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 .
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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartner (WO 2009/026488 A2).
With respect to claims 1 and 19, Baumgartner discloses a process for steam cracking wherein the heating of feedstock fractions in the coils and the pyrolysis residence time in the coils is controlled by adjustment of the feed rate per coil. A higher feed rate per coil is used for the heavy feedstock fraction as that results in a lower pyrolysis residence time and a lower coil outlet temperature. For the coils where the lighter feedstock fraction is pyrolyzed, a lower feed rate per coil is used as it results in a higher residence time and a higher coil outlet temperature (see Baumgartner, page 5, line 5 to page 23, line 22; and Examples 1B and 2B). Thus, Baumgartner discloses controlling a feed rate of the first hydrocarbon feed introduced into the one or more radiant coils disposed within the first segment based, at least in part, on a composition of the first hydrocarbon feed and the first coil outlet temperature.
The steam cracking system of Baumgartner comprises a steam cracker comprising a firebox having at least one radiant coil and at least one burner disposed within a second segment of the firebox, wherein the one or more radiant coils in the first segment are configured to receive a first hydrocarbon feed via a first feed control valve and produce a first steam cracker effluent having a first coil outlet temperature, the one or more radiant coils in the second segment being configured to receive a second hydrocarbon feed via a second feed control valve and produce a second steam cracker effluent having a second coil outlet temperature, the one or more burners in the first and second segments being configured to operate at substantially the same firing rate such that an amount of heat produced by each of the one or more burners in the first and second segments is substantially the same, and the first and second feed control valves are configured to independently adjust a feed rate of the first and second hydrocarbon feeds introduced into the one or more radiant coils in the first and second segments, respectively, to independently adjust the first and second coil outlet temperatures of the first and second steam cracker effluents, respectively (see Baumgartner, Figs. 1-3 and accompanying text). According to Baumgartner, the same dilution steam to feed ratio is assumed for the light and heavy fractions (see Baumgartner, page 15, lines 3-5).
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 2-4, 7-9, 15, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (WO 2009/026488 A2). Alternatively, claims 2-4, 7-9, 15, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (WO 2009/026488 A2) in view of Zhao (US 2009/0022635).
With respect to claims 2-4, 7-9, 15, 21, 24, and 25, see discussion supra at paragraph 4. The remaining limitations are disclosed or, at the very least, suggested among the various embodiments of Baumgartner (see Baumgartner, page 5, line 22 to page 22, line 22; page 19, line 32 to page 21, line 11; claims 1-13; and Examples 1B and 2B). Alternatively, the subject matter of these claims is disclosed or, at the very least, suggested among the various embodiments of Baumgartner as previously cited in combination with the teachings of Zhao (see, e.g., Zhao, paragraphs [0002], [0036], [0039]; Figs. 1-7 and accompanying text; and claims 1-23) (see discussion infra at paragraph 11).
Claims 5, 6, 10-14, 16-18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (WO 2009/026488) in view of Zhao (US 2009/0022635) and Brewer (WO 01/55280 A1). Alternatively, claims 5, 6, 10-14, 16-18, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner (WO 2009/026488) in view of Zhao (US 2009/0022635), Brewer (WO 01/55280 A1), and Pickett (US 2022/0119716).
With respect to claims 5, 6, 10-14, 16-18, 20, 22, and 23, it is noted that determining an appropriate amount of steam or an appropriate feed composition falls within the routine skills of the ordinary practitioner working in the art (see, e.g., Brewer, page 3, fourth and fifth paragraphs; page 7, second and fourth paragraphs; and page 9, second and third paragraphs). The provision of a dividing wall disposed between the first segment and the second segment is an known engineering design option for furnaces such as that of Baumgartner (see, e.g., Zhao, Figs. 4 and 5 with accompanying text). Moreover, it is obvious to the skilled person that a furnace operating in twin cell arrangement, one cell may be decoked whereas the other cell continues production (see, e.g., Zhao, paragraph [0036]). Furthermore, Zhao discloses a steam cracking process and corresponding system wherein by virtue of segregated sectors of the furnace 200, the flow rate of a single sector may be adjusted without adversely impacting the temperature of an adjacent sector to any significant degree (see Zhao, Figs. 1-7; and paragraph [0039]). Thus, the olefin yields may be maximized for each sector of the furnace. Segregating the convection and radiant sections of the furnace into sectors may be particularly advantageous if hydrocarbon feeds 232 of varying compositions (e.g., hydrocarbon feeds having different cracking temperatures) are distributed through different sectors of the furnace 200. The feed rate is controlled based at least in part on the composition and coil outlet temperature. Moreover, according to Zhao, when one sector of the furnace 200 undergoes decoking, the remaining sectors may continue to crack the hydrocarbon feed, consequently maximizing on-stream time and minimizing decoking cycles (see Zhao, paragraph [0036]).
Finally, under the alternative grounds for rejection, Pickett discloses that when two types of feed are cracked in the same firebox, to control the cracking severity, one feed is selected as the primary feed. The primary feed coil outlet temperature set the individual burner firing duty. The other feed (i.e. secondary feed) in the same firebox necessarily has the same individual burner duty. The secondary feed cracking severity, coil outlet temperature, has to be adjusted by the feed rate. Higher feed rate will give lower coil outlet temperature and vice versa. The firing duty of the individual burner can be the same within the firebox 102. The heating temperature for both of the feedstocks is based on the outlet temperature of the first hydrocarbon feedstock. The outlet temperature of the second hydrocarbon feedstock is controlled by a feed rate of the second hydrocarbon feed. Even though both hydrocarbon feeds are cracked in the same firebox, coil outlet temperature of the primary feed can be used to control burner firing duty and the feed rate of the secondary feed can be used to control burner firing duty and the feed rate of the secondary feed can be used to control the coil outlet temperature of the secondary feed. Thus, the target cracking severity levels of both feedstocks can be achieved (see Pickett, paragraphs [0007]-[0012]; and Fig. 1 with accompanying text).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Jo (US 5,567,305) and Balashanmugam (US 2018/0156772). Jo discloses wherein computer control of cracking furnaces is well known in the art (see Jo, column 6, lines 31-39). Balashanmugam discloses the relationship between coil outlet temperature and feed rate (see Balashanmugam, paragraph [0170]).
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