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 09/25/2025 has been considered and entered. The response was considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Droubi et al. (US 2015/0337225) in view of Kamran et al. (US 2010/0151396)
In regards 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 such as polyisobutylene maleic anhydride [0032]. Polyisobutylene is an -olefin. Polyolefin maleic anhydride are well known copolymers, and thus while the term “copolymer” is not specifically recited, it is at least obvious. In the alternative, the claim is obvious in view of Kamran.
Kamran similarly teaches marine diesel fuel [0034]. The composition comprises an anti-setting agent as stabilizer (iii) which can be a single agent such as olefin-maleic anhydride copolymer, prepared from repeat units of maleic anhydride and -olefin having C20 to about C40 carbon number, and having an average molecular weight range of from about 1000 to about 5000 [0195 – 0203]. The anti-setting agent (iii) can be present in the composition in amounts of from 1 to 1000 ppm [0213].
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 Kamran and in the recited amounts in the composition of Droubi, as Kamran is directed to similar compositions and teaches suitable additives and amounts for improving the fuel. The composition having the claimed ingredients would be expected to possess similar improvements as claimed.
In regards to claim 3, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Kamran, teaches the fuel having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
In regards to claim 7, Droubi in view of Kamran combined teach the fuel having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claim 8, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Kamran, teaches the composition having additives such as antioxidants, pour point depressants (cold flow improvers) etc. [0031].
In regards to claim 10, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Kamran, teaches the fuel and additive and thus provides the method of preparing the fuel as claimed.
In regards to claims 11 – 14, 16, Droubi, and alternatively further in view of Kamran, provides the method and teaches the composition having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but were not found to be persuasive.
In the instant response and in the response dated 06/25/2025, applicant argues that Droubi and Kamran were not combinable for three reasons. First, that Kamran requires three distinct additive compounds to be useful together as the stabilizer additives, second that the polymeric additive is not a generic type that would have been useful in different fuels but that they are useful only for dirty fuels rather than the Marine fuels of Droubi, and thirdly that the copolymers do not have maleic anhydride repeat units of the claims. The arguments are not persuasive.
Kamran teaches the inhibitors can be single components or can be blended [see 0203]. The copolymers do comprise repeat units of olefins and maleic anhydride [see 0199]. The additives are useful in a variety of fuels including Marine diesel etc., and do not require specific use for dirty fuels alone [see 0034]. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant previously argued that Droubi and Kamran do not teach stability of the fuel as claimed. The argument is not persuasive.
Stability is only based on the presence of the maleic anhydride-olefin copolymer which Droubi in view of Kamran teaches. Therefore, similar stability would be present in the composition of Droubi.
Applicant previously argued that the paragraph 0032 of Droubi, which recites succinimides, succinamides, Mannich bases or amines and polyisobutylene maleic anhydrides is confusing as to whether amines recited besides polyisobutylene maleic anhydrides could be referring to succinimides which are reaction products of amines and polyisobutylene maleic anhydrides. The argument is erroneous.
Clearly, Droubi recites succinimides as alternatives. Also, the amines are recited as alternatives to the Mannich bases. Thus, the distinct recitation of polyisobutylene maleic anhydride is as an alternative to succinimides, succinamide, Mannich bases, amines etc.
Applicant previously argued that Kamran teaches a general range for a stabilizer but the preferred range of 20 to 40 ppm is outside of the claimed range. The argument is not persuasive.
As discussed in the rejections above, Kamran teaches a stabilizer range of from 0.1 to 1000 ppm which overlaps the claimed range.
Applicant previously argued that there is an overlap in the average molecular weight of the copolymer recited by Kamran. The argument is not persuasive.
Overlapping ranges are basis for obviousness.
Applicant previously argued that Kamran does not relate to low sulfur fuels. The argument is not persuasive.
The primary reference by Droubi teaches the low sulfur fuel of the claim.
Applicant previously argued that there would be no motivation for adding the copolymer of Kamran into the composition of Droubi. The argument is not persuasive.
Both Droubi and Kamran teach the polyolefin-maleic anhydride copolymer and thus both provide motivation for including such copolymer in the fuel composition of Droubi.
Applicant previously argued that Kamran does not teach the blended fuel of the claims. The argument is not persuasive.
Kamran was not added to teach the blended fuel of the claim. Droubi is the primary reference.
Applicant previously disparaged Kamran as requiring the presence of 3 additives which a person of skill in the art would not have expected to improve stability of the fuel. The arguments are not persuasive.
Again, Kamran was only added to the extent that it teaches the carbon content of olefins useful for preparing olefin-maleic anhydride copolymers for fuels.
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 1500 ppm while the claims do not limit their amounts in the composition.
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