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 1-5, 16-19 and 20-24 in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-15 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/2026.
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.
Claim 4-5 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second hydrocarbon outlet temperature" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second hydrocarbon outlet temperature" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Glomb et al (US 2013/0274531).
With respect to claim 1, Glomb discloses a process for steam cracking process comprising:
introducing a first hydrocarbon-containing feed to a convection section of a steam cracking furnace (see paragraph 0106), the convection section comprising a first arrangement (3,4) having a first heat exchanger (3) and a first economizer (4) disposed downstream or upstream of the first heat exchanger, the convection section comprising a second arrangement (5,6) having a second heat exchanger (6) in fluid communication with the first heat exchanger (3) and a second economizer (5) in fluid communication with the first economizer (4), the second arrangement (5,6) disposed downstream of the first arrangement (3,4) such that each of the first (4) and second economizer (5) alternates with each of the first and second heat exchangers (3,6) (see figure 1, and paragraph 0106-108);
heating the first hydrocarbon-containing feed (1) in the first heat exchanger (3), the first hydrocarbon-containing feed exiting (18) the convection section at a hydrocarbon outlet temperature (see paragraph 0106);
introducing water (9) to the first economizer (4)(see paragraph 0107);
removing the water (10) from the convection section at a water outlet temperature (see paragraph 0107);
Glomb further discloses a introducing a hot flue gas from a radiant section of the steam cracking furnace to the convection section (see abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Glomb discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Glomb further discloses wherein the first economizer (4) is disposed downstream of the first heat exchanger (3) (see figure 1).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glomb as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spicer (US 8,864,977).
With respect to claim 3, Glomb discloses the limitation of claim 1.
Glomb does not disclose wherein the first heat exchanger comprises a continuous convection tube in a serpentine pattern, the continuous convection tube comprising a plurality of substantially parallel rows.
However, in a related steam cracking process, Spicer discloses wherein first heat exchanger comprises a continuous convection tube in a serpentine pattern, the continuous convection tube comprising a plurality of substantially parallel rows (70 and 88, see figure 1).
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 with the claimed first heat exchanger comprises a continuous convection tube in a serpentine pattern, the continuous convection tube comprising a plurality of substantially parallel rows, as said configurations are conventional as shown by Spicer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glomb as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claims 4, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Glomb does not disclose wherein a water outlet temperature of the second economizer is about 160°C to about 328 C, and the second hydrocarbon outlet temperature is about 175°C to about 390°C.
However, Glomb discloses wherein radiant section operates at a temperature from about 500°C to 900°C and leaves the convection zone at a temperature less than 150°C (see paragraph 0008-0009).
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 heat exchanger duties such the water outlet temperature of the second economizer is about 160°C to about 328 C, and the second hydrocarbon outlet temperature is about 175°C to about 390°C is achieved through routine optimization.
Generally, 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)
With respect to claims 5, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Glomb does not disclose wherein the second hydrocarbon outlet temperature is within about 5°C to about 30°C of the water outlet temperature of the second economizer in at least one operating mode.
However, Glomb discloses wherein radiant section operates at a temperature from about 500°C to 900°C and leaves the convection zone at a temperature less than 150°C (see paragraph 0008-0009).
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 heat exchanger duties such that the the second hydrocarbon outlet temperature is within about 5°C to about 30°C of the water outlet temperature of the second economizer in at least one operating mode is achieved through routine optimization.
Generally, 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)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glomb et al (US 2013/0274531).
With respect to claim 16, Glomb discloses a steam cracking furnace comprising:
a convection section and a radiant section downstream of the convection section (see paragraph 0106), the convection section comprising:
a first heat exchanger (3) in fluid communication with a first section of a line (12);
a second heat exchanger (6) in fluid communication with the first section of the line (12) and a second section of the line (15);
a first economizer (4) disposed in a first location between the first heat exchanger (3) and the second heat exchanger (6), the first economizer in fluid communication with a water source (9); and
a second economizer (5), the second economizer in fluid communication with the first economizer (19).
Glomb does not disclose wherein the second economizer disposed in a second location downstream of the second heat exchanger, as claimed.
However, 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 arrangement of parts , as the particular placement of the second economizer would be an obvious matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 17, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Glomb does not teach the limitations of wherein the first heat exchanger comprises a first surface area and the second heat exchanger comprises a second surface area, wherein the second surface area is larger than the first surface area.
However, 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 size, as the mere scaling of the heat exchanger surface area, would have been obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
With respect to claim 18, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Glomb does not teach the limitations wherein the first and second heat exchangers together comprise about 10 to about 20 rows of tubing and the first and second economizers together comprise about 4 to about 10 rows of tubing.
However, 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 size, as the mere scaling of the heat exchanger tubing, would have been obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 19, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 16.
Glomb does not teach the limitations wherein, wherein a total exterior surface area of the first economizer, the second economizer, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger is about 6,000 m2 to about 18,000 m2.
However, 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 size of the total exterior , as the mere scaling of the heat exchanger tubing, would have been obvious matter of design choice.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glomb et al (US 2013/0274531).
With respect to claim 20, Glomb discloses a system for processing hydrocarbons comprising:
a convection section, a radiant section downstream of the convection section, the system configured to flow flue gas from the radiant section through the convection section (see paragraph 0106), the convection section comprising:
a first economizer (4) in fluid communication with a boiler water feed (9) (paragraph 0107);
a second economizer (5) in fluid communication with the first economizer (19) and a steam drum (21) (see paragraph 0107);
a first heat exchanger (3) in fluid communication with a hydrocarbon source (1) (see paragraph 0107); and
a second heat exchanger (6) in fluid communication with the first heat exchanger (3), the second heat exchanger disposed downstream of the second economizer (see figure 1).
Glomb does not disclose wherein the first heat exchanger disposed between the first economizer and the second economizer.
However, 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 arrangement of parts , as the particular placement of the second economizer would be an obvious matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 21, Glomb discloses the limitation of claim 20.
Glomb further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon source is a light hydrocarbon or a crude oil source (see paragraph 0106).
With respect to claim 22, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 20.
Glomb does not teach the limitations wherein, wherein a total exterior surface area of the first economizer, the second economizer, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger is about 6,000 m2 to about 18,000 m2.
However, 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 size of the total exterior , as the mere scaling of the heat exchanger tubing, would have been obvious matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 23, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 20.
Glomb does not teach the limitations wherein the first and second heat exchangers together comprise about 10 to about 20 rows of tubing and the first and second economizers together comprise about 4 to about 10 rows of tubing.
However, 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 system with the first and second heat exchangers together comprise about 10 to about 20 rows of tubing and the first and second economizers together comprise about 4 to about 10 rows of tubing, as the mere scaling of the heat exchanger tubing, would have been obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 24, Glomb teaches the limitation of claim 20.
Glomb does not teach the limitations wherein total tubing has a length of about 5.5 meters to about 25 meters, the total tubing defined as tubing of each of the first economizer, the second economizer, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system with the total tubing has a length of about 5.5 meters to about 25 meters, the total tubing defined as tubing of each of the first economizer, the second economizer, the first heat exchanger, and the second heat exchanger the size, as the mere scaling of the heat exchanger tubing, would have been obvious matter of design choice.
Furthermore, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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