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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 11 December 2025 containing remarks and amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 13-15 are pending. The previous rejections have been updated as necessitated by amendments to the claims. The updated rejections follow.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Examiner notes that claim 1 now depends on claim 8, which does not follow consecutive numbering.
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 1-8, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skraba (US 5,120,892) in view of Bellet (US 2006/0116543) and further in view of Niggemann (US 4,936,380).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 13-15, Skraba teaches a method for feeding a hydrocarbon feedstock to a waste heat utilization (thermal energy recovery) vessel, to out put a preheated hydrocarbon feedstock, which is fed to a pyrolysis furnace, producing a heated effluent, which is passed to the waste heat utilization vessel in order to transfer heat to the hydrocarbon feed (see figure, column 3, lines 1-column 6, line 36).
Skraba does not explicitly disclose (1) electrically heating the pyrolysis furnace (2) the impingement plate.
Regarding (1), Bellet teaches a similar method for cracking hydrocarbons, using an electrically heated furnace [0037-0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have used the Bellet electric heating, as an alternate method to heat the furnace of Skraba. It is not seen where such a modification would result in any new or unexpected results.
Regarding (2), Niggemen teaches impingement plate type heat exchangers are well known in the art (see figures). Niggemen teaches that the impingement plate heat exchangers result in excellent heat transfer (column 4, lines 25-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated known heat exchange structures, such as the impingement plate design of Niggeman, for the benefit of achieving the desired preheating of feed and cooling of effluent and excellent heat transfer as disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Skraba teaches that additional fluids may be provided to the waste heat exchanger (see figure 2, column 6, lines 35-70).
Regarding claims 4-7, the previous combination teaches the limitations as discussed above. It is further expected that the same or similar cooling rates and pressure drops would be achieved, since the same thermal recovery configuration is utilized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner considers Applicant’s argument to be:
The prior art does not disclose impingement plate or piccolo impingement heat exchangers. These embodiments result in unexpected results demonstrated by improved cooling rates, pressure drops, residence time, and cooling surface area.
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Examiner notes that Niggemann teaches impingement plate type heat exchangers (column 1, lines 10-30). Niggemann teaches that the impingement plate heat exchangers results in excellent heat transfer/effective heat transfer (column 4, lines 25-45). In this regard, the person having ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve the same improvements in heat exchange as disclosed by the instant specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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