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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 12 January 2026 comprising remarks and amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 58-59, 61-63, 66-67, 69, 72, 74-76, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood (US 5,364,995) in view of Lenglet (US 6,488,839) and Spicer (US 2014/0257001).
Regarding claims 58 and 78, Kirkwood teaches steam cracking a mixture of naphtha or propane or butane (column 3, lines 5-20) with product obtained from pyrolysis of high density and low density polyethylene (column 9, lines 1-50 and column 8, lines 20-40). Kirkwood teaches cracking in at least one furnace coil of a cracker furnace to produce olefin effluent (see figure, see column 9, lines 1-65).Kirkwood teaches steam to hydrocarbon ratios of 0.2-1:1 (column 5, lines 20-30), which encompasses the claimed range. Kirkwood teaches that the hydrogenation step is optional (column 6, lines 8-15). In this regard, Kirkwood includes embodiments with or without hydrotreatment.
Kirkwood teaches plastic feedstocks including various polyethylene and polypropylene feedstocks (see column 8, table 1), which reads on the not more than 1% pvc. Kirkwood teaches cofeeding 5-50% plastic derived feed with remainder paraffinic naphtha/gas oil (conventional feedstocks) (column 3, lines 5-40), which overlaps with the claimed range.
Kirkwood does not explicitly disclose (1) the ratio of effective coil diameter of the outlet of the furnace to the effective coil diameter at the inlet of the furnace (2) newly amended limitations regarding internal fins.
Regarding (1), Lenglet teaches a similar process for steam cracking ethane or propane to produce olefins (column 1, lines 1-25). Lenglet teaches that the diameter of the coils increases going from upstream to downstream (column 4, lines 53-60). Lenglet teaches the inside diameter starts as 80 mm and expands to 105 mm, which would be an outlet to inlet ratio of 1.325 (column 10, lines 18-40), which reads on the claimed range. Examiner notes that Lenglet teaches diameters of 80 mm (3.15 inches) increasing to 105 mm (4.133 inches). In this regard, Examiner notes that the average diameter would necessarily be greater than 3.15 inches and less than 4.133 inches, which reads on the claimed average coil diameter of less than 10 inches.
Lenglet teaches running for at least 30 days (column 6, lines 45-56) with maximum coil temperature in range of 1100-1220°C (column 4, lines 30-38). Lenglet teaches steam cracking temperatures of 865°C (column 9, lines 37-45), which reads on the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have sent the Kirkwood py oil derived steam cracker feed to the steam cracker of Lenglet, since Lenglet steam cracker is suitable for the same cracking of C2-3 streams, which would include those disclosed by Kirkwood.
Regarding (2), Spicer teaches a cracking furnace employing internal fins to improve heat transfer and decoking efficiency [0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have employed the fins as disclosed by Spicer, for the benefit of improving heat transfer and decoking efficiency.
Regarding claims 74-75, Lenglet teaches feeding ethane into each coil (column 9, lines 29-36).
Regarding claims 61 and 67, Lenglet teaches tubes (column 10, lines 19-30), which reads on the claimed at least 2.
Regarding claim 62, Lenglet teaches time diameters or 80 mm (3.14 inches) or 105 mm (4.133 inches) (column 10, lines 18-40), which reads on the claimed “about 3.5 inches.
Regarding claims 59, 63, 66, and 72, Lenglet teaches running for at least 30 days (column 6, lines 45-56) with maximum coil temperature in range of 1100-1220°C (column 4, lines 30-38). Lenglet teaches steam cracking temperatures of 865°C (column 9, lines 37-45), which reads on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 69, it is expected that since the prior art teaches the same steam cracking of the same streams to produce the same olefin product, and run for the same period of at least 25 days before requiring decoking, that the process of the combination would also be able to meet the TLE temperature decrease requirements. It is not seen where Applicant has distinguished the positive process steps in this regard. Since the prior art teaches the same steps applied to the same feeds at the same temperatures as claimed, for the same run time as claimed, prior to requiring decoking, it is expected that the same temperature decrease would be achieved.
Examiner notes that the fresh ethane of Lenglet may be fed to one coil, and the recycle pyrolysis derived feed may be fed to a separate coil, or the feedstocks may be fed to the same coils (as discussed above with respect to claims 73 and 75). Examiner considers such a selection to be one that the person having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making. It is not seen where combining the feeds or sending them to individual coils would result in any changes in manner or result, as both feeds are known for the same purpose of cracking to produce olefins, and contain the same boiling range ethane/propane materials.
Regarding claim 76, Examiner notes that it is conventional practice to send feeds through radiant, cross over, and convection sections.
Claims 64, 68, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkwood (US 5,364,995) in view of Lenglet (US 6,488,839) and Spicer (US 2014/0257001) as applied to claims 58 and 76 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 5,446,229).
Regarding claims 64 and 68, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 58, as discussed above.
Further, Taylor teaches monitoring pressure drop and tube metal temperature in order to determine coke accumulation, to determine when to shut down the furnace for decoking (column 6, lines 46-68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Taylor monitoring of pressure drop in addition to tube metal temperature, in order to determine when to shut down the furnace for decoking. Examiner additionally notes that the person having ordinary skill would be able to determine the pressure drop ratio which would require furnace shut down, as such calculations are well known in the art, as noted by Taylor.
Regarding claim 77, Taylor teaches pyrolysis tubes made of metal allows comprising 20% nickel (column 1, lines 30-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected reactor materials, such as those of Taylor, in order to achieve the desired cracking to olefin products.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy (US 2016/0264885) in view of Kirkwood (US 5,364,995) in view of Lenglet (US 6,488,839) and Spicer (US 2014/0257001) as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Reagan (US 3,174,463).
Regarding claim 70, the previous combination teaches the claim limitations as applied to the claims above. The previous combination does not explicitly disclose determining shut down by visual inspection of a hot spot in the tube.
However, Reagan teaches that coke deposition can be determined by visual inspection of hot spots in the furnace (column 2, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Reagan method for determining when to shut down for decoking, based off of visual inspection, as an alternative to the disclosure of the previous combination. It is not seen where substitution of a known alternate would result in any new or unexpected results.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kirkwood (US 5,364,995) in view of Lenglet (US 6,488,839) and Spicer (US 2014/0257001) as applied to claim 58 above, and further in view of Murthy (WO 2005/111175).
Regarding claim 71, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 58 as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose that at least 35% of the total cross sectional area is coked.
However, Murthy teaches that it is well known in the art of steam cracking that when coke is deposited on the coil surface, external tube skin temperature is increased (and limited by metallurgy). The reduction in coil diameter due to coke increases the pressure drop. Coke needs to be removed periodically, and is generally done once in very 30-120 days (page 1, line 27-page 4, line 8).
Therefore, Examiner considers the maximum skin temperature/pressure drop to be indicative of maximum coking in the coil, to determine shutdown for decoking. In this regard, the person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine shut down times based off amount of coking as determined by pressure drop or tube exterior temperature, etc. It is not seen where such a determination would result in any new or unexpected results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 58-59, 61-64, 66-72, and 74-78 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 33-42 and 47-49 of copending Application No. 17595510 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to overlapping subject matter regarding treatment of waste plastic derived (see ‘510 claim 49) pyrolysis oil with c2-4 hydrocarbons in a steam cracker, wherein the pyrolysis oil is 1-30% of the feed, which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 65% c2
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are addressed by the updated rejections as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carpency (US 2006/0184254) – previously relied upon
Narayanaswamy (US 2016/0264885) – previously relied upon, teaches pyrolysis of waste plastic, followed by hydrotreatment, and steam cracking.
Purvis (US 5,981,818) – teaches steam cracking mixtures of ethane, propane, butane, naphtha, gas oil, crude oils, etc (column 4, lines 10-21).
Kirkwood (US 5,364,995) – teaches steam cracking a mixture of polymer derived pyrolysis oil with non- recycle naphtha (see figure).
Ward (US 2016/0362609) – teaches waste plastic pyrolysis oil fed to steam cracking [0041-42].
Ramamurthy (US 2019/0177626) – teaches sending pyrolysis oil to steam cracking (see figures).
Hover (US 5,639,937) -teaches waste plastic conversion to produce olefins (abstract).
PIcciotti (US 6,203,693) - teaches that in cracking furnaces for producing ethylene, cracking temperatures of 850-870°C and the maximum coil outlet temperature at which the reactor is shut down for cleaning is from 1110-1150°C (column 1, lines 1-30).
Tzatzov (US 2004/0188323) – teaches cracking to produce olefins having a run time of 10-80 days, depending on coking, as determined by maximum tube temperature and pressure drop [0001-0006].
Barendregt (US 2008/0142411) -teaches a cracking furnace comprising multiple tubes having run time of 60-80 days [0116].
Bellet (US 5,763,724) -teaches cracking furnace to produce olefins wherein the skin temperature is a technical characteristic which depends on the metal or alloy the tube is made of, and generally lies in the range of 1050-1110°C (column 1, lines 1-55).
Schmidt (US 2015/0284645) -teaches dual cracking furnace (abstract).
Kivlen (US 3,641,190) -monitoring pressure drop and tube metal temperature to determine coke level (column 5, line 70- column 6, line 5).
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 MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771