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 02/16/2026 has been considered and entered. The response has been considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
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, 2, 6 – 14, 17 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meyer (WO 2020/008182) and alternatively in view of Miller et al. (US 2018/0223178)
In regards to claim 1, Meyer teaches method for improving a middle distillate fuel (i.e., diesel fuel, gasoline fuel etc.) composition comprising addition of additives comprising a copolymer having units A and B having R groups which are alkyl which are similar to the structure of component a) of the claim (abstract). The groups R1 and R2 in the structure are alkyl having 6 to 17 carbon atoms which meets the limitations of R1 and R2 in the structure of the claim (page 8 lines 5 – 10). The R group can be methyl (page 7 line 23). The polymer has a molecular weight of from 1000 to 100,000 (page 8 lines 30 – 35).
The composition may comprise other fuels mixtures such as renewable fuels including biofuels produced by H-bio process (hydrogenation) which is renewable diesel such as NExBTL as biofuel in amounts of from 0.1 to 99% by volume, and a second oil such as the middle distillate fuel as balance, and thus provides amounts overlapping the claimed range (page 26 lines 23 – page 27 line 19).
US Customs and Boarder Protection (Tariff Classification of Renewable diesel) recites that the renewable diesel NExBTL is typically C15 to C18 straight or branched paraffin (n-alkanes or branched alkanes) and thus provides evidence that NExBTL would comprise the carbon content of the claims. Alternatively, in further view of Miller, the claimed limitation is provided. Miller teaches renewable diesel can comprise straight or branched chain C16 to C18 hydrocarbon, such as comprising from 10% to about 60% of C18 hydrocarbon content [0027].
Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claims would have found it obvious to have used renewable diesels having C15 to C18 n-alkanes in the claimed amounts as they are conventional and/or inherent based on references cited.
In regards to claim 2, Meyer teaches the fuel composition comprising the claimed additive and thus provides for the method of improving the low temperature properties of the fuel when the additive is admixed in to the fuel which intrinsically provides the intended function.
In regards to claim 6, Meyer teaches the fuel composition but does not recite the claimed additives. Hermeling et al. (DE 198 48 621 A1) teaches additives for middle distillate fuels similar to Meyer, and comprising reaction products of tertiary amine polycarboxylic acid with a secondary amine and used in combination with a maleic anhydride and primary amine reaction product as wax antisettling and lubricity additive in the fuel (title). Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have used the reaction products of Hermeling in the composition of Meyer, as Hermeling teaches that they are useful for improving lubricity and wax antisettling agents for middle distillate fuels.
In regards to claim 7, Meyer teaches the composition but does not teach the claimed additive. Cheng et al. (US 4,121,026) teaches antistatic agents for use in hydrocarbon fuels such as middle distillate fuels (i.e., diesel fuel, gasoline fuel etc.) (column 1 lines 1 – 19, column 2 lines 1 – 37). The antistatic additives are copolymers of a-olefin and maleic anhydride which are reacted with an amine (abstract, column 2 lines 52 – 65). The amines can be secondary amines according to the limitation c) of the claim (column 4 lines 1 – 15). It would have been obvious for persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed to have used the antistatic agent of Cheng in the composition of Meyer, as Cheng teaches their use as antistatic agents for similar compositions as those of Meyer.
In regards to claims 8, 9, Meyer teaches the compositions having the claimed additive. The copolymer c) has 10 to 90 mol% of units A and 90 to 10 mol% of units B and a molecular weight of from 1000 to 100000 (page 8 lines 26 – 35).
In regards to claim 10, Meyer and Hermeling teach the composition. Hermeling teaches reaction of one more of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid with four moles of hydrogenated ditallow fatty amine (page 3 lines 50 – 56).
In regards to claim 11, Meyer and Cheng teach the composition. Cheng teaches the molar ratio of amine to the maleic anhydride depends on the desired product and can range from 0.25 to 3 moles of the amine per mole of the anhydride, of from 1:1 to 2:1 (column 3 lines 64 – 68). The amine can be mixtures of amines having from 4 to 30 carbon atoms including dodecylamine, tetradecylamine, hexadecylamine, octadecylamine etc., and thus includes the C14, C16, C18 fatty acids present in tallow fatty acids which makes it obvious (column 4 lines 1 – 45). The structure can be diamine thus allowing for ditallow amines as claimed (column 3 lines 1 – 25).
In regards to claims 12 – 14, 19, 20, Meyer provides the method and teaches the blends of mineral diesel fuel and renewable diesel fuel as previously discussed. The composition has the claimed ingredient and would be expected to possess similar properties such as cloud point as claimed.
In regards to claim 17, Meyer and Hermeling combined provide the method and teach the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claim 18, Meyer and Cheng combined provide the method and teach the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claims 21 – 26, Meyer and alternatively as evidenced by and/or in view of Miller teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts as previously discussed. The hydrocarbon can be C18 at 10% or more and thus, lower carbon contents such as C14 to C16 alkanes can be present at the claimed amounts as provided by Miller [see Fig 1A, 0026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Meyer fails to teach renewable diesel composition. The argument is not persuasive.
Meyer teaches middle distillate comprising the claimed diesel components.
Applicant argues the claimed composition demonstrates unexpected results and provides a declaration by Suzanne Golisz dated 02/16/2023 for support. The declaration has been considered but was not found to be persuasive.
The inventive example D is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
The inventive example D is drawn to a copolymer of vinyl acetate and dialkyl fumarate with alkyl groups having 12 to 14 carbon atoms and having an average molecular weight of 8200, which does not support the breadth of the claims allowing for myriads of components having the structures of formula I and II of the claims and wherein the alkyl groups are from 10 to 14 carbon atoms and the molecular weight is from 6000 to 15000.
The results are not persuasive.
Thus, applicant fails to provide inventive examples that are commensurate in scope with the claims for demonstration of unexpected results sufficient to rebut the case of obviousness.
Previously applicant argued that Meyer failed to teach renewable diesel comprising greater than 5 wt.% of C14 to C18 n-alkanes. The argument was not persuasive.
Meyer teaches the renewable diesel can be NExBTL which typically comprise C18 straight or branched alkanes as supported by the evidence provided on record. Thus, the claimed amount is obvious. Also, Miller provides a further basis for obviousness by teaching that renewable diesel can be straight or branched and have amounts of C14 to C18 n-alkanes in the claimed amounts in diesel fuels. Miller is also a supporting evidentiary document.
Applicant previously argued that Miller was not combinable with Meyer as they are drawn to different inventions. The argument was not persuasive.
Miller is an evidentiary document for showing that renewable diesel comprises C16 to C18 hydrocarbon. Also, Tariff Classification of Renewable Diesel also teaches that NExBTL typically comprises C15 to C18 and thus would be expected to have such paraffins at greater than 5% as claimed.
Applicant previously argued that Meyer teaches large amounts of mineral diesel fuels and very small amounts of biodiesel. The argument was not persuasive.
Meyer teaches amounts of mineral diesel and renewable diesel overlapping the claimed ranges.
Previously applicant argued that Meyer fails to teach the amounts of renewable diesel at 70% or more as claimed. The argument was not persuasive.
The claim only requires the presence of renewable diesel and does not require that it is present at 70% or more of the fuel as applicant erroneously alleges. The term fuel can be diesel or non-diesel. Also, even to the extent that 70% or more renewable diesel is required by the claims, the amount is overlapped by Meyer.
Previously applicant argued that the rejections based on double patenting are overcome based on the claim amendments. The argument was moot based on new grounds of rejections.
Previously applicant argued that Hermeling was directed to a different fuel composition and their use of additives to improve middle distillates does not mention composition having renewable diesels thus demonstrating a lack of motivation to combine Hermeling with Meyer. The argument was not persuasive.
The fuel of Meyer comprises middle distillates and thus additives for middle distillates would be suitable for use in the composition. Additives for fuels are generally useful in a wide variety of fuels including fuel mixtures as commonly taught in the art and obvious to persons of ordinary skill.
Applicant also made similar lack of motivation to combine argument for Cheng and Meyer as being different compositions. The argument was similarly not persuasive as the additives of Cheng were useful for improving middle distillates such as those of Meyer.
Conclusion
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