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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/26/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed on 11/26/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In the light of the amendment to the claims and the arguments filed on 11/26/2025, the previous rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8, 10 and 13-15 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 3. 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 should recite “selecting at least one chemical from the group consisting of xylenes (XYL), light hydrotreated naphtha (LHN), Stoddard solvent (SS), trimethylbenzene (TMB), and toluene (TOL)” in lines 2-3, instead of “selecting at least one chemical from the group xylenes (XYL), light hydrotreated naphtha (LHN), Stoddard solvent (SS), trimethylbenzene (TMB), and toluene (TOL)”.
Claim 6 should recite “selecting at least one chemical from the group consisting of 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (2-EHN), nitropropane (NP), tert- butyl peracetate (TBP), di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP), di-tert-amyl peroxide (DTAP), tert-butyl peroxybenzoate (TBPB), isopropyl nitrate (IPN), and tert-butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP)”, in lines 2-4, instead of “selecting at least one chemical from the group 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (2-EHN), nitropropane (NP), tert- butyl peracetate (TBP), di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP), di-tert-amyl peroxide (DTAP), tert-butyl peroxybenzoate (TBPB), isopropyl nitrate (IPN), and tert-butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP)”.
Claim 7 should recite “selecting at least one chemical from the group consisting of tetrahydronaphthalene (THN) or dipentene (DIP)” in line 4, instead of “selecting at least one chemical from the group tetrahydronaphthalene (THN) or dipentene (DIP)”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 4, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0107035 to Leung (hereinafter “Leung”).
Regarding claim 4, Leung teaches a method of using a fuel additive composition, the fuel additive comprising D-limonene (reads on “dipentene”) [0011, and 0023-0024]. Leung further teaches that the additive can be used for both gasoline and diesel fuels, and that the fuel additive composition is particularly suited for controlling fuel injection system deposits in engines, and reducing combustion chamber deposits [0021]. In addition, Leung teaches that the fuel additive composition is suitable for igniting internal combustion engines and diesel engines [0002, and 0022]. Moreover, Leung teaches that the engine comprises combustion chambers, and a fuel injection system [0034].
Leung does not explicitly teach that the internal combustion engine includes an induction system, and an exhaust system.
However, since Leung teaches that that the fuel is injected into the internal combustion engine [0013], and that emissions are exhausted [0004, 0059, and 0071], it would be reasonably expected that the internal combustion engine disclosed by Leung includes an induction system, and an exhaust system as instantly claimed.
Leung does not explicitly teach that the dipentene is applied while the engine is running.
However, since Leung teaches that the fuel additive composition comprises D-limonene (reads on “dipentene”) [0011, and 0023-0024] and is suitable for igniting internal combustion engines and diesel engines [0002, and 0022], and that the fuel additive composition can be blended with gasoline or diesel as needed for different types of engines [0032], it would be reasonably expected that the dipentene is applied while the engine is running.
Leung does not explicitly teach that the method is for removing carbon deposits in one or more of the induction system and exhaust system of the internal combustion engine.
However, since Leung teaches that the fuel additive composition is effective for controlling fuel injection system deposits in engines, and reducing combustion chamber deposits ([0021] of Leung), and the processing conditions, method steps and component of the fuel additive composition disclosed by Leung are similar to those instantly claimed, it would be reasonably expected that the method disclosed by Leung removes carbon deposits in one or more of the induction system and exhaust system of the internal combustion engine.
Regarding claim 10, Leung does not explicitly teach that the fuel additive composition does not contain two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Leung wherein the fuel additive composition does not contain two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Leung teaches embodiments that does not require two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents ([0024-0030] of Leung).
Regarding claim 13, Leung does not explicitly teach that the fuel additive composition does not contain a ketone solvent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Leung wherein the fuel additive composition does not contain a ketone solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Leung teaches embodiments that does not require a ketone solvent ([0025-0026] of Leung).
Regarding claim 14, Leung does not explicitly teach that the fuel additive composition does not contain two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents and a ketone solvent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Leung wherein the fuel additive composition does not contain two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents and a ketone solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Leung teaches embodiments that does not require both of two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents and a ketone solvent ([0024-0026] of Leung).
Regarding claim 15, Leung does not explicitly teach that applying dipentene comprises applying dipentene by itself.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Leung, wherein the step of applying the dipentene comprises applying dipentene by itself, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Leung teaches an embodiment in which limonene is capable of ignite an engine if it is subjected to a very high temperature spark resulting from high voltage ignitions which are commonly present in large 4-cycle [0026].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0107035 to Leung (hereinafter “Leung”) in view of US 2014/0000158 to Gannon et al. (hereinafter “Gannon”).
Regarding claim 5, Leung does not teach that the fuel additive comprises at least one chemical from the group consisting of xylenes (XYL), light hydrotreated naphtha (LHN), Stoddard solvent (SS), trimethylbenzene (TMB), and toluene (TOL).
However, Gannon teaches a method for removing carbon deposits from an internal combustion engine [0026 and 0075] including the steps of applying a fuel additive composition comprising dipentene [0055], and at least two aromatic hydrocarbon solvents such as xylene and toluene [0049] to the fuel tank of an internal combustion engine, and running the engine on the fuel/fuel additive mixture to perform the cleaning [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Leung wherein the fuel additive comprises xylene and toluene, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Gannon teaches that it is effective to include xylene and toluene in a fuel additive comprising dipentene for removing carbon deposits from an internal combustion engine ([0026, 0049, 0055 and 0075] of Gannon).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0107035 to Leung (hereinafter “Leung”) in view of US 2012/0036766 to Peggi (hereinafter “Peggi”).
Regarding claim 6, Leung does not teach that the fuel additive comprises at least one chemical from the group consisting of 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (2-EHN), nitropropane (NP), tert- butyl peracetate (TBP), di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP), di-tert-amyl peroxide (DTAP), tert-butyl peroxybenzoate (TBPB), isopropyl nitrate (IPN), and tert-butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP).
However, Paggi teaches a method comprising the step of adding an additive comprising a terpene such as limonene (C10H6) (reads on "dipentene") [0023], and a cetane enhancer/improver such as 2-ethylhexylnitrate (2- EHN) [0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Leung wherein the fuel additive comprises 2-ethylhexyl nitrate (2-EHN), with a reasonable expectation of success, since Paggi teaches that 2-ethylhexylnitrate is a cetane enhancer/improver ([0010] of Paggi).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AU15310779 to Bergonzoni et al. (hereinafter “Bergonzoni”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bergonzoni teaches a method of using a fuel composition in an internal combustion engine, wherein the fuel composition comprises derivatives of naphthalene such as tetralin (reads on “tetrahydronaphthalene”) (page 4, lines 6-16, and page 3, lines 17-21, page 6, lines 3-5 and 26). Bergonzoni further teaches that the use of the fuel composition in an internal combustion engine provided absolute cleanliness of the spark plugs, combustion chambers, pistons, valves and exhaust systems (reads on the limitation: “the internal combustion engine including an induction system, combustion chambers and an exhaust system”) (page 8, lines 20-23, and page 9, lines 16-19).
Bergonzoni does not explicitly teach that the tetrahydronaphthalene is applied while the engine is running.
However, since Bergonzoni teaches that the fuel composition was used in a Renault R12 motor car with a four-in-line cylinder engine (internal combustion engine) (page 8, lines 20-23), and that the fuel composition comprises tetralin (reads on “tetrahydronaphthalene”) (page 6, lines 3-5 and 26), it would be reasonably expected that the tetralin (reads on “tetrahydronaphthalene”) is applied while the engine is running as instantly claimed.
Bergonzoni does not explicitly teach that the method is for removing carbon deposits in one or more of the induction system and exhaust system of the internal combustion engine.
However, since Bergonzoni teaches that the use of the fuel composition in an internal combustion engine provided absolute cleanliness of the spark plugs, combustion chambers, pistons, valves and exhaust systems (English translation, page 8, lines 20-23, and page 9, lines 16-19 of Bergonzoni), and the processing conditions, method steps and component of the fuel composition disclosed by Bergonzoni are similar to those instantly claimed, it would be reasonably expected that the method disclosed by Bergonzoni removes carbon deposits in one or more of the induction system and exhaust system of the internal combustion engine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARLYN I RIVERA-CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)270-7680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/A.I.R/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714