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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. This is the first office action on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “A method of steam cracking, comprising: using a steam cracking system including: a first steam cracking furnace unit or a plurality of first steam cracking furnace units….; and a second steam cracking furnace unit or a plurality of second steam cracking furnace units…” (emphasis added). Claim 1 is considered indefinite because the claim body does not include any process step drawn to “steam cracking” and merely recites a use of a apparatus without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim 1 is interpreted to include a step of “feeding a hydrocarbon feed to the first steam cracking furnace unit or the plurality of first steam cracking furnace units and the second cracking furnace unit or the plurality of second steam cracking furnace units, wherein the first steam cracking furnace unit(s) and the second cracking furnace unit(s) are arranged in parallel.” The support may be found in the specification ([0131]-[0134]) and Figure 2.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency upon claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowable over prior art.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. No prior art of record, individually or in combination, teaches or reasonably suggests a steam cracking system or a process for operating said system, the system comprising (i) one or more first steam cracking furnace units, each unit comprising one or more fired steam cracking furnaces and means adapted to preheat at least a part of combustion air provided to its fired steam cracking furnace or furnaces to a temperature level of at least 100 °C, and (ii) one or more second steam cracking furnace units, each unit comprising one or more electric steam cracking furnaces. While fired steam cracking furnaces and electric cracking furnaces are individually known in the art, there is no teaching or suggestion on integrating the two types of furnaces, wherein each fired steam cracking furnace unit has means adapted to preheat at least a part of combustion air provided to its fired steam cracking furnace.
Van Willigenburg (WO 2018/020399 A1, cited in IDS dated 09/01/2023) discloses a process for steam cracking hydrocarbon stream in a system comprising: a gas turbine for combusting fuel in the presence of compressed air, a heat exchanger, steam cracking unit comprising a plurality of furnaces, and a means for preheating a combustion air, e.g., to 495°C ([0022], [0058], [0060]). Van Willigenburg, however, does not teach or suggest that the system further comprises a second steam cracking furnace unit or a plurality of second steam cracking furnace units, the second steam cracking furnace unit(s) comprising one or more electric steam cracking furnaces.
Ward et al. (EP 3725865 A1) disclose a steam cracking plant comprising multiple pyrolysis reactors or furnaces ([0059], “the pyrolysis reaction section 20/120 can comprise one or more pyrolysis reactors or furnaces”). Ward further discloses that the pyrolysis furnaces may be hybrid furnaces operable via both electrical heating and fuel gas combustion ([0059]). However, the reference fails to provide sufficient guidance which would have motivated one skilled in the art to operate both fired steam cracking furnace and electrical furnace types, where the fired steam cracking furnace(s) is equipped with a means to preheat at least a part of combustion air provided to its fired steam cracking furnace or furnaces to a temperature level of at least 100 °C
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON Y CHONG whose telephone number is (571)431-0694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/JASON Y CHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1772