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 24 February 2026 containing 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (US 1,417,585) in view of Sundram (US 2016/0097002) and Busson (US 5,976,352).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 8-12, Stuart teaches a reactor for cracking hydrocarbon feed (page 2, lines 90-110). Stuart teaches a heater chamber defining a reaction section of an electric heater (page 1, lines 55-107 and page 2, lines 1-15 – reaction chamber a and electrical heater circuit f’ and g’). Stuart teaches that a battery of 6 reaction chambers may be connected to each other, each having it’s own elements (page 2, lines 32-44). In this regard, Examiner considers Stuart to teach 6 coils and 6 electrical heating element systems. Stuart teaches that the temperature is controlled using a pyrometer and thermostatic control of the temperature by adjusting the electrical heating elements (page 2, lines 1-35). Stuart teaches that each reaction chamber is surrounded by a jacket with heat insulation (page 1, lines 40-55 and 95-108). In this regard, Examiner notes that Stuart apparatus would be capable of adjusting the temperature of each zone independently. Stuart teaches condenser (heat exchanger) connected to plurality of coils and an effluent outlet (page 2, lines 32-40).
Further, Sundram teaches that different temperatures may be utilized for different hydrocarbon feedstocks to tailor the specific products [0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a different temperature in each reaction zone of Stuart, for the benefit of treating differing feedstocks in each reaction chamber and tailoring the desired products accordingly. Examiner additionally notes that the person would have a reasonable expectation of success, since Stuart teaches each reaction chamber is insulated, thus allowing each zone to operate independently.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose the newly amended claim limitations regarding the control system which is configured to control the amount of hydrocarbon feed and the temperature of each coil, with one coil at a temperature different from another coil temperature.
However, Busson teaches a similar cracking process comprising multiple steam cracking coils (1-6) each having their own electrical heating elements 8, and each coil independently supplied with electrical energy, and individual pyrometric thermocouples for each heating coil (column 7, lines 1-65). Each coil can be operated in a different mode selected from pyrolysis, heating, or decoking, and the amount of hydrocarbon feed is adjusted depending on what mode is employed (column 7-8). Busson teaches that the temperature of the steam cracking zone is lower than the temperature of the heating zone (column 3, lines 15-20), which Examiner considers to meet the claim temperature limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Busson multi coil electric furnace with individual zone temperature control and adjusting of the hydrocarbon flowrate, in the cracking process of the previous combination, for the benefit of effectively heating and decoking the furnace. Examiner additionally notes that claims 1-5 are drawn to apparatus, and thus Examiner considers the Busson valves, multiple coils (1-6) multiple electric heating elements (8) and individual pyrometers with automated control, to read on the apparatus limitations of “a control system configured to”, as the Busson valves, coils, heating elements, and pyrometers would be capable of providing such control.
Regarding claims 13-15, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Examiner further notes that it is well known in the art to optimize temperatures, energy, and flowrates. It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied well-known control equipment, in order to achieve the desired temperatures, electric heat generation, and cracking to produce olefin products.
Claims 2-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart (US 1,417,585) in view of Sundram (US 2016/0097002) and Busson (US 5,976,352) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above and further in view of Skraba (US 5,120,892).
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 7, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 6.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose a second heat exchanger having an inlet fluidly connected to the effluent outlet of the primary exchanger.
However, Skraba teaches a similar process for cracking hydrocarbons. Skraba teaches heating hydrocarbon feedstock 22 and water 26 in waste heat utilization vessel 24, which is fluidly connected to pyrolysis furnace effluent 42 (see figure, also column 3, lines1-column 4, line 10). Skraba teaches preheating using the exchanger. Skraba teaches a second heat exchanger (quench vessel 58, see figure) which is connected to the primary heat exchanger (waste heat utilization vessel 24, see figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have performed the heat exchange steps of Skraba, for the benefit of recovering waste heat.
Regarding claim 3, Skraba teaches that steam is introduced to waste heat utilization vessel 24 via line 26, and exits with hydrocarbon via line 38 (see figure).
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.
Bellet (US 2006/0116543) – previously relied upon, teaches cracking in electrically heated chamber
Sundaram ’10 (US 2010/0191031) – previously relied upon, teaches cracking multiple feedstocks
Strack (US 2012/0024749) – teaches steam cracking with multiple heat exchange steps (see figure).
Kanyuh (WO 2008/039928) – teaches steam cracking with a feed effluent heat exchanger (see figure).
Alagy (US 5,321,191) – teaches steam cracking using an electric furnace (abstract)>
Ward (WO 2020/150244) – on record of IDS, teaches steam cracking with electric energy.
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
Prosecution Insights