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 Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9: “preheating a feedstock…” in line 3 should be –preheating a hydrocarbon feedstock…–to maintain consistent terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 9: “mixing the hydrocarbon feedstock after preheating with a diluent” (line 5) is awkward syntax/omits necessary punctuation to make clear that mixing with a diluent is occurring after preheating. The office recommends either –after preheating, mixing the hydrocarbon with a diluent—or “mixing the hydrocarbon feedstock, after preheating, with a diluent—
Claim 9: “cracking the mixed feedstock-diluent after preheating in the radiant section” (line 9) similarly contains awkward syntax/omits necessary punctuation to make clear that cracking is occurring in the radiant section and not preheating. The office recommends either –after pre-heating in the secondary transfer line exchanger, cracking the mixed feedstock-diluent in the radiant section—or –cracking the mixed feedstock-diluent, after preheating in the secondary transfer line exchanger, in the radiant section—
Claim 18: “the feedstock” should be –the hydrocarbon feedstock—to maintain consistent terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites that the concentration of oxygen in the oxygen enriched air is more than 21%. Given that the natural concentration of oxygen in air is 21%, oxygen enriched air must be, by definition, more than 21% oxygen. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oud (US 2020/0172814) in view of Aslaner et al (WO 2021/016301).
Regarding claims 9, 12, 18 and 19, Oud discloses a method for cracking hydrocarbon feedstock in a cracking furnace system, the method comprising (see Figs. 1, 2, 4):
preheating a hydrocarbon feedstock 1 in a convection section 20 (see [0028]);
after preheating, mixing the hydrocarbon feedstock with a diluent (dilution steam 2) to form a mixed feedstock-diluent (see [0028]);
preheating the mixed feedstock-diluent in a primary transfer line exchanger (TLE) 35 (see [0028]);
after preheating in the primary TLE, cracking the mixed feedstock-diluent in the radiant section 10 by oxygen or oxygen enriched air combustion to produce cracked gas (see [0013]; [0028]; [0034]);
cooling the cracked gas in the primary TLE (see [0028]);
cooling the cracked gas exiting the primary TLE further in a secondary TLE 36 (see [0030]); and
producing a saturated super high-pressure steam in the secondary TLE (see [0030]).
Oud recognizes that preheating temperatures are result effective variables, where the optimum inlet temperature of the feedstock into the radiant section is determined by the thermal stability of the feedstock (see [0006]). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the preheating temperatures according to the suggestions in Oud, based on the thermal stability of the feedstock as well as the intended operating conditions for cracking the feed. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, the claimed preheating temperatures are not considered to patentably distinguish the instant claims over the cited prior art.
Oud differs from the claimed arrangement in that the mixed feedstock-diluent is preheated in the primary TLE instead of the secondary TLE, as claimed, and saturated steam is produced in the secondary TLE instead of the first TLE, as claimed.
However, this difference is not considered to be patentably distinguishing, as switching the order of steps is generally considered prima facie obvious and is additionally known in the art to be a suitable arrangement for achieving the same purpose of cooling reaction effluent, preheating hydrocarbon feedstock, and producing steam in a thermal cracking process (see Aslaner: [0034], which discloses that the primary TLE of a cracking system can be utilized for producing steam and the secondary TLE can be utilized to preheat the hydrocarbon feed). Arriving at the instant claimed embodiment would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, arrived at by routine experimentation, and associated with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding claim 10, Oud discloses wherein the saturated super high-pressure steam is generated from water coming from a steam drum 33 (see [0028]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Oud discloses wherein the saturated super high-pressure steam produced is sent to a steam drum (see [0028]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Oud discloses wherein the dilution steam is produced outside the cracking furnace system (in steam drum 33) (see [0028]; [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Oud discloses wherein cracking the mixed feedstock-diluent comprises controlling a combustion temperature in the radiant section by dilution of fuel and oxygen or oxygen enriched air (see [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Oud discloses wherein the oxygen enriched air comprises more than 21% oxygen (see [0013]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Oud discloses wherein cracking the mixed feedstock-diluent includes producing flue gas at a temperature of 1150°C (see [0013]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,163,097.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, while the method claimed in ‘097 requires the additional features of the cracking furnace system claimed, the method steps for carrying out cracking are the same.
Conclusion
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