DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 5 November 2025 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are newly added.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained. Likewise, the previous rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained. The previous rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claims 4, 5, 7-9, 13, and 14 are indicated allowable. Likewise, claims 15-20 are indicated allowable. 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 1-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2014/0121432).
With respect to claims 1 and 10, Wang discloses a process (see Wang, Figs. 1 and 2) for cracking a thermally unstable feedstock (1) (distillation fractions/residues such as naphtha, monoolefin) (see Wang, paragraph [0035] and Example 1) comprising: (a) preheating the thermally unstable liquid feedstock (1) using convection heat (11) from a steam cracker furnace; (b) combining the preheated feedstock with steam (3) to obtain a heated feedstock; (c) heating the heated feedstock of step (b) using an evaporator outside of a steam cracker furnace convection section to produce a gasified feedstock by evaporation and a residue (see Wang, paragraph [0035]); (d) heating the gasified feedstock of step (c) using convection heat (14, 15) to obtain a heated gasified feedstock; (e) steam cracking (in radiant section (9)) the heated gasified feedstock to obtain cracked gases; and (f) recovering and cooling down cracked gases of step (e) (in transfer line exchanger (7) and cracked gas manifold (17)).
With respect to claim 2, Wang discloses that heating at step (c) is performed using a dedicated heating fluid such as boiler feed water (2).
With respect to claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the heating fluid may be heated by flue gas (8) within the furnace convection section (10).
With respect to claim 6, Wang discloses wherein steam (3) may be heated in the furnace convection section (10).
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2014/0121432) in view of Shaikh (US 20210301213).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, see discussion supra at paragraph 8. Wang clearly discloses the use of an evaporator for vaporization, i.e. separation of a gas fraction (see Wang, paragraphs [0035] and [0075]). In this regard, thin film evaporators are known for use as separation units (see Shaikh, paragraph [0029]). Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize thin film type evaporators as being suitable for the evaporator of Wang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7-9, and 13-20 are 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 5 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Examiner incorrectly equates Wang’s general “liquid feed stock” with the “thermally unstable feedstock” recited in claim 1.
The present application defines “thermally unstable feedstock” as a specific type of feedstock, particularly highlighting its propensity for fouling.
Wang does not disclose that its “liquid feed stock” possesses the characteristics of being “thermally unstable” in the specific context of the present application, nor does it identify the specific types of feedstock considered “thermally unstable” in the application.
The feedstock heated in the evaporator in claim 1 is a mixture of preheated thermally unstable feedstock and steam.
Wang’s disclosure explicitly excludes the mixing of the monoolefin-containing stream with steam when referring to its preheating in an evaporator. Thus, Wang fails to disclose heating a combined feedstock (preheated feedstock plus steam) in an evaporator as required by claim 1 step (c).
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, and third arguments, Applicant provides no clear definition for the limitation “thermally unstable feedstock,” but rather only provides a few examples of such feedstock, one of which may be an “olefin rich hydrocarbon cut” (see Applicant’s Abstract). In this regard, it is noted that the feed of Wang is a “monoolefin-containing stream” which is noted for its potential for the “formation of coke” in a steam cracking furnace (see Wang, paragraph [0014]). Thus, it is clear that the feed of Wang is consistent with the recited “thermally unstable feedstock.”
With respect to Applicant’s fourth and fifth arguments, Wang discloses use of an evaporator for heating “instead of being preheated in the convection section.” Here, it is noted that such heating which takes place in the convection section is heating of a mixed stream of feedstock and steam (see Wang, paragraph [0064]).
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