DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to the election filed 2/10/2026.
Claims 18-20 and 27-30 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 recites “performing the one or more actions comprises supplying the at least partially cracked hydrocarbons to a quench, compression, and separation section . . . ; and the quench, compression, and separation section comprises a hydrogenation reactor” which improperly broadens claim 18 which recites “where the one or more actions [on at least a portion of the at least partially cracked hydrocarbons]are selected from the group of actions consisting of: compressing, condensing, and separating”.
Similarly, Claims 29 and 30 recite “wherein performing the one or more actions comprises” which broadens the “one or more actions” of claim 27 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (EP 3725865) in view of Cardinal (WO 2019/195461).
With respect to claim 18, Ward teaches a process for producing olefins in a pyrolysis reactor. A hydrocarbon feed is supplied with dilution steam to a preheater (0059). The heated mixed feed is subject to steam cracking which may be hybrid units powered by electricity and fuel sources (0059). The cracked product includes olefins and methane, are quenched in transfer line exchanger, and separated to produce a hydrogen and methane stream (0075-0076; 0081). Purified hydrogen may be sent to a fuel cell to produce electricity (0050; 0082) or used as fuel for steam cracking (0048; 0050). The methane can be passed to another plant with our without hydrogen to purify methane and produce electricity (0081-0082).
Ward is silent with respect to wherein the methane or mixed methane and hydrogen stream is passed to a pyrolyzer to provide carbon black and hydrogen.
Cardinal, directed to producing carbon black, teaches a process wherein a first hydrocarbon feed is reacted using e.g. steam cracking (0039) to produce a second stream for pyolysis into carbon black and hydrogen, the feed to the pyrolysis unit may be methane (0026-0028).
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ward by sending the methane produced to a pyrolyzing reactor for further production of carbon black and hydrogen as taught in Cardinal because both are directed to methods for processing hydrocarbons, Ward teaches using steam cracking for production of an intermediate methane stream which may be passed to another plant or unit while Cardinal teaches taking methane from a steam cracking unit and producing hydrogen and carbon black, and Ward utilizes hydrogen for the production of heat in the process. The combination would simply combine prior art elements according to known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 19, Ward teaches a process using hybrid steam cracking units wherein the heat is provided by electricity and fuel gas (0058). Conventionally, natural gas (0092).
With respect to claim 20, Ward teaches where the effluent is subject to quenching, compressing, fractionation (0049). Ward further teaches wherein hydrogen may be purified and utilized in a hydrogenation reactor and/or utilized as a fuel source (e.g., via fuel cell) (0050).
With respect to claim 27, Ward teaches a process for producing olefins in a pyrolysis reactor. A hydrocarbon feed is supplied with dilution steam to a preheater (0059). The heated mixed feed is subject to steam cracking which may be hybrid units powered by electricity and fuel sources (0059). The cracked product includes olefins and methane, are quenched in transfer line exchanger, and separated to produce a hydrogen and methane stream (0075-0076; 0081). Purified hydrogen may be sent to a fuel cell to produce electricity for use in the reactor (0050; 0082) or used as fuel for steam cracking (0048; 0050). The methane can be passed to another plant with our without hydrogen to purify methane and produce electricity (0081-0082). The electricity produced in the fuel cell may be used to supply the electricity for the system (0118).
Ward is silent with respect to wherein the methane or mixed methane and hydrogen stream is passed to a pyrolyzer to provide carbon black and hydrogen.
Cardinal, directed to producing carbon black, teaches a process wherein a first hydrocarbon feed is reacted using e.g. steam cracking (0039) to produce a second stream for pyrolysis into carbon black and hydrogen, the feed to the pyrolysis unit may be methane (0026-0028). Heat from the pyrolysis may be used in the system.
Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ward by sending the methane produced to a pyrolyzing reactor for further production of carbon black and hydrogen as taught in Cardinal because both are directed to methods for processing hydrocarbons, Ward teaches using steam cracking for production of an intermediate methane stream which may be passed to another plant or unit while Cardinal teaches taking methane from a steam cracking unit and producing hydrogen and carbon black, and Ward utilizes hydrogen for the production of heat in the process. The combination would simply combine prior art elements according to known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 28, Ward teaches producing electricity from hydrogen using fuel cell (0082). Cardinal teaches producing hydrogen in the methane pyrolysis reactor. Therefore, before the filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ward by sending the methane produced to a pyrolyzing reactor for further production of carbon black and hydrogen as taught in Cardinal and sending the hydrogen back to Ward for production of electricity because both are directed to methods for processing hydrocarbons, Ward teaches steam cracking for production of an intermediate methane stream which may be passed to another plant or unit and using hydrogen to produce electricity, Cardinal teaches using methane from a steam cracking reactor for production of carbon black and hydrogen, and combining the two merely creates an integrated process using known elements according to their function to do no more than obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 29, Ward teaches recovering energy from gas turbines (0074).
With respect to claim 30, Ward teaches sending product hydrocarbons to hydrogenation reactors (0072) and teaches sending hydrogen to hydrogenation reactors (0050).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brandi Doyle whose telephone number is (571)270-1141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 3:00 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, 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.
/BRANDI M DOYLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771