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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 and 09/10/2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29, filed on 04/26/2024, are under consideration. Claims 1. 12 and 21 are independent.
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 18-19 and 21 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.
Claims 21 is indefinite because it recites “partially cooling a cracked gas product from one or more reactor coils with a primary heat exchanger against boiling water from a first temperature in a range between and including 500 degrees C to 875 degrees C to a second temperature in a range between and including 550 degrees C to 700 degrees C to form a quenched cracked gas product with the second temperature”; this limitation is unclear because the cooling implies reduction in temperature which is not consistent for a first temperature of 500 °C to a second temperature of 550 °C. The second temperature must be less than the first temperature as a result of cooling; the same issue exists in pending claims 18-19. Applicants are kindly asked to clarify this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2024/0182795).
Wang teaches cracking system with heater (Fig. 1 label 13 and [0066]), reactor radiant coil in the heater for cracking hydrocarbons (Fig. 1 label 8 and [0065]) connected to primary transfer line exchanger to cool and quench the cracked gas (Fig. 1 label 10 and [0021], [0024] and [0031]), the exchanger is further connected to a secondary transfer line heat exchanger to further cool the quench cracked gas by indirect heat exchange with feed stream (Fig. 1 label 7 and [0021], [0023] and [0030]).
Regarding the claimed coiled tube bundle, the reference teaches “The hydrocarbon feedstock 1 and the diluent 3 needs to be further heated and the cracking effluent needs to be cooled. The heat demand and the heat supply are coupled together in the secondary transfer line exchanger 7. The shell and tube exchanger tube side is the cracked gas 9 and the shell side is the hydrocarbon feedstock and diluent mixture 6. The oxyfuel ethylene cracking furnace convection section 2 has the hydrocarbon and diluent preheat banks only. Then the hydrocarbon feedstock 1 and diluent 3 are mixed and routed to the shell side of the secondary transfer line exchanger 7 for super heating. After superheating in the secondary transfer line exchanger 7, the hydrocarbon feedstock and diluent mixture 6 is delivered to the radiant section for cracking” at [0030]. Here, the Examiner takes the position that shell and tube heat exchanger do comprise coiled tube bundles.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teach es reduced CO2 emission (title and [0067]) and is considered low emission furnace.
Regarding claim 3, it is assumed that shell and tube exchanger meets the claimed limitation a mandrel; a plurality of coiled tubes in concentric layers around the mandrel; and at least one tube sheet coupled to the plurality of tubes, wherein the quenched reaction product flows around an outside of the plurality of coiled tubes and the feed stream flows inside of the plurality of coiled tubes to heat the feed stream via indirect heat transfer against the quenched reaction product stream.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0182795).
Wang teaches the preheating the feedstock in the secondary transfer line exchanger 7 at a temperature between 250-700°C [0051] and the flue gas is produced at a temperature 950-1300° C [0063]. These temperatures overlap the claimed temperatures and establishes a prima facie case of obviousness—see MPEP 2144 05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 4-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 4, no prior art was located to suggest the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one coiled tube bundle of the secondary heat exchanger includes a plurality of tubes coiled in concentric layers, and wherein the quenched reaction product flows around an outside of the plurality of coiled tubes.
For claim 5 (and 6-9), no prior art was located to suggest the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one coiled tube bundle includes a first coiled tube bundle and a second coiled tube bundle arranged in series in the secondary heat exchanger.
For claim 10, no prior art was located to suggest the system of claim 1 wherein the primary heat exchanger includes at least one coiled tube bundle.
Wang discloses “The primary transfer line exchanger 10 is the traditional boiler feed water quench exchanger. There are no economizer bank for boiler feed water preheating and no super high pressure steam superheating banks in the convection section 2. Boiler feed water is directly brought into the steam drum 12” [0031]. Wang does not seem to suggest that coiled tube bundle is included in the primary transfer line exchanger.
For claim 12 (and 13-20), a search of pertinent prior art did not locate a teaching or suggestion for system comprising: a heater; at least one reactor coil in communication with the heater and configured to output a reaction product stream; a primary heat exchanger in communication with the at least one reactor coil and configured to cool the reaction product stream to form a quenched reaction product stream; and a secondary heat exchanger in communication with the primary heat exchanger, the secondary heat exchanger including: a shell; at least one coiled tube bundle inside the shell, the at least one coiled tube bundle including a mandrel and a plurality of coiled tubes arranged in concentric layers around the mandrel; and at least one tube sheet coupled to the plurality of tubes, wherein the quenched reaction product stream flows through a shell side of the secondary heat exchanger and the feed stream flows through a tube side of the secondary heat exchanger to heat the feed stream via indirect heat transfer against the quenched reaction product stream and form a heated feed stream.
Wang teaches cracking system with heater (Fig. 1 label 13 and [0066]), reactor radiant coil in the heater for cracking hydrocarbons (Fig. 1 label 8 and [0065]), primary transfer line exchanger to quench the cracked gas (Fig. 1 label 10 and [0021], [0024] and [0031]), a secondary transfer line heat exchanger to further cool the quench cracked gas by indirect heat exchange with feed stream (Fig. 1 label 7 and [0021], [0023] and [0030]). The reference teaches “The hydrocarbon feedstock 1 and the diluent 3 needs to be further heated and the cracking effluent needs to be cooled. The heat demand and the heat supply are coupled together in the secondary transfer line exchanger 7. The shell and tube exchanger tube side is the cracked gas 9 and the shell side is the hydrocarbon feedstock and diluent mixture 6. The oxyfuel ethylene cracking furnace convection section 2 has the hydrocarbon and diluent preheat banks only. Then the hydrocarbon feedstock 1 and diluent 3 are mixed and routed to the shell side of the secondary transfer line exchanger 7 for super heating. After superheating in the secondary transfer line exchanger 7, the hydrocarbon feedstock and diluent mixture 6 is delivered to the radiant section for cracking” at [0030].
The reference does not disclose the claimed wherein the quenched reaction product stream flows through a shell side of the secondary heat exchanger and the feed stream flows through a tube side of the secondary heat exchanger (opposite sides of flow through the heat exchanger tube and shell).
For claim 21 (and 22-29), a search of pertinent prior art did not locate a teaching or suggestion for method of partially cooling a cracked gas product from one or more reactor coils with a primary heat exchanger against boiling water from a first temperature of 500-875°C to a second temperature of 550-700°C to form a quenched cracked gas product with the second temperature; feeding the quenched cracked gas product to an inlet of a second heat exchanger containing at least one coiled tube bundle with a plurality of tube circuits; preheating a feed stream to the one or more reactor coils against the quenched crack gas product in at least a first one of the plurality of tube circuits to a third temperature of 450-700°C to form a preheated feed stream with the third temperature; heating one or more process streams in at least a second one of the plurality of tube circuits; and further heating the preheated feed stream with the one or more reactor coils to form the cracked gas product in an open fluid loop.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights