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 .
The amendment dated 08/06/2026 has been considered and entered. The amendment requires that the olefin-maleic anhydride copolymer has a molecular weight of from 8000 to 50,000 which Kamran et al. (US 2010/0151396) does not teach, thus overcoming the previous rejections in view of Kamran et al. (US 2010/0151396), now withdrawn. New grounds of rejections are made as necessitated by the amendment.
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 1, 3, 7, 8, 10 – 14, 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Droubi et al. (US 2015/0337225) in view of Enver (US 3,382,056)
In regard to claim 1, Droubi teaches low sulfur marine fuel composition having a sulfur content of from about 0.1 wt. % (1000 ppm) or less (abstract). The fuel comprises distillate fuel such as cracked heavy gas oil, cracked heavy distillate, diesel, etc. [0009]. The composition is a blended fuel and comprises distillate and residual fuels [0015]. The composition can comprise from 50 to 90% of residual fuel components with the balance of distillate fuel [0017]. The composition comprises polyolefin maleic anhydride but does not particularly recite the olefin-maleic copolymer of the claim.
Enver teaches rust inhibitors useful in fuels such as diesel fuels and comprising maleic anhydride-olefin copolymer having up to 22 carbon atoms in the olefin with up to 20 repeat units (i.e., n = 20) thus providing molecular weights overlapping the claimed range, and which is useful in the composition at amounts of 10 to 100ppm (column 1 lines 34 – column 2 lines 39).
Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have used the olefin-maleic anhydride copolymer of Enver and in the recited amounts in the composition of Droubi, as Enver is directed to similar compositions and teaches suitable additives and amounts for improving the antirust properties of the fuel. The composition having the claimed ingredients would be expected to possess similar improvements as claimed.
In regard to claim 3, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Enver, teaches the fuel having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regard to claim 7, Droubi in view of Enver combined teach the fuel having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regard to claim 8, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Enver, teaches the composition having additives such as antioxidants, pour point depressants (cold flow improvers) etc. [0031].
In regard to claim 10, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Enver, teaches the fuel and additive and thus provides the method of preparing the fuel as claimed.
In regard to claims 11 – 14, 16 – 19, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Enver, provides the method and teaches the composition having the claimed limitations as previously stated. The process of preparing the olefin-maleic copolymer does not carry patentable weight or is at least met by the teaching of the copolymer itself.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kamran et al. (US 2010/0151396) failed to teach olefin-maleic anhydride copolymers having the molecular weight of the claim. The argument is moot as Kamran has been withdrawn and is not relied upon for making the rejections.
Applicant previously provided a declaration by Paul Biggerstaff dated 04/20/2026 which stated that the polyisobutylene maleic anhydride of Droubi does not meet the limitation of olefin-maleic anhydride copolymer having olefin and maleic anhydride repeat units as claimed.
The declaration also further provided an inventive composition having 500 ppm of the maleic-olefin copolymer in a fuel composition, which resulted in a TSP% of 0.35 as compared to a comparative composition having a result of 0.38. The result has been considered but was not found to be persuasive, because the scope of the inventive examples and claims were not made commensurate as the claims allow for as low as 100 ppm of the copolymer in the composition. The 500-ppm concentration is five times larger than what the claim allows and also fails to demonstrate criticality at the lower concentration of the claimed range.
Applicant previously argued that the low sulfur fuel having the claimed copolymer of olefin-maleic anhydride performed better than low sulfur fuels having conventional additives. To the extent that the alleged improvement is considered to be a demonstration of unexpected results, the argument is not persuasive.
The inventive compositions are not commensurate in scope with the claims as they are drawn to use of specific copolymer at specific amounts of 500 ppm or 1500 ppm while the claims allow the copolymer with a wide molecular weight range to be present at amounts of as low as 100 ppm which is five times smaller as previously discussed above.
The result is not persuasive.
The result appears to merely demonstrate intrinsic properties of the copolymer. There is no comparative example having the claimed copolymer in high sulfur oil to shown any difference in properties. There are no comparative examples with conventional olefin-maleic anhydride such as recited in Droubi, and which applicant argues are not copolymers for making a comparison.
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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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 at 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 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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
