DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 3 March 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Claims 1-5 are allowed. The rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Ree (US 2018/0010050).
With respect to claims 6-9, Van der Ree discloses a method for removing heavy hydrocarbon or solid carbonaceous matter from a volume of hydrocarbons (and associated apparatus necessary to carry out such method) (see Van der Ree, Abstract; Figure; and paragraph [0112]), the method comprising: (a) heating the volume containing hydrocarbons to a temperature at which cracking occurs (see Van der Ree, paragraph [0112]); (b) providing the volume containing hydrocarbons in a separation structure (see Van der Ree, paragraph [0112]); and (c) creating a vortex (by way of a cyclone separator) around a vertical axis in the volume containing hydrocarbons (see Van der Ree, paragraph [0112]). The hydrocarbons may be forwarded in a tangential direction into the volume of hydrocarbons (by way of a cyclone separator), into a cylinder shaped portion of the separation structure (see Van der Ree, Figure; and paragraph [0112]); the separation structure also comprising a funnel shaped bottom portion for accumulating the heavy hydrocarbons or solid carbonaceous matter (see Van der Ree, Figure; and paragraph [0112]). Van der Ree discloses reheating liquid of the volume containing hydrocarbon in a feedback loop and feeding the reheated liquid and/or gas of the volume containing hydrocarbons into the separation structure (see Van der Ree, Figure) (showing recycle liquid stream line (10) being passed to second heat exchanger (4) before being fed to separation structure (5)).
Van der Ree does not explicitly disclose “mixing the liquid and/or gas exiting the reheating zone with the material exiting the heating structure at a mixing ratio between 5:1 and 15:1 by flow rate.” However, such limitation is a process limitation which does not structurally distinguish the apparatus of claims 6-9 over that of Van der Ree. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). To be clear, the apparatus of Van der Ree would be capable of operating within the recited mixing ratio.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Ree (US 2018/0010050) in view of Alyaser (US 2017/0114279).
With respect to claim 10, see discussion supra at paragraph 8.
Van der Ree does not disclose or otherwise suggest wherein hydrocarbons are drawn from the bottom portion of the volume and conducted to a lock chamber in fluid communication with the separation structure, and subjecting a top portion of the separation structure including the upper surface of the volume and a top portion of the lock chamber to the same fluid pressure.
However, in a similar method, Alyaser discloses the use of air locks which creates an airtight seal within the pyrolysis reactor, eliminating the need to cool the reactor, introducing air into the reaction vessel, and/or manually unloading the solid carbonaceous matter from the reaction vessel, thereby facilitating a more efficient process (see Alyaser, paragraphs [0080] and [0082]).
Therefore, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Van der Ree to provide for the use of a lock chamber with airlocks in fluid communication with top portion of the separation structure, such modification providing the same benefits noted by Alyaser.
Finally, the person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the method of Van der Ree in view of Alyaser as described above because Van der Ree and Alyaser are both directed to methods and associated apparatuses for the thermolytic/pyrolytic cracking of hydrocarbon feedstock (see Van der Ree, Abstract) (see Alyaser, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Van der Ree does not have a separate “reheating zone” dedicated solely to the recycle stream.
Van der Ree does not have a reheating zone in the feedback loop. Claim 6 defines over Van der Ree at least for that reason. Additionally, Van der Ree does not disclose a structure where mixing of the two streams occurs after both streams have been separately heated.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments, the claim at issue does not require that the reheating zone is “dedicated solely” to the recycle stream. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). The limitation “mixing the liquid and/or gas exiting the reheating zone with the material exiting the heating structure” is a pure process limitation which does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from that of Van der Ree. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of structural differences. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”) (emphasis in original). Likewise, the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1963). Thus, for Applicant’s arguments to be found persuasive, claim amendment is necessary to distinguish the structure of the claimed apparatus from the structure of Van der Ree consistent with Applicant’s specification and without adding any “new matter.”
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 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