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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 23-40 recite the broad recitations, and the claims also recite “for example” and “preferably” followed by narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 23-24, 27-32, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordens (US 2023/0133789) in view of Li (CN 113652246A).
Regarding claims 23-24, 27-29, 31-32, 34-40, Jordens teaches feeding hydrocarbon and dilute steam to a reactor tube and exposing the feeds to infrared radiation from electric heating [0014], [0057-0064]. Jordens teaches an infrared steam cracking furnace comprising one or more reactor tubes, and electrically heated emitter, and a reflector [0014-0061]. Examiner considers the reflector material of Jordens to read on the claimed conductivity/reflectance limitations. Jordens teaches the reflectors focus the infrared radiation on the receiving tubes [0037]. Jordens teaches the furnace produces a flux of at least 20000 W/m2 or 50000 W/m2 [0061]. Jordens teaches infrared wavelengths in the range of 700 nm – 1 mm [0018]. Jordens teaches ceramic or silicon nitride heaters [0038-0044]. Jordens teaches electrical emitters of various designs including lamps, tubes, panels, scallops, or rods [0035]. Jordens teaches electric heating element temperatures of 1000-3000˚C [0042].
While Jordens teaches using the claimed emitters, reflectors, and steam cracking tubes, Jordens does not explicitly disclose the claimed spacing.
However, Li teaches an electrical steam cracking furnace having the claimed spacing (see examples).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the spacing of the Jordens reactor in order to obtained the desired heating flux and steam cracking reactions. Examiner additionally notes that one may use Li as guidance for what spacing is known in the art.
Regarding claim 30, Examiner notes that duplication of parts is obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordens (US 2023/0133789) in view of Li (CN 113652246A) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Barendregt (US 2008/0142411).
Regarding claims 25-26, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose the tube configuration.
However, Barendregt teaches that tubes can be can be configured in single, dual, tiple, or more parallel lanes [0085].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have appropriately selected the desired tube configuration, as known in the art.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordens (US 2023/0133789) in view of Li (CN 113652246A) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Tsangaris (US 2008/0277265).
Regarding claims 33, the previous combination teaches the limitations of claim 23, as discussed above.
The previous combination does not explicitly disclose the enclosure material.
However, Tsangaris teaches that it is well known in the art to use silicate brick enclosures for high temperature hydrocarbon processing, for the benefit of providing insulation [0281-0282].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate materials, such as well-known silicate brick enclosures of Tsangaris, in order to provide insulation from the high temperature reactions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN104371754A – cited on ISR, teaches electric cracking furnace
CN113801683A - cited on ISR, teaches electric cracking furnace
US 4,800,252 – teaches an infrared electric cracking furnace
US 2021/0113980 – teaches electrically heated cracking furnace
US 2022/0395805 – teaches electric steam cracker
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
Prosecution Insights