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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 17-31) in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that ground that the claims are linked by a special technical feature that they have unity of invention and should be considered in their entirety (Remarks of 03/09/2026 at 6). This has been considered but is not persuasive. The special technical features were found to not make a contribution over the prior art. Evidence (US 2006/0124445) was suppled, but not traversed or otherwise addressed. The analysis is presumed correct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 32 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
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 22 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.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 22 also recites broad and narrow ranges in the same claim. This is indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 17-18, 21-22, and 24-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Willigenburg (WO 2018/065919 A1) further in view of Labrecque (US 2006/0124445 A1) and further in view of The Trust Company Colonial (US 1901172 A).
With respect to claim 17, the claim requires “A plant for producing reaction products.” Van Willigenburg teaches steam cracking plant, which produces reaction products (Van Willigenburg, abstract).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one preheater.” Van Willigenburg teaches a convection section of the for the hydrocarbon feedstock as it functions as a preheater (Van Willigenburg 10, [0053,[0058]).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one raw material supply which is adapted for supplying at least one raw material to the preheater,” Van Willigenburg teaches a hydrocarbon feedstock which is lead into the convection section (Van Willigenburg 10, [0053]).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the preheater is adapted for preheating the raw material to a predetermined temperature.” Van Willigenburg teaches process temperatures being preheated to the determined temperatures in the tables. (Van Willigenburg, table 1-2).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one electrically heatable reactor, wherein the electrically heatable reactor is an electrically operated reactor, wherein the electrically heatable reactor is adapted for heating a fluid present in the reactor using electric current, wherein the electrically heatable reactor is adapted for at least partially converting the preheated raw material into reaction products and byproducts,” Van Willigenburg teaches a reactor for converting hydrocarbons into syngas (Van Willigenburg, abstract). Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach an electrically heatable reactor. However, Labrecque teaches an electrical reactor for reforming (Labrecque, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, an electrically heatable reactor as Labrecque teaches constitutes this a favorable option for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions (Labrecque 1, [0001]).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one heat integration apparatus which is adapted for at least partially supplying the byproducts to the preheater.” The instant application teaches heat integration consists of the following heat exchangers: boiler feed water preheating, naphtha preheating, process steam superheating, high-pressure steam superheating, etc. (BASF 9, lines 7-11). Van Willigenburg teaches use of boiler feed water (Van Willigenburg 5, [0030]).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the preheater is adapted for at least partially utilizing energy required for preheating the raw material from the byproducts.” Van Willigenburg teaches using preheated boiler feed to superheat hydrocarbon feedstock (Van Willigenburg 5, [0030]).
Claim 17 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one safety device which is adapted for allowing a return stream of the raw material from the electrically heatable tube system of the reactor to the preheater.” Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach least one safety device which is adapted for allowing a return stream of the raw material from the electrically heatable tube system of the reactor to the preheater. However during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. The term “safety device” is not expressly defined in the specification and is therefore interpreted according to its ordinary meaning as any device capable of preventing unsafe operation conditions. In chemical processing systems, this reasonably includes flow control devise such as valves. Furthermore, the phrase “allowing a return stream” broadly encompasses any structure that permits fluid flow from a downstream portion of the system to an upstream portion, including bypass or recycle systems. Additionally, the term “preheater” is interpreted as any structure configured to raise the temperature of a process stream prior to reaction. The Trust Company Colonial teaches that as the bottom of the bubble tower reached 450° F+ circulation was discontinued, and through the backtrap it was returned to the preheater (The Trust Company Colonial, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, the limitations required in the claim as The Trust Company Colonial teaches proper operating conditions were maintained while doing this (The Trust Company Colonial 2, line 19-26, backtrap).
Regarding claim 18, Van Willigenburg teaches a hydrocarbon feedstock supply which transfers hydrocarbon feedstock to the heat exchanger (Van Willigenburg 16, [0087]).
Regarding claim 20, claim 17 has been discussed above.
Claim 20 further requires “wherein the electrically heatable reactor is heatable by electric current.“ Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach wherein the electrically heatable reactor is heatable by electric current. However, Labrecque teaches an electrical reactor for reforming comprising electrical source allowing to power up the electrodes and resulting in the production of an electronic flux in the conductive lining between the electrodes and in the heating of said lining.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, an electrically heatable reactor heatable by electric current as Labrecque teaches electrical process of the invention may advantageously be used for production of methanol (Labrecque 12, [0228]-[0232]).
Regarding claim 21, the method of claim 17 has been discussed above.
Claim 21 further requires “wherein the electrically heatable reactor is electrically heatable through the use of a multi-phase alternating current and/or a 1-phase alternating current and/or a direct current and/or radiation and/or induction.” Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach a heatable reactor power by means specificized above. However, Labrecque teaches an electric heatable reactor power by the electrical supply of the alternating current type (AC) or direct current type (DC) (Labrecque 8, [0133]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, the limitations claimed above as Labrecque once again teaches that the electrical process of the invention advantageously used for reforming a gas consisting of at least one of the compounds of the group consisting of C1 to C12 hydrocarbons (Labrecque 9, [0159]).
Regarding claim 22, Van Willigenburg teaches feedstock temperatures less than or equal to 350 °c (Van Willigenburg 3, [0016]).
Regarding claim 24, Van Willigenburg teaches a supply of steam (Van Willigenburg 1, [0011]-[016]). Van Willigenburg further teaches the heat from the cracked gas is recovered in the transfer line heat exchanger and is transferred to the steam drum (Van Willigenburg 10, [0056]). Van Willigenburg further teaches a steam cracking of hydrocarbon (Van Willigenburg, claim 1). Van Willigenburg teaches using preheated boiler feed to superheat hydrocarbon feedstock (Van Willigenburg 5, [0030]). Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach an electrically heatable reactor. However, Labrecque teaches an electrical reactor for reforming (Labrecque, abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, an electrically heatable reactor as Labrecque teaches constitutes this a favorable option for the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions (Labrecque 1, [0001]).
Regarding claim 25, Van Willigenburg teaches crude oil and naphtha (Van Willigenburg 3, [0020]).
Regarding claim 26, the plant according to claim 17 has been discussed above.
Claim 26 further requires “reaction product comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of: acetylene, ethylene, propylene, butene, butadiene, benzene, styrene, synthesis gas” Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach a reaction product comprising at least one element from the group above. However, Labrecque teaches gas to be reformed a natural gas consisting of 70 to 99% methane, accompanied with Oto 10% ethylene, 0 to 25% ethane, 0 to 10% propane, 0 to 8% butane, etc. (Labrecque 9, [0164]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, the reaction product composition claimed as Labrecque teaches the composition may advantageously be used for production (Labrecque 12, [0228]-[0232]).
Regarding claim 27, the plant according to claim 17 has been discussed above.
Claim 27 further requires “partially converting the preheated raw material into byproducts, wherein the byproduct comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of: hydrogen, methane, ethane, propane.” Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach partially converting the preheated raw material into byproducts with one element selected from the group above. However, Labrecque teaches recovering gases including hydrogen (Labrecque 11, [0201]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, the byproduct comprise at least one element selected from the group above as Labrecque teaches the invention may advantageously be used for the production of hydrogen for fuel applications associated with highway transportation, (Labrecque 12, [0228]-[0231]).
Regarding claim 28, Van Willigenburg teaches steam cracking of hydrocarbon feedstock (Van Willigenburg 2, [001]).
Regarding claim 29, Van Willigenburg teaches a convection bank (Van Willigenburg 3, [0020]).
Regarding claim 30, Van Willigenburg teaches a steam cracking of hydrocarbon which would require a steam system (Van Willigenburg 1, [0011]-[016]).
With respect to claim 31, claim 30 has been discussed above.
Claim 31 further requires “wherein the steam system comprises at least one steam drum” Van Willigenburg teaches a steam drum (Van Willigenburg 10, [0054]).
Claim 31 further requires “wherein the steam system is adapted for preheating boiler feed water in the preheater and introducing it into the steam drum.” Van Willigenburg teaches boiler feed water being introduced in stream (Van Willigenburg 10, [0054]).
Claim 31 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one heat exchanger which is adapted for terminating chemical reactions of reaction products and/or byproducts that are in progress,” Van Willigenburg teaches that the cracked hydrocarbon gas flows from the fired tubular reactor to a transfer line heat exchanger where it is cooled, terminating the reaction (Van Willigenburg 10, [0056]).
Claim 31 further requires “wherein the steam system comprises at least one connection between the steam drum and the heat exchanger such that the boiler feed water from the steam drum can be introduced into the heat exchanger and wherein the heat exchanger is adapted for returning the boiler feed water and saturated steam to the steam drum” Van Willigenburg teaches the heat from the cracked gas is recovered in the transfer line heat exchanger and is transferred to the steam drum (Van Willigenburg 10, [0056]).
Claim 31 further requires “wherein the steam system comprises at least one connection between the steam drum and the preheater such that saturated steam from the steam drum can be passed into the preheater wherein the preheater is adapted for superheating the saturated steam at least for a short time.” Van Willigenburg teaches a steam from a steam drum is superheated in convention banks (heat exchangers) to heat the cracked gas (Van Willigenburg 10, [0056]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Willigenburg (WO 2018/065919 A1), Labrecque (US 2006/0124445 A1) and The Trust Company Colonial (US 1901172 A) as applied to claims 17-18, 20-22 and 24-31 above, and further in view of Nakaji (US 4259303 A).
With respect to claim 19, the plant of claim 17 has been discussed above.
Claim 19 further requires “wherein the plant comprises at least one ventilation apparatus wherein the ventilation apparatus is adapted for supplying ambient air to the preheater, wherein the ventilation apparatus is further adapted for cooling a power supply for heating the electrically heatable reactor.”
Modified Van Willigenburg teaches an electrically heatable reactor and a preheater. Modified Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach a ventilation apparatus wherein the ventilation apparatus is adapted for supplying ambient air to the preheater and is further adapted for cooling a power supply for heating the electrically heatable reactor. However, Nakaji teaches an air reservoir with a rate of mixed air being delivered to the reactor. Nakaji further teaches a treating system after the reactor comprising a heat exchanger with a blower provided to dilute the high temperature gas discharged from the reactor with air to be cooled (Nakaji 5, line 28-36).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, the limitations claimed above as Nakaji teaches this is done in order to effectively utilize the energy (Nakaji 5, line 28-36).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Willigenburg (WO 2018/065919 A1), Labrecque (US 2006/0124445 A1) and The Trust Company Colonial (US 1901172 A) as applied to claims 17-22, and 24-31 above, and further in view of Blake (US 20090214408 A1)
With respect to claim 23, the plant of claim 17 has been discussed above. Modified Van Willigenburg teaches an electrically heatable reactor and a preheater as discussed above.
Claim 23 further requires “the plant comprising at least one atmosphere-side connection which is adapted for allowing atmospheric exchange.” Modified Van Willigenburg does not explicitly teach a plant comprising at least one atmosphere-side connection which is adapted for allowing atmospheric exchange. However, Blake teaches an atmospheric exchange plant (Blake 15, [0316], Scenario 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Van Willigenburg, a plant comprising atmospheric exchange with the obvious advantages being overpressure prevention and maintaining operability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights