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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment and reply filed 6/16/2026.
Claims 18-20 and 27-30 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn. The amendments to the claims necessitate amendments to the rejections under 35 USC 103. The rejection over Ward in view of Cardinal is maintained and recited below.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (1) Ward and Cardinal address fundamentally different problems and that both being directed to the processing of hydrocarbons is not sufficient to support an obvious rejection. Applicant’s arguments has been considered but is not persuasive. In response, each is directed to processing, specifically steam cracking of hydrocarbons. This is not the sole reason for combining the references. As discussed in the rejection below, Ward teaches processing a hydrocarbon in a steam cracking reactor to produce olefin product and methane byproduct. Ward teaches doing so with at least a portion of the heat of reaction provided by non-carbon sources, including electricity provided by renewable sources or hydrogen combustion. The secondary reference, Cardinal, discloses producing a methane product in a first conversion stages which may be steam cracking, converting the first methane product to hydrogen and carbon black in a second stage, and integrating the waste heat between the two stages. The combination of process steps by treating the byproduct methane of Ward using the second stage of Cardinal, integrates known steps, in their intended manner, to provide an expected product. The integration provides the further benefit of producing hydrogen, which is a needed energy source in Ward, and minimizing heat requirements by use of waste heat from the other process.
Applicant argues (2) the claimed process produces synergistic, unexpected results. The alleged unexpected results are reduced electricity demand and CO2 generation. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Each of these are contemplated in the prior art and expected by the combination and there is no evidence presented beyond what is expected. Where all heat is provided by non-carbon combustion source, the CO2 is expected to be reduced to approximately zero. Integration of waste heat is also expected to lower power 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 (steam cracking). 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; supplying a portion of the pyrolyzer hydrogen product to the steam cracking furnace as fuel; or heating feed and/or steam in the steam cracker preheating assembly using heat generated in the pyrolyzer.
Cardinal, directed to producing carbon black (0003), teaches a process wherein a first hydrocarbon feed is reacted using steam cracking (0039) to produce a second stream comprising for pyrolysis into carbon black and hydrogen. The feed to the second pyrolysis unit may be methane (0025-0028). “The method may further comprises sharing waste heat between the steps of generating the carbon particles and converting at least a portion of the first material stream to the second.” (0004) The carbon particle (e.g. carbon black) effluent may be cooled after manufacture. The cooling utilizes gas quench or a heat exchanger with indirect heat transfer (0023). “Heat integration of one or more of the conversion steps or stages with each other may include heat integration of one or more material flows to/from such conversion steps or stages. For example, waste heat sharing between the first conversion step or stage and the second conversion step or stage may be implemented (e.g., waste heat may be shared between the steps of generating the carbon particles, and converting at least a portion of the first material stream to the second material stream).” (0040). Specifically, the feed or steam (a material stream) of the steam cracking assembly (the first conversion process) may be heated in whole or part using heat generated in the pyrolyzer producing carbon black (the second conversion process) (0040).
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 byproduct to a pyrolyzing reactor for further production of valuable carbon black and hydrogen and return a portion of the hydrogen and waste heat to the steam cracking reactors as taught in Cardinal because both are directed to methods for pyrolysis of 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. Thus, the combination of the two processes would simply combine prior art elements in order intended 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 of further conversion of byproduct methane to end products of hydrogen and carbon black and use of waste heat minimizing the outside heating needs, which is a goal of Ward. Additionally, Ward utilizes hydrogen combustion to provide a portion of the required heat without burning carbon. Ward in concerned with conversion of hydrocarbons using energy provided by non-carbon based energy source, renewable energy sources, and heating performed without combusting a fuel, a carbon-based fuel, and/or a fossil fuel. The combined process provides the benefit of producing in the second step the required hydrogen needed in the first step without burning carbon and the benefit of minimizing the additional heat needs of the process by providing waste heat from a downstream step.
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; supplying a portion of the pyrolyzer hydrogen product to the steam cracking furnace as fuel; or heating feed and/or steam in the steam cracker preheating assembly using heat generated in the pyrolyzer.
Cardinal, directed to producing carbon black (0003), teaches a process wherein a first hydrocarbon feed is reacted using steam cracking (0039) to produce a second stream comprising for pyrolysis into carbon black and hydrogen. The feed to the second pyrolysis unit may be methane (0025-0028). “The method may further comprises sharing waste heat between the steps of generating the carbon particles and converting at least a portion of the first material stream to the second.” (0004) The carbon particle (e.g. carbon black) effluent may be cooled after manufacture. The cooling utilizes gas quench or a heat exchanger with indirect heat transfer (0023). “Heat integration of one or more of the conversion steps or stages with each other may include heat integration of one or more material flows to/from such conversion steps or stages. For example, waste heat sharing between the first conversion step or stage and the second conversion step or stage may be implemented (e.g., waste heat may be shared between the steps of generating the carbon particles, and converting at least a portion of the first material stream to the second material stream).” (0040). Specifically, the feed or steam (a material stream) of the steam cracking assembly (the first conversion process) may be heated in whole or part using heat generated in the pyrolyzer producing carbon black (the second conversion process) (0040).
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 byproduct to a pyrolyzing reactor for further production of valuable carbon black and hydrogen and return a portion of the hydrogen and waste heat to the steam cracking reactors as taught in Cardinal because both are directed to methods for pyrolysis of 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. Thus, the combination of the two processes would simply combine prior art elements in order intended 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 of further conversion of byproduct methane to end products of hydrogen and carbon black and use of waste heat minimizing the outside heating needs, which is a goal of Ward. Additionally, Ward utilizes hydrogen combustion to provide a portion of the required heat without burning carbon. Ward in concerned with conversion of hydrocarbons using energy provided by non-carbon based energy source, renewable energy sources, and heating performed without combusting a fuel, a carbon-based fuel, and/or a fossil fuel. The combined process provides the benefit of producing in the second step the required hydrogen needed in the first step without burning carbon and the benefit of minimizing the additional heat needs of the process by providing waste heat from a downstream step.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights