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 .
Claim Interpretation
Key to the lack of prior art applied to the instant application is the claim interpretation as follows. It is interpreted that the claim language of claims 1 and 17 and specification both support that the entirety (as opposed to only a portion) of the effluent stream from the paraffin reactor return to the olefin cracking reactor. Claim 1 and 17 state “cracking the paraffin reactor effluent steam in the olefin cracking reactor”. This conclusion is supported by Figures 1-4 and the text of the specification, as no separation of the of the paraffin reactor effluent is suggested previous to the destination of the olefin cracking reactor. If this is not an intended claim limitation, please clearly state as such in the response as other prior art may than apply.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 17 the following is indefinite.
The phrase “the paraffin cracking reactor” in paragraph 4 lacks antecedent basis. The examiner opines that this concept was to be introduced here, and changing the wording to “a paraffin cracking reactor found in the cracking zone” would resolve this rejection.
The phrase “whereby the olefin reactor effluent stream comprises a level of ethylene and propylene greater than a level of ethylene and propylene in an olefin reactor effluent stream from an olefin cracking zone with a paraffin cracking reactor” is indefinite.
The specification makes clear that that the act of combining the effluent from the paraffin reactor combined with the feed stream that makes the increased level of ethylene and propylene, as opposed to the mere presence of the paraffin reactor. As such the entire claim limitation is indefinite and not supported by the specification if a mention of the effluent being linked to the increased propylene and ethylene levels.
These rejections apply to all dependent claims, thus claims 1-20.
Claim 5 is indefinite with the phrase “heating the combined stream before cracking the feed stream and the paraffin reactor effluent stream in the olefin cracking reactor”. Claim 5 makes clear that the previously in claim 5 the feed stream and paraffin reactor effluent stream are combined to make a combined stream. Thus by definition the originally defined feed stream and paraffin reactor effluent stream no longer exist at this point in the claim limitations, as they are now the combined stream.
Allowable Subject Matter
There is no allowable subject matter due to 112 rejections. Below is presented the closest prior art, and what is taught in not taught in that art.
Voskoboynikov teaches the following:
Cracking a feed stream of olefins and paraffins in an olefin cracking reactor or a cracking zone. The effluent contains ethylene, propylene as intended products. Also present in the effluent is higher olefins and paraffins.
A paraffin rich stream from the olefin reactor is separated out which contains C4-5 paraffins. This is cracked in a paraffin cracking zone.
Returning the effluent in its entirety to the original olefin reaction zone is not taught or suggested. The effluent from the paraffin cracking zone is considered a finished product. As such further processing is not taught. A combination with a second reference to further process the entirety of the paraffin reaction zone effluent in the original olefin reaction zone would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights