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 .
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 9 is 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.
With respect to claim 9, the claim is indefinite as it recites limitation to a combustion step within the convection section. However, as one of ordinary skill in the art knows, combustion is performed in the radiant section of the steam cracking furnace to produce heat. However, the feedstock is not combusted within steam cracker at any point in a conventional steam cracking process. Clarification 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer (US 2009/0030254) in view of McCoy et al (US 2007/0004952) and Cahn et al (US 3,365,387).
With respect to claim 1, Spicer discloses a process for steam cracking process (see abstract), comprising:
directing at least a portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed to a feed inlet of a convection section of a steam cracking furnace (see paragraph 0057);
combusting a fuel that provide thermal energy to a radiant section of the steam cracking furnace and the convection section of the steam cracking furnace (see paragraph 0058, flue gas from radiant section heats the convection section);
heating the hydrocarbon-containing feed in an operating mode in the convection section to obtain a heated feed mixture (see paragraph 0057, preheating by a back of exchanger tubes to vaporize a portion of the feedstock);
separating a bottoms effluent from the heated feed mixture of the convection section in a separator (see paragraph 0058, separation performed in separator 50, paragraph 0064, bottoms liquid 250 is separated from separator 50); and
cooling the bottoms effluent in a heat exchanger using boiler feed water (see paragraph 0064).
Spicer further discloses wherein steam produced by the vapor liquid separator is routed to the convection section (see paragraph 0065).
Thus, Spicer discloses a portion of the Applicant claimed invention.
Spicer does not disclose introducing a hydrocarbon-containing feed to a desalter preheat train comprising an effluent interchanger, directing at least a portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed from the desalter preheat train to a feed inlet, or combusting a fuel proximate to a plurality of burners.
However, in steam cracking process, McCoy discloses preheating a desalter effluent prior to the introduction of the desalter effluent into the convection section of the steam cracking furnace (see paragraph 0049 and figure 1).
Furthermore, in another thermal cracking process, Cahn further discloses utilizing a plurality of burners (see figure).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the process with the desalter preheat train comprising an effluent interchanger and combusting a fuel proximate to a plurality of burners, in view of McCoy and Cahn, as said claimed limitations are conventional.
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination teaches the limitations of claim 1.
McCoy further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon-containing feed is provided to the effluent interchanger before and after introducing the hydrocarbon-containing feed to at least one desalter (see paragraph 0014).
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose controlling a temperature of the portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed directed to the inlet of the convection section to the temperature and the temperature is within about 60 °C or less of a stack temperature of the steam cracking furnace.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the prior combination with claimed temperature, 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. "[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 claim 4, the prior combination teaches the limitations of claim 3.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the hydrocarbon-containing feed from the desalter preheat train to the inlet of the convection is about 85 °C to about 105 °C.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the prior combination with claimed temperature, 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. "[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 claim 5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Spicer further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon-containing feed comprises a crude (see paragraph 0030).
With respect to claim 6, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 5.
The prior combination does not disclose controlling a temperature of the portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed directed to the inlet of the convection section to the temperature and the temperature is within about 60 °C or less of a stack temperature of the steam cracking furnace.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the prior combination with claimed temperature, 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. "[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 claim 8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination further discloses introducing a fluxing fluid (water) with the hydrocarbon feedstock into the convection section of the steam cracker (see Spicer paragraph 0031).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the process further comprising introducing about 0.1 tph to about 2 tph of water to a portion of the convection section of the steam cracking furnace.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to modify the prior combination with claimed water concentration, 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. "[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 claim 9, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Spicer further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon-containing feed comprises a heavy crude, a medium crude, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0030).
With respect to claim 11, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Spicer further discloses diverting steam from the heat exchanger to a steam header (see paragraph 0038).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer, McCoy and Cahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brandt et al (US 2024/0279558).
With respect to claim 7, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not teach wherein a stack temperature of the steam cracking furnace is less than about 150°C.
However, Brandt discloses a steam cracking furnace process, wherein stack temperature of about 100°C (see paragraph 0090).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the process with the claimed stack temperature of less than about 150°C in view of Brandt, as said stack temperatures are conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spicer, McCoy and Cahn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zeng et al (EP 1295931).
With respect to claim 10, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Spicer further discloses wherein the hydrocarbon-containing feed comprises a heavy crude, a medium crude, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0030).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the thermal energy provided to the convection section is about 120 MW to about 130 MW, as claimed.
However, in related thermal cracking process, Zeng disclose wherein heat load to the radiant section is about 80-100 MW (see paragraph 0041).
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 process with the thermal energy to the convection section comprising about 120 MW to about 130 MW, through routine optimization, as said parameter are sufficiently close to the parameters disclosed by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-21 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 claims 12, the claims recite limitations comprising providing a dilution steam from the steam header having a pressure of about 8 bar to about 15 bar to the convection section of the furnace, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
Examiner notes Spicer discloses using a pressure of at least 600 psia (about 41 bar, see paragraph 0053).
With respect to claims 13 and 16, the claims recite limitations wherein cooling the bottoms effluent in the heat exchanger using boiler feed water comprises controlling a temperature of the bottom’s effluent depending on a type of the hydrocarbon-containing feed and/or the temperature of the bottoms effluent, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
With respect to claim 14, the claims recite limitations wherein cooling the bottoms effluent in the heat exchanger includes providing boiler feed water to the heat exchanger to provide a predetermined temperature of a bottom 1/2 height portion of the convection section, wherein the bottom 1/2 height portion is disposed between a NOx reduction bed and the radiant section of the furnace, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
With respect to claim 15, the claims recite limitations wherein an amount of boiler feed water provided to the heat exchanger is determined based on a predetermined temperature of a NOx reduction bed disposed within the convection section of the furnace, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
With respect to claim 17, the claims recite limitations further comprising separating an overhead effluent from the heated feed mixture and introducing the overhead effluent to a bottom 1/2 height portion of the convection section, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
With respect to claims 18-19, the claims recite limitations further comprising cooling a furnace effluent exiting the radiant section of the furnace with the boiler feed water to generate steam having a steam pressure of about 50 bar or greater, providing the steam to a steam drum and introducing the steam to portions of the furnace, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
With respect to claims 20-21, the claims recite limitations further comprising introducing the furnace effluent to a knock out drum, condensing a product vapor from the knock out drum in a condenser to steam having a steam pressure of about 30 bar to 50 bar, generating power from the steam, and introducing boiler feed water to the condenser, that is not taught or suggest to by the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claims 22-25, the closest prior art McCoy et al (US 2007/0004952) discloses a steam cracking furnace (22) comprising a convection section (28) and a radiant section (24); a desalter preheat train (16) coupled to a feed inlet of a convection section (26) of the steam cracking furnace (22), the desalter preheat train comprising: an effluent interchanger (20) (see McCoy, paragraph 0048).
The closest prior art, McCoy fails to discloses wherein the desalter preheat train comprises a trim preheater in fluid communication with the effluent interchanger, and at least one desalter in fluid communication with the trim heater, wherein the at least one desalter is in fluid communication with the effluent interchanger.
With respect to claim 26, the closest prior art Spicer (US 2009/0030254) discloses a process for steam cracking process (see abstract), comprising:
directing at least a portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed to a feed inlet of a convection section of a steam cracking furnace (see paragraph 0057);
combusting a fuel that provide thermal energy to a radiant section of the steam cracking furnace and the convection section of the steam cracking furnace (see paragraph 0058, flue gas from radiant section heats the convection section);
heating the hydrocarbon-containing feed in an operating mode in the convection section to obtain a heated feed mixture (see paragraph 0057, preheating by a back of exchanger tubes to vaporize a portion of the feedstock);
separating a bottoms effluent from the heated feed mixture of the convection section in a separator (see paragraph 0058, separation performed in separator 50, paragraph 0064, bottoms liquid 250 is separated from separator 50); and
cooling the bottoms effluent in a heat exchanger using boiler feed water (see paragraph 0064).
Spicer further discloses wherein steam produced by the vapor liquid separator is routed to the convection section (see paragraph 0065).
Spicer fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process with separating a first portion and a second portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed in the desalter preheat train,
wherein separating a first and second portion of the hydrocarbon-containing feed includes:
introducing the hydrocarbon-containing feed in an effluent interchanger;
preheating the hydrocarbon-containing feed from the effluent interchanger to a trim preheater in fluid communication with the effluent interchanger;
separating a first portion and a second portion of the preheated effluent from the trim preheater to at least one desalter in fluid communication with the trim heater, wherein the at least one desalter is in fluid communication with the effluent interchanger;
introducing the first portion of the preheated effluent to the effluent interchanger;
directing the first portion of the preheated effluent from the desalter preheat train to a feed inlet of a convection section of a steam cracking furnace.
Consequently, it is the Examiner position that the claimed inventions would be patentable over the prior art.
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
Prosecution Insights