DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 9 June 2026 containing remarks.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained. The rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stell (US 7,138,047).
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 7, Stell discloses an apparatus (see Stell, Fig. 1) comprising a convection zone (3) and a radiant zone (not shown but indicated being below the convection zone (3)), the convection zone (3) comprising: (a) a first heat exchanger (2) in fluid communication with a first section of a line; (b) a first fluid source (“fluid”) coupled with the first section of the line downstream of the first heat exchanger (2); (c) a second heat exchanger (6) in fluid communication with the first section of the line downstream of the first fluid source, wherein the second heat exchanger (6) is in fluid communication with a second section of the line downstream of the first section of the line; (d) a second fluid source (26) coupled with the second section of the line downstream of the second heat exchanger (6); and (e) a third heat exchanger (not numbered but indicated being just below lower convection section (23)) in fluid communication with the second section of the line downstream of the second fluid source (26). The first fluid source comprises a first flow control valve (14) and the second fluid source comprises a second flow control valve (25).
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.
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 3-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stell (US 7,138,047).
With respect to claims 3-6 and 8-10, see discussion supra at paragraph 4. Stell discloses wherein a control module (7) is communicatively coupled to the first control valve (14). The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to likewise provide such coupling to the second control valve (25) in order to provide a means to more precisely control the second fluid temperature within the preferred range of Stell (see Stell, column 7, lines 62-67; and column 8, lines 118). Stell discloses the use of thermocouples as temperature sensors in order to detect and maintain the indicated portions of the convection section within the preferred temperature range (see Stell, column 7, lines 20-27). Finally, Stell discloses wherein the tubes of the apparatus may include metal tubes (see Stell, column 10, lines 3-4).
Claims 11-15, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stell (US 7,138,047) in view of Spicer (US 2009/0301935).
With respect to claims 11-15, 20, and 25, see discussion supra at paragraphs 4 and 9. Stell discloses wherein the apparatus may form part of a larger system including an algorithm stored in a memory unit, the algorithm comprising instructions that may be executed by a computer processor to perform a method comprising heat exchanging steam with flue gas; injecting water to provide a first reduced temperature steam; heat exchanging with flue gas to provide an intermediate steam; injecting water to provide a second reduced temperature steam (see Stell, column 7, lines 20-27 and 62-67; and column 8, lines 1-18).
Stell does not explicitly disclose wherein the third heat exchanging occurs at an export temperature suitable for export to a header.
However, in a very similar apparatus and associated process for controlling a furnace convection zone (see Spicer, drawing), Spicer discloses wherein a third heat exchange may occur at an export temperature suitable for export to a header to provide export steam (see Spicer, paragraph [0019]).
Thus, Applicant’s claims 11-15, 20, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Stell and Spicer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 and 21-24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the valve 14 of Stell is associated with the heavy hydrocarbon feedstock/primary dilution steam mixture flow path, while desuperheater water 26 is associated with a distinct secondary dilution steam desuperheating flow path. Therefore, Stell fails to disclose the common flow path arrangement recited in claims 1 and 7.
Because the rejection relied on stitching together distinct flow paths of Stell, rather than identifying a common flow path having the claimed sequence of two fluid sources and three heat exchangers, Stell fails to support a prima facie case of anticipation against claims 1 and 7 or 2.
The control system 7 described by Stell is described as controlling “the fluid valve 14 and the primary dilution steam valve 15” so that the flows of the fluid and the primary dilution steam entering two spargers are controlled to manage the temperature of mixture stream 12 before flash drum 5. Stell merely describes control of sparger injection for a flash-stream mixture, not a control module communicatively coupled to first and second flow control valves in an alternating superheater/desuperheater line as claimed.
Stell’s generic statement that temperature sensors may be thermocouples in the control system for the mixture stream 12 fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the four claimed interstage sensor positions or the corresponding control loop architecture.
The Office Action’s assertion that the control system of Stell would be “likewise” coupled to desuperheater 25 for more precise control is conclusory because it fails to identify evidence in Stell that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flash-stream controller of Stell into Applicant’s specific distributed superheater instrumentation system.
With respect to Applicant’s first and second arguments, the limitation at issue recites “a second fluid source coupled with the second section of the line downstream of the second heat exchanger” (claim 1) or “a second fluid source coupled with the second line downstream of the second heat exchanger” (claim 7). By either of these, Stell clearly meets the limitation by disclosing a second fluid source (desuperheater water) coupled with the second section of the line downstream of the second heat exchanger (6) (Fig. 1 of Stell clearly illustrating desuperheater water line being connected with (i.e. “coupled with”) mixture stream to form flash stream (20) which is downstream of heat exchanger (6)).
With respect to Applicant’s third, fourth, and fifth arguments, Stell discloses wherein a control module (7) is communicatively coupled to the first control valve (14). The person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to likewise provide such coupling to the second control valve (25) in order to provide a means to more precisely control the second fluid temperature within the preferred range of Stell (see Stell, column 7, lines 62-67; and column 8, lines 118). Stell discloses the use of thermocouples as temperature sensors in order to detect and maintain the indicated portions of the convection section within the preferred temperature range (see Stell, column 7, lines 20-27). Finally, it is well established that providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP § 2144(III).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights