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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on February 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 13, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 1 of the Specification should be updated to reflect that parent US Patent Application No. 18/179,983 has been granted as US Patent No. 11,958,745.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dittrich et al (WO 2022/200256; note that references herein are made with respect to US 2024/0166961, which is the US equivalent of the international publication).
Regarding claim 1, Dittrich teaches system 400 comprising (hydrocarbon) cracking furnace 422, one or more quench, compression, and separation sections 430 in flow communication with the cracking furnace(s) (par. 97), and one or more pyrolyzers 444 in flow communication with the cracking furnace 422 (par. 98) (Fig. 9). As can be seen, transfer line 432 constitutes a conduit fluidly connecting the cracking furnace 422 to the separation section(s) 430 from inlet end to outlet end. In order to convey material from the furnace, the conduit is considered to be contained in an interior of the furnace. The instantly claimed separators separate the cracked gas/claimed first hydrocarbon product stream into a hydrogen-rich hydrocarbon fuel stream and a second hydrocarbon product stream, wherein said hydrogen-rich hydrocarbon fuel stream is further separated into a first hydrogen product stream and a methane product stream, said methane stream is subsequently fed to a methane pyrolysis unit to yield hydrogen and solid carbon products. Dittrich shows the cracked gas being separated in the separating unit(s) into the following component steams: products 434, considered to constitute the instantly claimed second hydrocarbon product stream, noting that hydrocarbon recycle 442 could also be considered as the claimed second hydrocarbon product stream; hydrogen as fuel 457, considered to constitute the instantly claimed first hydrogen product stream; hydrogen and methane 436, considered to constitute the instantly claimed methane product stream (Fig. 9).
Although Dittrich fails to explicitly teach two separators, wherein the second separator receives the remainder split off from the second hydrocarbon product stream, claimed as a hydrogen-rich hydrocarbon fuel stream, Dittrich clearly teaches that more than one separator may be used and ultimately teaches substantially identical component streams as those instantly claimed. Insomuch as the system of Dittrich is capable of accomplishing such separation with only a single separator, such a separator is considered to be functionally equivalent to the claimed two distinct separators. Dittrich clearly shows at least one “second hydrocarbon product stream.” As such, the remaining portion, which is shown to be separated into a first hydrogen product stream and a methane product stream, is considered to constitute the claimed second hydrocarbon product stream. Use of one or more separation stages to accomplish the explicitly shown separated streams of Dittrich is considered to be prima facie obvious, absent a showing to the contrary.
The pyrolysis unit 444 shows hydrogen-rich gas 448 in hydrogen return line 456 and carbon black 446 (Fig. 9). Said hydrogen-rich gas 448 is considered to constitute the claimed second hydrogen product stream.
Regarding claim 2, Dittrich shows the hydrogen as fuel 476 via fuel line 457 from the separator(s) 430 in fluid communication with the cracking furnace 422. The entry to the cracking furnace constitutes an inlet (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Dittrich shows hydrocarbon feed 414 fluidly connected to an inlet of the furnace 422 via feed line 418. As both the fuel line 457 and feed line 418 enter the furnace 422, said streams are considered to be in fluid communication (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Dittrich shows air 470 supplied to the furnace 422 via air line 474 and thus fluidly connected to the fuel gas stream at least via said furnace (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Dittrich teaches that hydrogen 476 may be supplied as fuel to the cracking furnace(s) 422 for combustion (par. 100, Fig. 9). This is considered to constitute a unit comprising a hydrogen fired furnace. In embodiments having more than one furnace, one may constitute the claimed furnace while the other may constitute the claimed distinct “unit.” Furthermore, Dittrich teaches that the system may further include one or more converters to convert hydrogen into electricity (abstract). Such a converter is considered to encompass the claimed “another process” as well as a “hydrogen fired boiler,” wherein steam is conventionally known to be used to generate electricity. Furthermore still, and regardless of the express teachings of Dittrich, hydrogen has many known uses, and therefore splitting off the hydrogen produced according to Dittrich for any conventionally known use of hydrogen, including storage of said hydrogen, is considered to be prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Dittrich shows hydrocarbon feed 414 fluidly connected to an inlet of the furnace 422 via feed line 418. As both the fuel line 457 and feed line 418 enter the furnace 422, said streams are considered to be in fluid communication (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Dittrich shows air 470 supplied to the furnace 422 via air line 474 and thus fluidly connected to the fuel gas stream at least via said furnace (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Dittrich shows that hydrogen-rich gas exiting the pyrolysis unit may be further separated to hydrogen of a higher purity from methane not converted in the pyrolyzer (par. 99), wherein said hydrogen is sent to the furnace (Fig. 9). As such, the outlet of the methane pyrolysis unit is fluidly coupled to the inlet of the furnace.
Regarding claim 9, Dittrich shows hydrocarbon feed 414 fluidly connected to an inlet of the furnace 422 via feed line 418. As both the fuel line 457 and feed line 418 enter the furnace 422, said streams are considered to be in fluid communication (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 10, Dittrich shows air 470 supplied to the furnace 422 via air line 474 and thus fluidly connected to the fuel gas stream at least via said furnace (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Dittrich teaches that the system may further include one or more converters to convert hydrogen into electricity (abstract). Such a converter is considered to encompass the claimed “another process” as well as a “hydrogen fired boiler,” wherein steam is conventionally known to be used to generate electricity. Furthermore, and regardless of the express teachings of Dittrich, hydrogen has many known uses, and therefore splitting off the hydrogen produced according to Dittrich for any conventionally known use of hydrogen, including storage of said hydrogen, is considered to be prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Dittrich shows hydrocarbon feed 414 fluidly connected to an inlet of the furnace 422 via feed line 418. As both the fuel line 457 and feed line 418 enter the furnace 422, said streams are considered to be in fluid communication (Fig. 9). At least a potion of the hydrogen-rich gas from the pyrolyzer is considered to be directed back toward the furnace via separation section(s) 430.
Regarding claim 13, Dittrich shows air 470 supplied to the furnace 422 via air line 474 and thus fluidly connected to the fuel gas stream at least via said furnace (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Dittrich teaches that hydrogen 476 may be supplied as fuel to the cracking furnace(s) 422 for combustion (par. 100, Fig. 9). This is considered to constitute a hydrogen fired furnace.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732