DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed 5 June 2026 containing amendments to the claims and remarks.
Claims 1-3 and 7-23 are pending. Claims 14-23 are newly added.
The previous objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained. Likewise, newly added claims 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Finally, rejections of claims 16, 17, and 22 are entered under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims that were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, the new rejections being necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The rejections follow.
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.
Claims 16, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the feed unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “the pre-heat unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
With respect to claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “the dilution stream heat unit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for such 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.
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.
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.
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 1-3 and 7-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biesheuvel (WO 2020/046639 A1).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 7-23, Biesheuvel discloses a process (and necessary apparatus components for carrying out such process) comprising preheating a hydrocarbon such as naphtha or lower alkanes using molten salt, heating the preheated hydrocarbon, and reacting the heated hydrocarbon at high temperatures, e.g. between 825°C and 900°C, to produce an effluent comprising hydrogen, olefins, and aromatic hydrocarbons. Heat is recovered from the reaction effluent using molten salt. Heat is transferred from the effluent to the hydrocarbon feed via a molten salt heat sink (see Biesheuvel, Fig. 1; claims 1 and 9-11; and paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0020], [0020], [0028], [0029], [0036], [0045], and [0048]). Furthermore, Biesheuvel discloses wherein a hydrocarbon stream may flow through the reactor(s) wherein the stream is heated, diluted with steam, and converted to an effluent comprising the desired products (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0003]). Moreover, Biesheuvel discloses wherein a second heater may be used for preheating purposes (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0018]); and wherein the heating process may be conducted any number of times using any number of heaters until the hydrocarbon stream of interest reaches a desired preheat temperature with the understanding that different hydrocarbon streams will need to be preheated to different temperatures and the preheat temperature can be dependent upon the desired end product (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0018]). The product stream may comprise olefins including ethylene, propylene, and butylene (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0048]). Reaction conditions may include a temperature of 300°C or greater and a pressure of 1 bar or greater (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0047]). The temperature of the feed may be from ambient to 200°C and is not particularly limited (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0016]).
Claims 1-3 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (EP 3730592 A1).
With respect to claims 1-3 and 7-16, With respect to claims 1-5 and 7-13, Ward discloses a process (and necessary apparatus components for carrying out such process) for steam cracking a hydrocarbon such as ethane or propane to produce olefins comprising preheating the feed in several heat exchange steps in series using the heat from the produce effluent and including heating of dilution steam with the produce; reacting the preheated, heated, and diluted feed using an electrically heated source; and further cooling the collected products (see Ward, claims 1, 3, 4; and paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0057], [0059], [0105]). Heating may be carried out to a temperature in excess of 675°C (see Ward, paragraph [0052]). Furthermore, Ward discloses a process (and necessary apparatus components for carrying out such process) for steam cracking a hydrocarbon such as ethane or propane to produce olefins comprising preheating the feed in several heat exchange steps in series using the heat from the product effluent and including heating of dilution steam with the product; reacting the preheated, heated, and diluted feed using an electrically heated source; and further cooling the collected products (see Ward, claims 1, 3, 4; and paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0057], [0059], [0105]). Heating may be carried out to a temperature in excess of 675°C (see Ward, paragraph [0052]). Ward discloses wherein heating may be effected by more than one feed/effluent exchangers (see Ward, paragraph [0052]). The product stream may comprise olefins including ethylene and propylene (see Ward, paragraph [0035]) and the entering temperature of the feed is not particularly limited (see Ward, entire disclosure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments to be:
Biesheuvel does not disclose or suggest “introducing the product stream into the first hydrocarbon heat unit; . . . introducing the product stream into the second hydrocarbon heat unit” and “cooling the product stream in the second hydrocarbon heat unit.”
The product stream 211 of Biesheuvel only passes through one heat exchanger 220 and then exits the system as effluent 212.
The system of Biesheuvel does not include “transferring heat from the product stream to the heated hydrocarbon-based composition.”
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify the system of Biesheuvel to include “introducing the product stream into the first hydrocarbon heat unit; . . . introducing the product stream into the second hydrocarbon heat unit . . . cooling the product stream in the second hydrocarbon heat unit . . .” and “transferring heat from the product stream to the heated hydrocarbon-based composition.”
It is not obvious in view of Ward to include “cooling the product stream in the feed pre-heat unit . . . introducing the product stream into the first hydrocarbon heat unit; . . . introducing the product stream into the second hydrocarbon heat unit; . . . cooling the product stream in the second hydrocarbon heat unit” and “transferring heat from the product stream to the heated hydrocarbon-based composition.”
Ward does not disclose or suggest “cooling the product stream in the feed pre-heat unit . . . introducing the product stream into the first hydrocarbon heat unit; . . . introducing the product stream into the second hydrocarbon heat unit; . . . cooling the product stream in the second hydrocarbon heat unit” and “transferring heat from the product stream to the heated hydrocarbon-based composition.”
With respect to Applicant’s first, second, third, and fourth arguments, Biesheuvel discloses wherein a hydrocarbon stream may flow through the reactor(s) wherein the stream is heated, diluted with steam, and converted to an effluent comprising the desired products (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0003]). Moreover, Biesheuvel discloses wherein a second heater [i.e. second hydrocarbon heat unit] may be used for preheating purposes (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0018]); and wherein the heating process may be conducted any number of times using any number of heaters [i.e. first hydrocarbon heat unit, second hydrocarbon heat unit, etc.] until the hydrocarbon stream of interest reaches a desired preheat temperature with the understanding that different hydrocarbon streams will need to be preheated to different temperatures and the preheat temperature can be dependent upon the desired end product (see Biesheuvel, paragraph [0018]).
With respect to Applicant’s fifth and sixth arguments, Ward discloses a process (and necessary apparatus components for carrying out such process) for steam cracking a hydrocarbon such as ethane or propane to produce olefins comprising preheating the feed in several heat exchange steps in series using the heat from the product effluent and including heating of dilution steam with the product; reacting the preheated, heated, and diluted feed using an electrically heated source; and further cooling the collected products (see Ward, claims 1, 3, 4; and paragraphs [0052], [0053], [0057], [0059], [0105]). Heating may be carried out to a temperature in excess of 675°C (see Ward, paragraph [0052]). Ward discloses wherein heating may be effected by more than one feed/effluent exchangers [i.e. first hydrocarbon heat unit, second hydrocarbon heat unit, etc.] (see Ward, paragraph [0052]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Boyer whose telephone number is (571) 272-7113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. (EST).
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Randy Boyer/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights