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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the moderator" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al (US 4,832,822) in view of Messenger et al (WO 2006/117509).
With respect to claim 1, Benard discloses a process for producing olefins from a feed stream containing hydrocarbons by pyrolytic cracking of the hydrocarbons in an autothermal reactor, said process comprising:
pre-heating an oxygen containing stream and a hydrogen and/or methane containing stream outside the autothermal reactor (see col 4 lines 20-25);
feeding the pre-heated oxygen containing stream and the pre-heated hydrogen and/or methane containing stream into a burner of the autothermal reactor (see col 4 lines 25-30);
generating steam in a combustion zone of the autothermal reactor (see col 4 lines 25-30);
mixing the steam generated in the combustion zone with the pre-heated feed stream containing hydrocarbons in a mixing and cracking zone of the autothermal reactor, by feeding the steam and the pre-heated feed stream containing hydrocarbons into the mixing and cracking zone from substantially opposite directions (see col 4 lines 20-40), and
pyrolytically cracking the hydrocarbons to provide an effluent containing olefins (see col 5 lines 10-60).
Benard does not explicitly disclose pre-heating a feed stream containing hydrocarbons outside the autothermal reactor;
feeding the pre-heated feed stream containing hydrocarbons into the autothermal reactor.
However, in a related, autothermal cracking process, Messenger discloses wherein its conventional to preheat feedstock up to a temperature of 450 °C (see abstract and page 11, lines 10-15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing to modify the Benard with the claimed pre-heat step in view of Messenger, as Messenger discloses wherein the claimed pre-heat step is conventional.
With respect to claim 2, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Benard further discloses wherein the step of feeding the pre- heated oxygen containing stream and the pre-heated hydrogen and/or methane containing stream into the burner of the autothermal reactor further comprises feeding a pre-heated temperature moderator into the burner of the autothermal reactor (see col 4 lines 35-45).
With respect to claim 5, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Messenger discloses wherein its conventional to preheat feedstock up to a temperature of 450 °C (see abstract and page 11, lines 10-15).
With respect to claim 7, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Benard further discloses wherein the temperature of the steam generated in the combustion zone is in the range of from about 1400 °C to about 1900 °C (see col 3, lines 50-55).
With respect to claim 8, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Benard further discloses wherein the steam flows into the cracking zone at a momentum of at least 100 times greater than the hydrocarbon feed (see col 3 lines 15-20) and further states wherein the feed is introduced at a feed rate lower than 10 m/s (see col 3 lines 30-40).
Benard does not disclose wherein steam generated in the combustion flows in at a velocity from about 100 m/s to about 400 m/s .
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 the claimed flow through routine experimentation , 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 10-11, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Messenger discloses wherein its conventional to preheat feedstock up to a temperature of 450 °C (see abstract and page 11, lines 10-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard and Messenger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burns et al (WO 03/066551).
With respect to claim 4, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not teach pre-heating oxygen to a temperature of 200°C to about 300°C, as claimed.
However, in a related process for production of olefin, Burns discloses wherein oxidant utilized is preheated to a temperature of about 50°C to about 250°C (see page 5, lines 30-34).
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 prior combination with the claimed oxidant pre-heating step, as Burns discloses wherein said preheating step and temperature are conventional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benard and Messenger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maehling et al (US 2015/0344801).
With respect to claim 13, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
Benard further discloses wherein the feedstock include heavy feedstock to include fuel oil (see col 5 lines 10-50).
The prior combination does not disclose wherein the feed stream containing hydrocarbons comprises any one or more of ethane, propane, butane, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), naphtha, hydrowax, gas oil, bio- naphtha and bio-diesel.
However, in a related refinery process, Maehling discloses fuel oils include diesel fuel of mineral origin, i.e. diesel, gas oil or diesel oil, and biodiesel fuel oil.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize at least a gas oil and/or a diesel oil with the prior combination, as Maehling discloses that such feeds are interchangeable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benard and Messenger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffiths (GB 2435883).
With respect to claim 15, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the effluent containing olefins undergoes further downstream processing and/or separation in a steam cracker unit.
However, in a related autothermal cracking process, Griffiths discloses wherein olefin product stream is separated using an LNG regasification plant to recover products (see abstract).
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 prior combination with an olefin separation plant as disclosed by Griffiths, as said separation steps are conventional.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 12 and 14 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.
With respect to claim 3, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process with the claimed, temperature moderator comprises steam and/or carbon dioxide.
With respect to claim 9, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process with the claimed, wherein the feed stream containing hydrocarbons flows into the mixing and cracking zone at a velocity in the range of from about 50 m/s to about 300 m/s.
With respect to claim 12, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process with the claimed, wherein the feed stream containing hydrocarbons is further heated inside the reactor through indirect heat exchange between the effluent containing olefins and the feed stream containing hydrocarbons in an effluent zone of the reactor.
With respect to claim 14, the prior combination teaches the limitation of claim 1.
The prior combination fails to teach or suggest to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process with the claimed, further comprising adding methane to the feed stream containing hydrocarbons.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
/PREM C SINGH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771