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 claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 in the reply filed on 8 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 20 are objected to for improper English grammar.
With respect to claim 13, the claim recites “providing a furnace heating” which is improper English. Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites “bottoms discharging bottoms” which is improper English. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparks (US 5,143,597).
With respect to claims 13, 14, 16, and 17, Sparks discloses a method comprising: providing a flow to a furnace and heating the flow therein (see Sparks, column 6, lines 5-10); cracking the flow in the furnace and subsequent unit downstream from the furnace (see Sparks, column 2, lines 55-64); and separating the cracked effluent into a plurality of streams by fractional distillation (see Sparks, column 3, lines 39-47). The method scavenges both metal and sulfur constituents from the used lubricating oil (see Sparks, column 2, lines 10-22). Water is flashed from the flow during the distillation step (see Sparks, Fig. 2). Cracking occurs within the same temperature as specified in the claims, e.g., 800°F to 840°F (see Sparks, column 2, lines 55-64), and thus the same viscosity lowering effect specified in the claims would be expected.
Sparks does not explicitly disclose wherein the method additionally comprises a separator downstream from the furnace and upstream from the fractional distillation column.
However, Sparks discloses a coker drum positioned downstream from the furnace and upstream from the fractional distillation column (see Sparks, Fig. 2), such drum having providing both cracking and separating functions (see Sparks, column 3, lines 32-36).
Thus, Examiner finds Applicant’s claims 13, 14, 16, and 17 unpatentable over the disclosure of Sparks.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparks (US 5,143,597) in view of Swarz (US 1,885,387), Cross (US 1,920,929).
With respect to claim 19, see discussion supra at paragraph 10. It was readily known that operating an apparatus such as that disclosed by Sparks in a turbulent flow regime (i.e. high Reynolds number) plays a role in minimizing coke deposition and buildup in processing equipment (see Swartz, page 2, lines 38-44) (see Cross, page 1, lines 16-25). Therefore, it would likewise have been obvious to operate the apparatus of Sparks with a turbulent flow of feed through the system, such modification minimizing a buildup of coke deposits in the processing equipment of Sparks.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparks (US 5,143,597) in view of Swarz (US 1,885,387), Cross (US 1,920,929), and Wombles (US 2016/0130510).
With respect to claim 20, see discussion supra at paragraph 12. Sparks notes that his system is capable of producing various fractions, including some that may be further cracked into fuel fractions (see Sparks, column 5, lines 8-10). Moreover, it is already known that systems such as that of Sparks are capable of producing diesel fractions (see, e.g., Wombles, paragraphs [0003] and [0101]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights