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 .
Summary
This is the initial Office action based on application 18857874 filed 10/18/24.
Claims 1-37 and 50-66 are pending and have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS filed on 10/18/24 have been considered by the examiner and copies of the Form PTO/SB/08 are attached to the office action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 10/18/24 are acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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 and all dependent claims are 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 contains the trademark/trade name KANTHAL®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982), and MPEP 2173.05(u). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe electrical resistor and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Applicant is required to bring correction to this limitation.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-37 and 50-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEINZ ZIMMERMANN ET AL: "Ethylene" In: "Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry", 15 April 2009 (filed on IDS 10/21/24) in combination with JORDENS ET AL. (WO2022008053; 1/13/2022) in their entirety. Hereby referred to as HEINZ and JORDENS.
Regarding claims 1-37 and 50-66:
HEINZ teaches that the bulk of the worldwide annual commercial production of ethylene is based on thermal cracking of petroleum hydrocarbons with steam; the process is commonly called pyrolysis or steam cracking. The principal arrangement of such a cracking reactor is shown in Figure 4, a photograph of the furnace section of a modern ethylene plant in Figure 5. The technology has been applied for more than 50 years with permanent improvements in details. A hydrocarbon stream is heated by heat exchange against flue gas in the convection section, mixed with steam, and further heated to incipient cracking temperature (500–680 C, depending on the feedstock). The stream then enters a fired tubular reactor (radiant tube or radiant coil) where, under controlled residence time, temperature profile, and partial pressure, it is heated from 500–650 to 750–875 C for 0.1–0.5 s. During this short reaction time hydrocarbons in the feedstock are cracked into smaller molecules; ethylene, other olefins, and diolefins are the major products. Since the conversion of saturated hydrocarbons to olefins in the radiant tube is highly endothermic, high energy input rates are needed. The reaction products leaving the radiant tube at 800–850 C are cooled to 550–650 C within 0.02–0.1 s to prevent degradation of the highly reactive products by secondary reactions. The resulting product mixtures, which can vary widely, depending on feedstock and severity of the cracking operation, are then separated into the desired products by using a complex sequence of separation and chemical-treatment steps. The cooling of the cracked gas in the transfer line exchanger is carried out by vaporization of high-pressure boiler feed water (BFW, p ¼ 6-12 MPa), which is separated in the steam drum and subsequently superheated in the convection section to high-pressure superheated steam (HPSS, 6–12 MPa).(see section 5.1)
Furthermore, HEINZ teaches a conventional apparatus and method for steam cracking. The coil ("reactor having an interior cavity configured to receive a feed stream comprising a hydrocarbon" in the radiating section is surrounded by a radiating chamber, i.e. a heating component, which is configured to heat the external surface of the reactor to crack the hydrocarbon and produce a product stream comprising C2-C4 olefins, syngas or a combination thereof. The product stream is discharged to the TLE downstream of the coil (see also 5.2. Quenching of Hot Cracked Gas). (see Fig. 4, 5, 7, 10, 16 and 18; 5.1. Ethylene from Pyrolysis; 5.1 .1. Cracking Conditions; 5.1.3. Commercial Cracking Yields; 5.1 .4. Commercial Cracking Furnaces; 5.2. Quenching of Hot Cracked Gas; tables 3-8).
In addition, HEINZ in combination with JORDENS further teaches a furnace for steam cracking a hydrocarbon feedstock, wherein the furnace comprises one or more tubes for transporting the hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam; and an electrically heated infrared emitter for transferring heat to the tubes. Wherein the electrically heated infrared emitter generates sufficient heat such that the hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam is heated in the tubes to a temperature of at least 650 °C. Wherein the electrically heated infrared emitter comprises one or more electrically powered heating elements. Wherein the electrically powered heating elements produce a radiation heat flux of 20000 W/m.sup.2 or more. Wherein the electrically powered heating elements are ceramic heating elements. Wherein the electrically powered heating elements are quartz heaters, comprising a heating element in a quartz tube. Wherein the electrically powered heating elements are metal or metal alloy heating elements. Wherein the electrically heated infrared emitter is configured as an annular shell around the tubes for transporting the hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam. Wherein the electrically heated infrared emitter is powered by electricity from a renewable or low- carbon energy source. Wherein the one or more tubes in a cracking furnace are coated with an infrared receiving material or wherein the one or more tubes in a cracking furnace are made of infrared receiving material.
JORDENS also teaches a process for steam cracking a hydrocarbon feedstock to produce olefins, comprising the steps of feeding a hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam to one or more tubes in a cracking furnace, exposing the hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam in the one or more tubes to infrared radiation to crack at least a portion of the hydrocarbon feedstock. Wherein the hydrocarbon feedstock comprises one of more hydrocarbons having at least two carbon atoms, in particular selected from the group consisting of ethane, liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha and gasoils. Wherein the transfer of heat to the hydrocarbon feedstock and of the dilution steam is carried out separately in at least two pipes before mixing the two streams; or wherein the hydrocarbon feedstock and the dilution steam are mixed, followed by transfer of heat to the mixture; or wherein the transfer of heat to the hydrocarbon feedstock and the dilution steam is carried out separately in at least two pipes to a temperature less than 500°C, followed by mixing the two streams and further transferring heat to the mixture. Wherein sensible or latent heat of effluent exiting the furnace is extracted at least partially by means of one or more heat exchangers and used to at least partially preheat the hydrocarbon feedstock, dilution steam or mixture thereof. (see claims 1-15; page 9, lines 24-26; page 5, lines 15-17; page 6, lines 27-31; page 9, line 27 - page 11, line 16)
JORDENS discloses a furnace for steam cracking a hydrocarbon feedstock comprising one or more tubes for transporting the hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam and an electrically heated infrared emitter for transferring heat to the tubes, wherein the electrically heated infrared emitter is configured as an annular shell around the tubes for transporting the hydrocarbon feedstock and dilution steam. (see also claims 1-15; page 9, lines 24-26)
JORDENS teaches on page 5, lines 15-17 - the electrically heated infrared emitter can be heated by electric current passing through a conductor, generating temperature increase by resistive heating.
JORDENS teaches on page 6, lines 27-31 - also discloses that it is well-known that electric infrared radiators typically take the shape of resistively heated metallic (including alloys), intermetallic or ceramic (including cermets) conductors that either emit directly from their surface (compare the use in electric household ovens or bread toasters), from an indirectly heated ceramic material, or through a quartz wall.
JORDENS, accordingly teaches the hydrocarbon feedstock comprises one of more hydrocarbons having at least two carbon atoms, in particular selected from the group consisting of ethane, liquefied petroleum gas, naphtha and gasoils, as discussed above.
JORDENS also teaches a residence time in the range of 0.02 to 4.5 s, a reaction temperature in the range of 600°C to 1100°c, 850°C to 1100°c or 600°C to 850°C, a reactor outlet pressure from 15 kPag to 250 kPag and a product stream comprising ethylene, propylene, butene, or any combination thereof are conventional and are deemed at least implicitly disclosed on page 9, line 27-page 11, line 16.
From the teachings of the references it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process by varying the claimed ranges; however, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary. Especially, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Furthermore, the claimed changes in the sequence of performing steps is considered to be prima facie obvious because the time at which a particular step is performed is simply a matter of operator preference, especially since the same result is obtained regardless of when the step occurs. See Ex parte RUBIN, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). With regard to any differences in the claimed conversion amounts, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the process conditions in order to obtain the desired conversions. Moreover, it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 USPQ 33 (CCPA 1937). In re Russel, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)
Still, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Additionally, “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). In In re Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable
In conclusion, an intended result of a process being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Furthermore, it has been held that obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present in the prior art process and composition. Further, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd.Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected appropriate conditions, as guided by the prior art, in order to obtain the desired products. It is not seen where such selections would result in any new or unexpected results. Please see MPEP 2144.05, II: noting obviousness within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation.
If it is the applicant's position that this would not be the case, evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTEL GRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 9:00 am - 7:00 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 Singh can be reached on 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 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.
/CHANTEL L GRAHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights