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 of Group II, Species IIa (claims 18-24) in the reply filed on 1 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cremer et al. (Model Based Assessment of the Novel Use of Sour Water Stripper Vapor for NOx Control in CO Boilers, Industrial Combustion Symposium, American Flame Research Committee 2021, November 19, 2021, cited in an IDS dated 10/03/2023).
Regarding claim 18, the reference Cremer et al. teaches a heat generation system (see Abstract), comprising:
an exhaust gas conduit for conveying an exhaust gas from a cracking unit to a heat generation unit (i.e., CO boiler)(see page 1, 3rd paragraph; Fig. 1);
the heat generation unit (CO boiler) containing (i) a combustion zone to receive the exhaust gas and facilitate combustion of the exhaust gas to produce a combusted exhaust gas (see page 1, 2nd paragraph), (ii) a post-combustion zone equipped with a plurality of inlets to inject a plurality of sour water stripper (SWS) vapor streams from a SWS unit into the combusted exhaust gas from the combustion zone to produce a processed exhaust gas (see Abstract; page 2, 2nd paragraph; Fig. 1), and (iii) a heat recovery zone to capture heat from the processed exhaust gas (see page 2, 2nd paragraph; Fig. 1); and
a vent conduit for emission of the processed exhaust gas after passing through the heat recovery zone, the processed exhaust gas containing a decreased NOx content as compared to a NOx content when the exhaust gas is processed under similar conditions but without an interaction with the plurality of SWS vapor streams (see page 2, 1st paragraph; page 6, lines 7-14; Fig. 1; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21, the reference Cremer et al. teaches the heat generation system, wherein an additional SWS vapor stream from the SWS unit is supplied to the combustion zone and processed along with the exhaust gas to produce the combusted exhaust gas (see page. 1, 4th paragraph; page 9, lines 2-9).
Regarding claim 22, as not structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed heat generation system and the heat generation system of Cremer et al., the heat generation system of Cremer et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 22 (see page 6, lines 7-14; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 23, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed heat generation system and the heat generation system of Cremer et al., the heat generation system of Cremer et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 23 (see page 6, lines 7-14; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 24, as no structural distinction is seen between the instantly claimed heat generation system and the heat generation system of Cremer et al., the heat generation system of Cremer et al. is considered capable of performing the function recited in claim 24 (see page 6, lines 7-14; Fig. 8).
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.
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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cremer et al..
Regarding claim 19, the claim depends from claim 18 such that the reasoning applied to claim 18 above is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Cremer et al. teaches the heat generation system, wherein the plurality of inlets includes at least one inlet disposed in each of at least two temperature sections (i.e., Plane 2 and Plane 3) in the post-combustion zone, the temperature sections being defined by a range of temperature of the combusted exhaust gas (see page 4, 4th paragraph; Figs. 1 and 3). The reference Cremer et al., however, does not specifically specify that the at least two temperature sections having temperature ranges as recited in claim 19. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat generation unit of Cremer et al. to include a plurality of inlets at various locations along the post combustion zone (i.e., at various locations downstream of Plane 1 shown in Fig. 3) of Cremer et al. for the intended purpose of injecting sour water stripper vapor streams as SNCR reagent into the combusted exhaust gas, and predictably arrived at the instantly claimed heat generation system, since the reference Cremer et al. teaches that even though some temperature variations are observed, the overall gas temperatures in the post-combustion zone (i.e., sections downstream of Plane 1 shown in Fig. 3) are favorable for reducing NOx emissions by selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) process (see page 4, 4th paragraph; page 6 ,lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 20, the claim depends from claim 18 such that the reasoning applied to claim 18 above is applied herein for the dependent portion of the claim. The reference Cremer et al. teaches the heat generation system, wherein the plurality of inlets includes at least one inlet disposed in each of at least two temperature sections (i.e., Plane 2 and Plane 3) in the post-combustion zone, the temperature sections being defined by a range of temperature of the combusted exhaust gas (see page 4, 4th paragraph; Figs. 1 and 3). The reference Cremer et al., however, does not specifically specify at least three temperature sections in the post-combustion zone having temperature ranges as recited in claim 20. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat generation unit of Cremer et al. to include a plurality of inlets at various locations along the post combustion zone (i.e., at various locations downstream of Plane 1 as shown in Fig. 3) of Cremer et al. for the intended purpose of injecting sour water stripper vapor streams as SNCR reagent into the combusted exhaust gas, and predictably arrived at the instantly claimed heat generation system, since the reference Cremer et al. teaches that even though some temperature variations are observed, the overall gas temperatures in the post-combustion zone (i.e., sections downstream of Plane 1 as shown in Fig. 3) are favorable for reducing NOx emissions by selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) process (see page 4, 4th paragraph; page 6 ,lines 1-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights