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 .
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(s) 1-4, 7-11, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy et al (US 2005/0209495) in view of Dittrich et al (US 2024/0166961).
With respect to claim 1-2, McCoy discloses a process for steam cracking hydrocarbons, comprising:
heating a hydrocarbon feed to produce a preheated hydrocarbon feed (see paragraph 0037);
combining liquid water with the preheated hydrocarbon feed to produce a mixture (see paragraph 0038-0039);
heating the mixture within a convection section of a steam cracker furnace to produce a heated mixture (see paragraph 0043);
steam cracking at least a portion of the heated mixture within a radiant section of the steam cracker furnace to produce a steam cracker effluent (see paragraph 0062-0063);
McCoy further discloses wherein the cracked effluent is cooled with a quench fluid downstream of the cracking unit (0070) and wherein the water stream (fluid) is derived low pressure boiler feed water (see paragraph 0038).
McCoy fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process with the steps of separating a process gas comprising molecular hydrogen and C1-C4 hydrocarbons, a steam cracker naphtha, a condensed process water, and one or more heavy steam cracker products from the steam cracker effluent, wherein the condensed process water comprises entrained hydrocarbons;
separating at least a portion of the entrained hydrocarbons from the condensed process water to produce a purified process water; and
wherein the liquid water combined with the preheated hydrocarbon feed comprises at least one of the following: (i) a portion of the condensed process water, (ii) a portion of the purified process water, (iii) condensed dilution steam, and (iv) a mixture or two or more of (i), (ii), and (iii).
However, in a related cracking process, Dittrich discloses separating cracked furnace effluent with a quench and separation section, wherein the separation step includes separating products and a condensed process water, and one or more heavy steam cracker products from the steam cracker effluent (see figure 9), wherein the condensed process water comprises entrained hydrocarbons (see figure 9);
separating at least a portion of the entrained hydrocarbons from the condensed process water to produce a purified process water (see figure 9, condensed water is recycled separately from hydrocarbon); and recycling a portion of the purified process water to produce the liquid water.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of McCoy in view of Dittrich with the claimed process separation step and purified process water recycle stream, as said steps are within conventional refinery practices to operate refineries in the most efficient manner.
The prior combination does not disclose heating at least a portion of the purified process water to produce dilution steam.
However, McCoy discloses wherein the fluid, preferably water is optionally a vapor and/or steam (see paragraph 0038).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of McCoy in view of Dittrich with the claimed heating at least a portion of the purified process water to produce dilution steam, as it is within conventional refinery practices to operated refineries in the most efficient manner.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1. Dittrich further wherein the liquid water combined with the preheated hydrocarbon feed comprises the portion of the condensed process water (see figure 9).
With respect to claim 4, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses wherein the liquid water combined with the preheated hydrocarbon feed comprises the condensed dilution steam (see paragraph 0042, primary dilution steam can have a boiling temp lower than the feed).
With respect to claim 7, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy does not disclose wherein an amount of liquid water combined with the preheated hydrocarbon feed is about 1 wt% to about 50 wt%, based on a combined weight of the preheated hydrocarbon feed and the liquid water.
However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the prior combination with the claimed concentrations through routine optimization, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
With respect to claim 8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon feed is heated within the convection section to produce the preheated hydrocarbon feed (see figure 1, paragraph 0037).
With respect to claim 9, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses wherein the preheated hydrocarbon feed is at a temperature of 150°C to 260°C (see paragraph 0037).
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses wherein the heated mixture is at a temperature of 315°C to 540°C (see paragraph 0049).
With respect to claim 11, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses wherein the steam cracker effluent is at a temperature of 370°C to about less than 510°C upon exiting the radiant section of the steam cracker furnace (see paragraph 0068-0070).
With respect to claim 16, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy does not disclose wherein the one or more heavy steam cracker products separated from the steam cracker effluent comprises a stream cracker tar, a steam cracker quench oil, a stream cracker gas oil, or a combination thereof.
However, McCoy further disclose wherein the feedstock includes a crude oil (see paragraph 0035).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to surmise wherein the one or more heavy steam cracker products separated from the steam cracker effluent comprises a stream cracker tar, a stream cracker gas oil, or a combination thereof.
With respect to claim 17, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further disclose wherein the feedstock includes a crude oil (see paragraph 0035).
With respect to claim 18, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further disclose wherein the process further comprising separating a vapor phase product and a liquid phase product from the heated mixture, wherein the vapor phase product is steam cracked within the radiant section of the steam cracker furnace (see paragraph 0060-0063).
With respect to claim 19, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses combining steam with the mixture, the heated mixture, or both the mixture and the heated mixture (see figure 1, paragraph 0038-0043).
With respect to claim 20, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 19.
McCoy further discloses wherein the liquid water is combined with the preheated hydrocarbon feed before the steam (see figure 1, paragraph 0038-0043).
With respect to claim 21, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 19.
McCoy does not disclose wherein an amount of the liquid water combined with the preheated hydrocarbon feed and the steam is 1 wt% to 99.9 wt%, 2 wt% to 80 wt%, or 4 wt% to 50 wt%, based on the combined weight of the liquid water and the steam.
However, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the prior combination with the claimed concentrations through routine optimization, as differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 12-15 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:
With respect to claim 5-6, the claims recite limitation to the process containing both the purified water and the condensed steam, that is not taught or suggested to by McCoy or Dittrich.
With respect to claims 12-15, the claims recite limitation to the separation step comprising a process water stripper that is not taught or suggested to by McCoy or Dittrich.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 22, the closest prior art McCoy et al (US 2005/0209495) discloses a system for steam cracking hydrocarbons, comprising:
a steam cracker (1) comprising a convection section (3) and a radiant section (10) (see figure 1), wherein:
a first convection line (2) is disposed within the convection section (3) and configured to flow a hydrocarbon feed therethrough to produce a preheated hydrocarbon feed (see figure 1),
a mixing device (4) is in fluid communication with the first convection line and configured to receive the preheated hydrocarbon feed and a liquid water feed (fluid ) produce a mixture (11) (see figure 1),
a second convection line (6) is disposed within the convection section (3) and configured to receive and flow the mixture therethrough to produce a heated mixture (12) (see figure 1), and
a radiant line is disposed within the radiant section (10) and configured to receive and flow at least a portion of the heated mixture therethrough (13) to produce a steam cracker effluent (41) (see figure 1).
Thus, McCoy discloses portions of the claimed system.
However, McCoy fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling to date to modify the system with the claimed first separation stage configured to separate a process gas comprising molecular hydrogen and C1-C4 hydrocarbons, a steam cracker naphtha, a condensed process water, and one or more heavy steam cracker products from the steam cracker effluent, wherein the condensed process water comprises entrained hydrocarbons;
a second separation stage configured to separate at least a portion of the entrained hydrocarbons from the condensed process water to produce a purified process water;
a dilution steam generator configured to heat at least a portion of the purified process water to produce dilution steam; and
at least one of:
a first recycle line configured to convey a portion of the condensed process water from the first separation stage to the mixing device to provide at least a portion of the liquid water received by the mixing device;
a second recycle line configured to convey a portion of the purified process water from the second separation stage to the mixing device to provide at least a portion of the liquid water received by the mixing device; and
a third recycle line configured to convey a condensed dilution steam from an optional dilution steam condenser to the mixing device to provide at least a portion of the liquid water received by the mixing device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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.
/JUAN C VALENCIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771