DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the upper deck defines an opening such that a portion of LNG is configured to be routed into the hull from the AER System and out of the hull from the plurality of LNG membrane storage tanks through the opening" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a single “the opening” route the LNG from the AER System to the hull and also route out of the hull from the plurality of LNG membrane storage tanks. For examinations purposes, as long as the opening route LNG from the AER System into the hull, then it meets the claimed language.
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) 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2016/0046354 A1) and further in view of Fitzpatrick et al. (US 2017/0106948 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Scott teaches a hull for an at-shore water-based apparatus for liquefaction of natural gas (100; Abstract, ¶ 0034),
the hull defining a bow, a stern, a port side, a starboard side, a centerline axis (the longitudinal axis of the ship) extending from the bow to the stern, and a mid-ship axis (an axis 110 from side to side of the ship) extending between the starboard side to the port side at a middle of the hull (the floating liquefaction unit, Figure 1A-1C is a ship, which by its nature has a hull, with a bow, stern, a port side, a starboard side and centerline axis from the bow to stern and a mid-ship axis from side to side of the ship), the hull comprising:
an upper deck (top of deck 115; ¶ 0034; fig. 1A);
a lower deck (¶ 0035-0036; fig. 1A, see the deck bellow the upper deck (115) wherein the LNG storage tank (120) positioned);
the upper deck (115) operably configured to support a weight of an AER system located on or above the upper deck (see fig. 1A; ¶ 0026-0030, 0034, 0045-0048); in this case, the claim does not recite any specific components of the AER system. Accordingly the prior art of Scott need only disclose an upper deck structurally capable of supporting an LNG liquefaction train, not the particular refrigeration trains equipment described in the specification.
a plurality of LNG membrane storage tanks (120) that are on the lower deck of the hull (see fig. 1A) that are operatively configured to receive LNG from an AER system (liquefaction module 110) located on or above the upper deck (115) (see ¶ 0034, 0046),
wherein a top surface of each LNG membrane storage tank (120) is spaced apart from an upper deck (115) (see fig. 1A) to define a void space between the LNG membrane storage tanks (12) and the upper deck (115) (see the space between the storage tanks (120) and the upper deck 115; fig. 1A).
Scott does not explicitly teach a plurality of transverse support structures extending from the lower deck through to the upper deck operably configured to support a weight of an AER system located on or above the upper deck and a plurality of LNG membrane storage tanks are spaced between the transverse support structures.
However, Fitzpatrick ship comprising a hull for transporting LNG storage tanks, wherein the hull comprises a transverse support structures extending between lower and upper structural levels of the hull, providing load transfer and structural reinforcement for top equipment (see ¶ 0031-0035, 0042-0046, 0094, 0106, 0125, 0131; fig. 2, 3, 5, 11) and a plurality of LNG storage tanks are spaced between the transverse support structures (¶ 0036-0041).
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 including a transverse support structures extending from a lower deck through to an upper deck operably configured to support the upper deck, in view of the teachings of Fitzpatrick, in order to improve structural integrity and load transfer between decks, and safely support heavy topside process equipment.
In regard to claim 9, the modified Scott in view of Fitzpatrick teaches the hull of claim 8, wherein Fitzpatrick teaches the transverse support structures are spaced apart (see ¶ 0031-0035, 0042-0046, 0094, 0106, 0125, 0131; fig. 2, 3, 5, 11; see also the rejection of claim 8 above).
In regard to claim 10, the modified Scott teaches the hull of claim 8, wherein the plurality of LNG membrane storage tanks (120) is spaced apart in a single row along the centerline axis of the hull (the left side of tanks 120 seen in Figure 1C, is a single row of tanks spaced apart and extending longitudinally along the centerline axis of the hull). Note: the prior art discloses a plurality of storage tanks arranged in rows extending longitudinally along the hull. The claim dos not exclude the presence of additional tanks or rows.
In regard to claim 12, the modified Scott teaches the hull of claim 8, wherein the upper deck defines an opening such that a portion of LNG is configured to be routed into the hull from the AER System (110, as modified above) and out of the hull from the plurality of LNG storage tanks through the opening (325) (see fig. 2A, 3;¶ 0036, 0041, 0047). In this case, it is implicitly obvious that there has to be an opening to route the LNG from the AER System (110) into the lower deck of the hull (where the tanks 120 are located) (¶ 0034, 0046) and out of the Hull (via opening 325) to withdraw the LNG out of the hull from the storage tanks (120) to the LNG transport vessel (250) (see fig. 2A, 3;¶ 0036, 0041, 0047).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott and Fitzpatrick as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bernays (US 2013/0283825 A1).
In regard to claim 11, the modified Scott teaches the hull of claim 8, wherein Scott teaches an LNG membrane tanks that are spaced along the centerline axis of the hull (see Fig 1C, see also the examiner’s explanations in claim 10 above), but does not teach the storage tanks are 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, 1', 100) comprising a converted LNG carrier with a hull and a plurality of LNG storage tanks (4) centered on the central axis (see Figure 1, LNG tanks 4, ¶ 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the configuration of the LNG storage tanks of Scott 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.
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 (in view of Fitzpatrick et al. US 2017/0106948 A1), unless otherwise noted below.
(Remark page 8) that None of the cited references, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest an AER System located on or above the upper deck, where the top surface of each LNG storage tank is spaced apart from an upper deck of the hull to define a void space between the LNG membrane tank and the upper deck. Scott does not disclose or suggest an AER plant whatsoever or any above tank ballast compartment.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive. The independent claim 8 merely recites that the hull comprises an upper deck “configured to support a weight of an AER system.” The claim does not define the AER system, nor does it recite any structural components or operational details of such a system. Accordingly, the claim limitation is satisfied by disclosure of an upper deck that is structurally capable of supporting the weight of heavy industrial equipment, regardless of the specific configuration or components of that equipment. While the specification describes exemplary embodiments in which the AER system comprises one or more refrigeration trains including electric compressors, air coolers, and knock-out drums, these descriptions are illustrative only and do not operate to limit the scope of the claims. It is well settled that limitations from the specification may not be imported into the claims absent clear lexicography or an express disclaimer, neither of which is present here. Therefore, the prior art is not required to disclose the complete structure or specific components of an AER system as described in the specification. Rather, it is sufficient that the prior art disclose an upper deck configured to support the weight of large-scale process equipment comparable to an AER system. Any requirement to disclose the internal makeup of the AER system constitutes an impermissible narrowing of the claim scope.
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