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
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Examiner notes that Busson (US 5,976,352) teaches steam cracking coils in section 30 followed by electric furnace section 40 to produce acetylene. The electric furnace section has the feed flow horizontally past the electric heating elements (see figure and description), which differs from the claimed plurality of coils independently temperature controlled by electrical heating elements.
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 in view of Sundram (US 2016/0097002) in view of Lang (US 2023/0356176).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 8-12, Sundram teaches a pyrolysis process for cracking hydrocarbon feeds in a reactor having a plurality of coils with a mixture of steam, using control of residence time and temperature to obtain a desired level of conversion [0010]. Sundram adjusts ratios of hydrocarbon and steam so that decoking can be performed [0038]. Further, Sundram teaches that different temperatures may be utilized for different hydrocarbon feedstocks to tailor the specific products [0049].
Sundram teaches steam cracked effluent is sent to quench (heat exchange) [0026].
Sundram does not explicitly teach that the coils are heated by electric heating elements.
However, Lang teaches an electric furnace to perform steam cracking [0003-0004]. Lang teaches a plurality of coils, having a system to control the temperature and substance of the composition [0021-22]. Each tube can be independently controlled to a desired temperature [0026], please see figure 2 embodiment [0051-0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used an electrically heated coil furnace, as described by Lang, since Lang teaches such is suitable for steam cracking processes.
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 Sundram (US 2016/0097002) in view of Lang (US 2023/0356176) 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 arguments in the after final.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Busson (US 6,271,431) – teaches pyrolysis of ethane in an electrically heated furnace. Busson teaches horizontal flow through reactor, differing from independently heated coils
Alagy (US 5,321,191) – teaches an electric furnace, feed flows through horizontally, differening from independently heated coils
Stuart (US 1,417,585) – previously relied upon, teaches a battery of six electrically heated cracking reactors. Stuart does not disclose a single electric reactor with a plurality of coils that can be independently temperature controlled by electric heating elements.
Busson (US 5,976,352) -previously relied upon, teaches steam cracking coils in section 30 followed by electric furnace section 40 to produce acetylene. The electric furnace section has the feed flow horizontally past the electric heating elements (see figure and description), which differs from the claimed plurality of coils independently temperature controlled by electrical heating elements.
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.
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