scott, by rearranging the top surface of each LNG storage tank by voiding space capable of containing an amount of fluid having a weight that is approximately equal to a weight of the AER System, as an engineering expedient to yield predictable result of minimizing sloshing and provide a balanced weight distribution.
In regard to claim 23, See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka and Christensen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bernays et al. (US 9,933,119).
In regard to claim 2, the modified Scott teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein Scott teaches tanks that are spaced along the hull side by side (see Fig 1C), but does not explicitly teach each of the LNG storage tanks has a storage volume and 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 that a floating LNG plant can be provided with tanks centered on the central axis (see Figure 1, LNG tanks 4, Column 5, lines 44). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Bernays to have instead of having side by side tanks as in Scott to have a single centerline axis aligned tanks centered on the centerline axis since it has been shown that a simple substitution of one Known element for another to yield predictable results is obvious whereas both are known ways of storing LNG, having a single line of tanks centered on the centerline axis (which would in turn have the storage volume centered on the centerline axis) would provide the predictable result of a suitable and known configuration for storing LNG after production on a floating vessel.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka and Christensen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murty et al. (AU 2012207059 B2).
In regard to claim 15, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 14, but does not teach the transit bridge is attached to an at-shore anchor; the transit bridge comprises a walkway structure; and 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 comprising a supply system 30 in the form of piping and associated pumps, manifolds and valves, etc. is also provided for transferring treated gas from a gas processing module 18 to a liquefaction module 20 and for transferring LNG from a liquefaction module 20 to a storage module 22. 20. The plurality of spaced-apart modules 16 are linked by bridges 36, the bridges 36 being elevated at a clearance of at least at least 25-30 meters above the slash zone. The bridges 36 perform various functions, including walkways or used as roadways to facilitate vehicle access between the spaced-apart modules 16 (see page 8, line 10-27; fig. 1, 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Scott by providing the transit bridge is attached to an at-shore anchor; the transit bridge comprises a walkway structure, in view of the teachings of Murty, in order to provide a walkway access for personal between the land-based facilities and the water-based apparatus.
Regarding the limitation “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”, since the modified Scott already disclosed teaches at least a first line and/or a second line that the transit bridge (see claim 14 above), by implementing a transit bridge comprises a walkway structure (as taught by Murty above) in to the system of Scott would obviously position the first and second line adjacent to the walkway structure.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka and Christensen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardy et al. (US 2020/0354027 A1).
In regard to claim 16, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach 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 marine barge, wherein the dock/barge may contain a two stage spill containment system which can have the capacity to handle any possible spills. A first form of spill containment may be a wall around the barge which is sealed to stop any fluids from spilling off the barge. Hardy further teaches a second form of spill containment may capture fluids through grating and collect these fluids in a holding tank below deck (see ¶ 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Scott by providing a deck located above the upper deck comprising a containment system, in view of the teachings of Hardy, for purpose of avoiding contamination and damage to the water-based apparatus.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott, Christensen-1, Faka and Christensen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vaynberg et al. (US).
In regard to claims 19 and 20, the modified Scott teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a controller operable with the land-based facilities and the at-shore water-based apparatus; and 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 AER System and at least a power supply component at the land-based facilities based on data output from the sensors of the at-shore water-based apparatus and the sensors of the land-based facilities.
However, Vaynberg teaches a system and method for generation of electricity and power for modular unit retrofit into ship-based heat sources, wherein the system comprises a controller 58 contains appropriate circuitry, sensors and control algorithms for outputs to the system, wherein the controller system to match the load requirements of the receiving power grid, whether that grid is local, regional or wide area. Appropriate check valves, modulating valves and safety valves are employed as best practices dictate in the circuits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Scott by providing a controller and sensors the land-based facilities and the at-shore water-based apparatus to operate operates the AER System a power supply based on data output, in view of the teachings of Vaynberg, for providing automatic power management based on process demands.
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 rejection (Christensen al. US 2017/0074558).
Conclusion
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