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 § 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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guy et al. (FR 2722359) in view of Dwars (US 2014/0352973A1) and further in view of Pereira Almao et al. (US 2013/0015100A1).
Guy discloses in reference to claim:
PNG
media_image1.png
424
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1. A device (40) for heating a fluid, comprising - at least one electrically conductive (reactive) pipeline (41) and/or at least one electrically conductive (chemical reaction) pipeline segment (41) for receiving the fluid, and - at least one DC current and/or DC voltage source (42,43,44), wherein respectively one DC current or DC voltage source is assigned to each pipeline (41) and/or each pipeline segment (41), said DC current or DC voltage source being connected to the respective pipeline (41) and/or the respective pipeline segment (41), wherein the respective DC current and/or DC voltage source (42, 43, 44) is embodied configured to produce an electric current in the respective pipeline (41) and/or in the respective pipeline segment (41), said electric current warming up the respective pipeline (41) and/or the respective pipeline segment (41) by Joule heating, which arises when the electric current passes through conductive pipe material, for the purposes of heating the fluid, wherein the device (40) comprises a plurality of pipelines (41) and/or pipeline segments (41), wherein the pipelines (41) and/or pipeline segments (41) are through-connected and consequently form a pipe system for receiving the fluid, wherein the pipelines (41) and/or pipeline segments (41) and appropriate supply and removal pipelines are connected to one another in fluid conducting fashion. It is noted that the term “chemical reaction pipeline” is not defined by applicant in the original disclosure. As such the broadest interpretation of the term “chemical reaction pipeline” can be said to be any pipeline within which a chemical reaction can take place. Since it is obvious that the pipelines of Guy, Dwars and Pereira Almao are capable of having a chemical reaction occur therein, these pipelines can be said to be chemical reaction pipelines.
Guy does not explicitly disclose wherein the pipelines (41) and/or pipeline segments (41) and the supply and removal pipelines are galvanically isolated from one another, nor that the fluid is heated to at least 400°C. Guy also does not explicitly teach the newly claimed intended use of pipeline 41 as a part of a steam cracker. The Examiner notes that claims 1-10, 20 are directed to a fluid heating apparatus and as such the process of using the apparatus as a “steam cracker” is viewed as a recitation of intended use and is only given patentable weight to the extent that specific or inherently implied structure is added to the claimed apparatus. In the instant case, the intended use of the fluid heating pipeline as a “steam cracker” carries with it no explicit or inherently implied structure not disclosed or taught by the cited prior art.
Dwars discloses a method of heating a fluid within a tubular (reaction) pipeline including inter alia, an ohmic resistance heater formed by all or part of a metal (conductive) wall of the pipeline that is either galvanically isolated segment by segment, or whose power supply is locally galvanically isolated. Note that the tubular pipeline of Dwars is intended to promote the evaporation of hyrdrocarbons and provide a gas lift effect. It is noted that the evaporation of hydrocarbons is considered a phase change reaction. Further note that
Guy discloses a “base” fluid heating device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. The prior art of Dwars discloses a known technique that is applicable to the base device wherein the known technique includes providing galvanic isolation between sections of a pipeline heated by Joule heating effect. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Dwars would have yielded predictable results—galvanic isolation between segments and resulted in an improved system having such isolation between segments. Therefore at least under KSR rationale D above, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a means of galvanically isolating the sections of pipeline in the Guy device leading to predictable results of providing fully separate heating circuits.
Regarding the fluid being heated to at least 400°C, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art of ohmic heating would be well informed of the design requirements to accomplish ohmic heating to the claimed temperature of at least 400°C. It is further noted that the temperature to which the fluid is intended to be heated does not provide any explicit or inherently implied structural distinction from the cited art.
Pereira Almao discloses a system and method of steam cracking (a chemical reaction) similar to systems discussed by Applicant as background art wherein a fluid pipeline for petrochemicals is employed. Pereira Almao further discloses:
[0002] Commonly, heavy oils and bitumen are difficult to transport from their production areas due to their high viscosities at typical handling temperatures. Regardless of the recovery method used for their extraction including costly thermal enhanced oil recovery methods, heavy oils and bitumen generally need to be diluted by blending the oil with low density and low viscosity solvents, typically gas condensate, naphtha and/or lighter oil to make the heavy oils and bitumen transportable over long distances.
[0003] As a result, various methods are typically used to make heavy hydrocarbon mixtures transportable. Importantly, as viscosity is the key fluid property to make a heavy hydrocarbon mixture transportable increasing temperature causes significant reductions in the viscosity of heavy hydrocarbons as shown in FIG. 1b. As is well known, light oils generally have much lower viscosity values and therefore flow easier through pipelines. As an example, the variation of viscosity of a heavy hydrocarbon mixture with the content of a naphtha diluent is shown in FIG. 1a.
[0006] For example, visbreaking is a moderate thermal cracking setup that works at low pressure (-60-120 psi) and relatively moderate temperature (430-480.degree. C.) and reduces the viscosity of heavy hydrocarbon mixtures. The extent or severity of visbreaking is limited by the stability of the asphaltenes.
From above, one of skill in the art would find it obvious to use the invention taught by Guy and Dwars to heat an oil pipeline for transporting high viscosity fluids (see Dwars and Pereira Almao) to the claimed temperature (taught by Pereira Almao), the modifications required to achieve the claimed temperatures would be within the level of skill of the ordinary artisan having knowledge of ohmic heating in pipelines. It is again noted that the term “chemical reaction pipeline” carries no inherent or implied structure that distinguishes from the prior art pipelines.
2. The device (40) according to claim 1, wherein the device (40) comprises L (L=3, see fig. 6 above) pipeline segments (41), where L is a natural number greater than or equal to two, wherein the pipeline segments (41) comprise asymmetric pipes and/or a combination thereof.
Guy discloses it embraces all the variants thereof and in particular those where - the tube or the elements of the tube are smooth, round, oval, square, rectangular or otherwise profiled - the tube has an improved exchange surface (grooves, fins, twisted tubes, etc.) - the device comprises several tubes to create annular conduits - the device is formed by an association of tubes between them allowing all types of electrical connection, in series, in parallel, in a single star or multiple, in a single or multiple triangle, and / or allowing circulation of the fluid in series, in parallel or in several passes , nested or not) - the tube (s) may or may not be placed in a heat-insulated enclosure.
3. The device (40) according to claim 1, wherein the device (40) comprises insulators that are configured for galvanic isolation between the respective pipelines (41) and/or pipeline segments (41) and the supply and removal pipelines, wherein the insulators (taugt by Dwars) are configured to ensure a free through-flow of the fluid.
Note that Dwars discloses the provision a heated pipeline is galvanically isolated segment by segment, broadly read as “galvanic” insulators between segments. Further note that the galvanic isolators would be known by one of skill to flow-through of fluid as the segments are part of a pipeline flowing fluid therethrough.
4. The device (40) according to claim 1, wherein a plurality or all of the pipelines (41) and/or pipeline segments (41) are configured in series and/or in parallel. See Fig. 6 of Guy.
5. The device (40) according to claim 1 any one of the preceding claims, wherein the device (40) comprises a plurality of DC current and/or DC voltage sources (42, 43, 44), wherein the DC current and/or DC voltage sources are configured with or without an option for closed-loop control of at least one electrical output variable.
6. The device (40) according to claim 5, wherein the device (41) for connecting the DC current or DC voltage sources and the respective pipeline (41) and/or to the respective pipeline segment (41) comprises 2 to N positive terminals and/or conductors (45) and 2 to N negative terminals and/or conductors (grounds), where N is a natural number greater than or equal to three. See Fig. 6
PNG
media_image1.png
424
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
7. The device (40) according to claim 5, wherein the respective DC current or DC voltage sources (42, 43, 44) are configured identically or differently.
8. The device (40) according to claim 7, wherein the device comprises 2 to M different DC current and/or DC voltage sources (42, 43, 44), where M is a natural number greater than or equal to three, wherein the DC current and/or DC voltage sources (42,43,44) are electrically controllable independently of one another. As the voltage sources are independent, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to provide independent control of each source.
9. An installation comprising at least one device (40) according to claim 1
10. The installation according to claim 9, wherein the installation is selected from the group consisting of: a steam cracker, a steam reformer, an apparatus for alkane dehydrogenation. The intended use of the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device.
Regarding claim 20, note that Pereira Almao teaches heating to the newly claimed temperature range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant again argues that the Examiner relies only on hindsight reasoning to arrive at the claimed invention.
It is again noted that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning. In this case the reconstruction relies only on knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Guy, Dwars and Pereira Almao and does not rely on knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure. Applicants argue that "express" motivation to combine the references is lacking in Guy, Dwars and Pereira Almao. However, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness. It is noted that it has been held that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” As such a person of ordinary skill would have common sense, which may be used to glean, from the prior art, suggestions that go beyond the primary purpose for which the prior art was produced. In this case the artisan can, with reasonable knowledge, creativity and common sense, combine the teaching of using DC power to ohmically heat a pipeline of Guy, with the teaching of providing galvanic isolation of individual segments of a ohmically heated pipeline of Dwars and further to apply the combined teachings Guy and Dwars in a similar arena as taught by Pereira Almao to yield the claimed invention for the intended use.
Applicant has amended the claims to include the limitation that the pipeline is a part of a “steam cracker”, however, there is not any explicit teaching of what structures are inherently present in a “steam cracker” pipeline that separate such pipelines from other pipelines and particularly the pipelines taught by Guy, Dwars and Pereira Almao . As such the evaporation of hydrocarbons at high temperatures is considered to be a “reaction” in a broad sense. It is further noted that the evaporation of hydrocarbons alongside the evaporation of water (i.e. steam) is known in the art to be called steam cracking and is considered a chemical reaction. Since the disclosed pipelines, particularly of Dwars, are capable of the evaporation of hydrocarbons and water it is reasonable to read the pipelines as meeting the broadest reasonable definition of chemical reaction pipeline for steam cracking. Dwars discloses a system which heats fluid to “above 50°C, 100° Celsius, or above 200° Celsius.” , and further that there is nothing in the reference to suggest that this low temperature device would be capable of heating to temperatures significantly higher, so as to fall within the range of the claims as amended herein. It is noted that the disclosure by Dwars that the device can heat to above 200°C is an open range that does not limit the heating to 200°C but includes reasonable temperatures “above 200°C”. Applicant additionally argues that one of skill would not combine Guy and Dwars since they are aimed at solving different problems. However, as indicated by Applicant, the Guy invention is particularly important in the fields of agro-food, chemistry, petrochemicals and even metallurgy” and Dwars, is also important to the fluid flow in an upwardly oriented oil tubular (i.e. petrochemical industry). As noted in the action above, Pereira Almao teaches a motivation to provide a petrochemical heating system capable of heating the petrochemicals to the claimed temperature range of at least 400°C.
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 THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc