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 .
Responsive to correspondence
This office action is in response to correspondence filed on 11/19/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/19/2025, 01/27/2026 was filed before the first action on the merits. This submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, the IDS has been fully considered by the Office.
Abstract
The abstract filed 11/19/2025 appears to be acceptable.
Claim Interpretations Under 35 USC § 112 (f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Similarly, an application may include one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following Claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1 recites fluid movement system (generic placeholder) to direct the heated fluid (function)…
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Publication number 2023/0407186 A1 (effective filing date 11/02/2020) to SUNDARAM (SUNDARAM) in view of U.S Publication number 2012/0241677 A1 to PERKINS et al. (PERKINS), U.S Publication number 2014/0116069 A1 to PETERSON et al. (PETERSON), and U.S Publication number 2022/0146205 A1 to ERONEN et al. (ERONEN).
Re: Claim 1:
SUNDARAM discloses:
A steam cracking method for converting a hydrocarbon feedstock into cracked gas, including:
preheating, by a convection section (See Fig.2 : ¶0014,¶0074: in fired heaters, feed mixture (hydrocarbon and dilution steam (DS)) which usually preheats in the convection section, ¶0074: preheat in preheating section 220)), a hydrocarbon feedstock (See Fig.2: ¶0074: hydrocarbon feed 210) and/or dilution steam and to mix the hydrocarbon feedstock with the dilution steam to provide a preheated mixture (See Fig.2: ¶0074: dilution steam 214) to provide a preheated mixture (See Fig.2: ¶0075: the preheated feed mixture 216);
heating a radiant section (¶0014: heating in fired heaters after preheating in convection section the mixture of hydrocarbon and dilution steam which enters the radiation section of the heater) configured to convert the preheated mixture (See Fig.2: ¶0075: the preheated feed mixture 216) into a cracked gas at a high temperature (See Fig.2: ¶0075, ¶0079: the preheated feed mixture 216 may then enter the electric heater 230, the electric heater may superheat the feed mixture 216 to a reaction temperature, and the cracking reaction may proceed in coils of the electric heater 230 which is at high temperature than at least preheat temperature to produce cracked gas output 218);
quenching the cracked gas in a cooling section that includes at least one quench exchanger (See Fig.2: ¶0075, ¶0079: the output gas 218 from the electric heater 230 may be directed to exchanger(s) (e.g., TLE(s)) 240, where it may be rapidly cooled down (quenched);
using a fluid movement system (duct carrying the fluid 212) to direct the heated fluid (See Fig.2: ¶0074: heat effluent fluid 212);
SUNDARAM discloses use of burners ((the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ any source of radiant heat which may be electric heaters be one or more of solar energy, gas-fired regenerative burners, nuclear power, and electric heaters, and any combination of these since it is well known in the art that burners may be employed in place of electric heaters (See U.S Publication number 2012/0241677 A1 to Perkins et al.)) in steam cracking process, however SUNDARAM and PERKINS are silent regarding:
generating thermal energy using electricity generated by an energy source in a thermal energy storage (TES) system;
providing the thermal energy to generate a heated fluid having a temperature in a target range; and
direct heated fluid to one or both of the convection section and the radiant section,
However, it is well known in the art that heat affluent fluid is directed to one or both of the convection section and the radiant section, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Patent number 4472869 to PETTERSON et al. PETTERSON teaches the heat affluent fluid flows via heat exchanger to radiant section of burner (PETTERSON: See Fig.2: col. 2 lines 1-4, col. 3 lines 25-46: heat affluent fluid flows via heat exchangers 17, 18 to radiant section 2 and then to convection section 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure SUNDARAM to direct heat affluent fluid to at least radiant and convection section to raise the temperature to about 650.degree. C. in heat exchangers as taught by PETTERSON which is beneficial, because PETTERSON teaches a steam cracking process having flexibility to process a range of feedstocks which would have yielded similar benefits in the system of SUNDARAM.
SUNDARAM, PERKINS and PETTERSON substantially disclose all the limitations of claim 1 , SUNDARAM, PERKINS and PETTERSON are silent regarding:
generating thermal energy using electricity generated by an energy source in a thermal energy storage (TES) system; and
providing the thermal energy to generate a heated fluid having a temperature in a target range.
However, ERONEN teaches:
generating thermal energy using electricity generated by an energy source (ERONEN: See Figs. 1-3: ¶0042: the electrical energy producing unit may be configured to produce electrical power from energy sources that have a fluctuating, non-controllable power output, such as solar energy or wind) in a thermal energy storage (TES) system (ERONEN: See Figs. 1-3: thermal energy storage 302); and
providing the thermal energy to generate a heated fluid having a temperature in a target range (ERONEN: See Figs. 1-3: ¶0066: target temperature is based on demand for the heat via heat exchanger 310).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure preheating heat exchanger of SUNDARAM as explicitly taught by ERONEN, since it is merely a matter of supplying heat effluent fluid (heat transfer fluid) via preheating heat exchanger of SUNDARAM, and such a heat effluent fluid is explicitly taught by ERONEN, which is beneficial, since ERONEN teaches that the system is effectively a combination of an electricity generating system, with the surplus electricity turned into heat, this surplus is stored in an inexpensive medium, and the stored energy may be utilized dynamically and at will, during times of less input from the energy source than the required electricity and heating demand (ERONEN: ¶0080). One of ordinary skill in the art would have employed stored stream of heat effluent fluid from thermal energy storage to transfer heat in a heat exchanger to for preheating heat exchanger of SUNDARAM to preheat a hydrocarbon feedstock and/or dilution steam to produce a preheated mixture which would have yielded similar benefits in the system of SUNDARAM.
Re: Claim 2:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON and ERONEN discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 1, modified SUNDARAM discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the energy source is a variable renewable energy source having intermittent availability (ERONEN: See Figs. 1-3: ¶0042: the electrical energy producing unit may be configured to produce electrical power from energy sources that have a fluctuating, non-controllable power output, such as solar energy or wind).
Re: Claim 9:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON and ERONEN discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 1, modified SUNDRAM discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further including the step of preheating, by a first heat exchanger (SUNDARAM: See Fig.2: heat exchanger 220), the hydrocarbon feedstock (SUNDARAM: See Fig.2: 210) using the heated fluid provided by the fluid movement system (SUNDARAM: See Fig.2: duct carrying the fluid 212).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDARAM in view of PERKINS, PETERSON, and ERONEN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Publication number 2017/0283713 A1 to STEPHENS et al. (STEPHENS).
Re: Claim 3:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON and ERONEN discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 1, modified SUNDARAM discloses all the limitations of claim 1, although the modified SUNDARAM is silent regarding further including the step of burning, by one or more fuel burners, a fuel source that includes greater than 0.5% molecular hydrogen. However, it is well known in the art to employ burner fuels enriched in hydrogen, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2017/0283713 A1 to STEPHENS et al. (STEPHENS: ¶0018, ¶0042: where the fuel gas comprises primarily hydrogen (i.e., comprising at least 50 mol % of hydrogen), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ enriched hydrogen fuels in the system of modified SUNDARAM which is advantageous, since this provides the flame speed and flame temperature are significantly higher, and to form a floor burner flame above the burner tip inside the furnace fire box.
Re: Claim 4:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON , ERONEN and STEPHANS discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 3, modified SUNDRAM discloses all the limitations of claim 3, wherein:
the burning is in the presence of combustion air having a higher oxygen composition by volume than in ambient air (STEPHANS: ¶ 0049: higher flue-gas recirculation reduces overall flame temperature by providing a heat sink for the energy released from combustion and better mixing in the venturi portion 19 tends to reduce the hot-spots that occur as a result of localized high oxygen regions); and
further including the step of providing the heated fluid from the TES system as a make-up balance of heat duty required by the convection section (ERONEN: See Figs. 1-3: ¶0066: The heat exchanger 310 begins to cool the upper ends of the thermosiphon pipes and a vapor-liquid cycle starts to operate. Thus, heat is transferred from the heat storage module 302 via the thermosiphon pipe(s).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDARAM in view of PERKINS, PETERSON, and ERONEN, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S Patent 8292615 to SPANGELO et al. (SPANGELO).
Re: Claim 5:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON , ERONEN and STEPHANS discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 3, modified SUNDRAM discloses all the limitations of claim 3, further including the step of stabilizing, by the fluid movement system, a burner flame by supplying the heated fluid directly to the one or more fuel burners.
Although modified SUNDARAM is silent regarding the step of stabilizing, by the fluid movement system, a burner flame by supplying the heated fluid directly to the one or more fuel burners, however such a system is well known in the art and U.S Patent 8292 615 to SPANGELO et al. (SPANGELO: See Claim 16: discloses a method of flame stabilization of a burner by high velocity of mixed flow of air and gaseous fuel), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a flame stabilization zone in front of the diverging, conical burner head, enabling a main portion of the mixed flow of air and gaseous fuel flowing at high velocity which is advantageous, since this provides flame stabilization for high burning efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDARAM in view of PERKINS, PETERSON, and ERONEN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Patent number 4686959 to MARKSBERRY (MARKSBERRY).
Re: Claim 6:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON and ERONEN discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 1, modified SUNDRAM discloses all the limitations of claim 1, the modified SUNDRAM is silent regarding:
further including the step of increasing, by an electric booster heater, the temperature of the heated fluid prior to the heated fluid reaching the convection section.
However, the step of increasing, by an electric booster heater, the temperature of the heated fluid prior to the heated fluid reaching the convection section is well known in the art, such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Patent number 4686959 to MARKSBERRY (MARKSBERRY: See Fig.1: col. 2 lines 47-68, col. 3 lines 13), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to preheat a heated fluid from thermal storage prior to transferring the heated fluid to a convection section which is an art known subject matter and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDARAM in view of PERKINS, PETERSON, and ERONEN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Patent number 4617109 to WELLS et al. (WELLS).
Re: Claim 10:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON and ERONEN discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 1, modified SUNDRAM discloses all the limitations of claim 1, the modified SUNDARAM is silent regarding:
further including the step of producing, by additional heat exchangers, superheated dilution steam and/or other material streams that have been heated in a conventional steam-cracking process using the heated fluid provided by the fluid movement system.
However, it is known in the art that other material streams that have been heated in a conventional steam-cracking process using the heated fluid provided by the fluid movement system as explicitly taught by U.S Patent number 4617109 to WELLS et al. (WELLS: See sole figure: col. 3 lines 30-36: at least discloses other material stream of the mixed feed is finally heated to incipient cracking temperature in convection coil 11 and introduced to cracking tubes 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to produce other materials that have been heated in a conventional steam cracking process using fluid movement system which reduces fuel requirements for the pyrolysis furnace.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUNDARAM in view of PERKINS, PETERSON, and ERONEN, as applied to claim 1 above, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S Publication number 2022/0132633 A1 to FORSBERG et al. (FORSBERG).
Re: Claim 11:
SUNDARAM modified by PERKINS, PETERSON and ERONEN discloses:
The steam cracking method of claim 1, modified SUNDARAM discloses all the limitations of claim 1, the modified SUNDARAM is silent regarding:
further including converting the electricity into the thermal energy for storage in a TES medium that is a refractory material.
However, converting the electricity into the thermal energy for storage in a TES medium that is a refractory material is well known in the art , such a system is explicitly taught by U.S Publication number 2022/0132633 A1 to FORSBERG et al. (FORSBERG: See Figs. 1-7: ¶0030 electric input 104 is converted to thermal energy storage in a TES medium that is a refractory material like firebricks 108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to heat fluid using thermal energy stored in a TES by conversion of electricity into thermal energy through the firebrick checker-work may be heated by the firebrick checker-work to provide heat for a wide variety of uses including but not limited to residential heat uses, industrial heat uses, commercial heat uses, transportation uses and/or electrical production (FORSBERG: ¶0007), which would have provided parallel advantages in the system of modified SUNDARAM.
Allowable Subject Matter and Prior Art
Claim 7-8 are 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. Since the prior art fails to disclose “further including the steps of exhausting the heated fluid exhausted from the convection section and directing the exhausted heated fluid back as an input to the TES system for reheating” as claimed in claim 7, claim 8 is allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAFIQ A MIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 6:30 pm (Monday thru Thursday).
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, MARK LAURENZI can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/SHAFIQ MIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 September 29, 2026
