DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to claims 1 and 7; and cancelation of claim 6 are noted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sundaram fails to disclose a resistance hating tube comprising a cracking tube in combination with an electrical current supply connected to the resistance heating tube. Applicant contends that Sundaram discloses at least one coil extending through a reaction section and separate heating elements disposed around the heater chamber or reaction section, thus treating the feed-carrying coil and electrical heating elements as distinct structures and not disclosing “that the cracking tube itself forms part of the resistance heating tube.”
This argument is not found persuasive. Applicant appears to be applying an overly narrow interpretation of the claimed invention. The office is of the position that Sundaram’s disclosure fully reads on the claim elements. Sundaram discloses electrical heating elements 140 disposed around the coils 130 in the electric heater 110 (see [0019]), i.e., by being disposed around the coils, Sundaram is considered to teach the claimed resistance heating tube comprising a cracking tube (see [0088], disclosing resistance heating). Furthermore, Sundaram discloses individual coil control, distinct from electric heater control. In this case, power to each coil is controlled (see [0059]). The office therefore maintains that the disclosure of Sundaram fully teaches the scope encompassed by the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sundaram et al (WO 2022/094455).
Regarding claim 1, Sundaram discloses a steam cracking unit comprising (see Fig. 1; [0002]; [0013]):
a resistance heating tube comprising a cracking tube (coils 130) (see [0019]; [0088], resistance heating system); and
an electrical supply connected to the heating tube configured to apply a current to the resistance heating tube (via heating elements 140) to induce electrical resistance heating (see [0019]; [0054]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Sundaram discloses wherein the resistance heating tube comprises a preheating tube (see [0018]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, Sundaram discloses a preheating section, wherein the preheating tube is located at least in part in the preheating section (see [0018]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Sundaram discloses wherein the preheating tube is configured to preheat a hydrocarbon feed, a steam feed, a mixed feed stream of hydrocarbon feed and steam feed, or any combination thereof (see [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Sundaram discloses wherein the preheating tube is arranged such that a feed is directed to flow through the preheating tube prior to reaching a pyrolysis section (see [0018]; [0033], preheating section may be provided separately from the main reaction section).
Regarding claim 7, Sundaram discloses a pyrolysis section, wherein the cracking tube is located at least in part in the pyrolysis section (see [0018]-[0019]; [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Sundaram discloses a controller to adjust the electrical current supply to the resistance heating tube (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Sundaram discloses wherein the resistance heating tube comprises a curved or curvilinear shape (see [0062], serpentine).
Regarding claim 11, Sundaram discloses wherein the resistance heating tube comprises a U-shape (see [0062], serpentine).
Regarding claim 12, Sundaram discloses wherein the resistance heating tube comprises two or more tube sections (see [0027]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Sundaram discloses wherein a first tube section is connected to a second tube section by a pipe fitting configured to electrical-insulate the first tube section from the second tube section (see [0027]; [0066]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Sundaram discloses at least a first tube section and at least a second tube section of the two or more tube sections are connected to the electrical current supply and a second electrical current supply, respectively (see [0027]; [0059]).
Regarding claim 16, Sundaram discloses wherein the electrical current supply connected to the first tube section is independent of the second electrical supply to the second tube section (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, Sundaram discloses additional one or more resistance heating tubes (see Fig. 1, depicting multiple coils 130).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram, as applied to claim 1, in view of Tamura et al (US 4,549,073).
Regarding claim 8, Sundaram does not explicitly disclose a rectifier to provide the electrical current supply.
Tamura is directed to a controller for regulating current flow through a resistive heating element, the electrical controller comprising a rectifier element which functions to convert AC to DC (see Figs. 6A&B; col. 17, lines 11-19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the steam cracking apparatus of Sundaram to include a rectifier as an element of the electrical heater control, as suggested by Tamura, in order to provide the necessary components to provide adequate control of the electrical elements.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram, as applied to claim 13, in view of Huddleston (US 10,041,630).
Regarding claim 17, Sundaram does not explicitly disclose a pipe fitting comprising a first portion and a second portion configured to mate.
Huddleston discloses a coupling fitting for connecting adjacent pipes, including a plug to seal an access opening to fluidly connect the pipes for use. The coupling fitting includes a branchless tubular structure having a sealable access opening to facilitates line testing utilizing the coupling fitting (see Abstract; Figs. 4A-C, where the pipe fitting portions are depicted as configured to mate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sundaram to include a pipe fitting as suggested by Huddleston to secure pipe sections together in a manner that also facilitates line testing.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundaram, as applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Sundaram discloses various configuration for the resistance heating tubes, including multi-pass serpentine coils, two pass coils with multiple inlets and outlets and “other configurations” (see [0062]), specifically noting that a serpentine coil and a multi-pass split design coil may be arranged and operated in the reaction section of a single electric heater (see [0080]). Arriving at the claimed embodiment entailing current flowing through adjacent tubes traveling in oppose directions is considered obvious in light of the various configurations disclosed in Sundaram, i.e., including multiple serpentine coils. Arriving at the claimed embodiment would be an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art, arrived at by routine experimentation, and associated with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 RENEE ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00a-5:00p and Friday 8:00a-2:00p.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571)272-5954. 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.
/Renee Robinson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights