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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
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 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, it is not clear what is meant by “a first relation characterizes a depth of carburized portion in dependence of time and further in dependence of a growth parameter”. Further, it is not clear if the “referenced carburized portion values” are referring to the “first relation” or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) numerous “determining” steps as well as “a first relation characterizes a depth of carburized portion in dependence of time and further in dependence of a growth parameter”. It is unclear what the “determining steps” or “relation” comprise, but it appears that the “determining” and “relation” involve mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no steps are performed after the “determining” or “relation” that would integrate the “determining” or “relation” into the process. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the determining does not contribute any steps over the prior art elements. Polizzotti (US 4,379,745) – teaches a steam cracking furnace for treatment of a carbon containing gas where carburization occurs (column 1, lines 1-40). Eliasson (EP 0049951) - teaches steam cracking of carbon containing gas at high temperatures results in carburization (page 1).
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliasson (EP 0049951) as evidenced by Polizzotti (US 4,379,745).
Regarding claims 1-11 and 15-20, Eliasson teaches steam cracking hydrocarbon (carbon containing gas) feeds to produce ethylene in a furnace (page 1). Eliasson teaches that the high temperatures used for steam cracking result in a significant degree of carburization which weakens the tube and can result in holes or cracks forming in the furnace tube (page 1).
Examiner notes that carburization is the formation of carbides. This is evidenced by Polizzotti. Polizzotti teaches carburization of steam cracking tubes is the formation of carbides inside the furnace tubes (column 1, lines 20-35). Polizzotti teaches a method for protecting tubes against carburization (column 1).
Eliasson teaches a method for providing a model to determine, assess and control the depth of carburization at various locations in the furnace in response to temperature changes (pages 11-14 and 17-19).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliasson (EP 0049951) as evidenced by Polizzotti (US 4,379,745), and further evidenced by Iliyas (US 2017/0101586).
Regarding claims 12-14, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above.
Examiner further notes that it is well known in the art to implement computer programs in order to control processes in the art. This is evidenced by Iliyas.
Iliyas teaches using a computer program, a computer readable storage medium, etc to perform the steps [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the well known computer programs of the prior art, to optimize the process of the previous combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s arguments to be:
Applicants know of no basis for why the order of the practical integration needs to occur aft the abstract idea and further why the rejection does not consider the integration of the carburization model of the coil directly into the real world steps of providing the carbon gas and carburizing a portion of a wall to be a practical integration.
Iliyas does not focus on carburization, but coking.
Regarding Applicant’s first argument¸ Examiner notes that the claims are not integrated into a practical application, as discussed in the 101 rejections. Examiner has further consulted with 101 QAS Amber Orlando and it was confirmed that measuring steps and data gathering are insignificant extra solution activities.
Regarding Applicant’s second argument, Examiner notes that coking would result in carburization. Further, the rejections have been updated in response to amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reed (US 4,404,087) – teaches steam cracking with antifoulants to reduce coking and carburization
Iliyas (US 2017/0101586) – previously relied upon, Iliyas teaches a process for steam cracking ethane, propane, naphtha feedstocks [0042]. Iliyas teaches determining the coking inside the furnace tubes using a coking (carburization) model so that the furnace may be adjusted in response to the coking rate [0040]. Iliyas teaches that temperature and pressure are impacted by the coking [0040]. Iliyas teaches using sensors to measure and obtain data [0049], Iliyas teaches a model to calculate the coking rate [0052-0058], and adjusting operating of the furnace in response [0059-0060].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE STEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-5:00 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 C 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.
/MICHELLE STEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights