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 12/11/2025 has been considered and entered. The response has been considered but was not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections based on the prior art are maintained.
The amendment to claim 3 overcomes the rejections under 35 USC 112d for lack of further limiting the independent claim 1, and is therefore withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 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 – 3, 5 – 7, 10 – 13, 15 – 17, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craige et al. (US 2018/0320096) in view of Gregoli et al. (US 5,283,001) and further in view of Di Biase et al. (WO 2004/099350)
In regards to claim 1, Craige teaches oil-in-water emulsion having an average droplet size of 3 to 15 mm and less than 3 wt. % of droplets have a particle size of greater than 125 mm, and a viscosity (i.e., dynamic viscosity) of from 100 to 700 mPas at 50℃ (abstract). The composition can comprise a primary surfactant such as alkyl amines, ethoxylated fatty alkylamines, ethoxylated fatty alkyl monoamines etc. and present at from 0.05 to 0.6% in the emulsion [0015, 0107]. The composition typically comprises from 60 to 80% of oil phase, i.e., hydrocarbon residue [0091]. Water phase is typically present at from 20 to 40% [0097]. However, in one embodiment, Craige allows for the emulsion to comprise a ratio of oil phase to water phase of 1:1 which provides hydrocarbon residue of 50% in the composition [0219]. The emulsion can be applied to heavy hydrocarbon and refinery streams including atmospheric and vacuum residues, refinery visbroken or thermally cracked residues, etc. [0006].
A secondary surfactant is present at from 0 to 2% [0168]. The emulsion comprises polymeric stabilizer at amounts of up to 0.25%, such as from 0.03 to 0.08% [0177]. The composition can comprise an acid such as organic acids including methanesulfonic acid, formic acid, acetic acid, citric acid and benzoic acid or combinations [0192]. Acids are added to achieve a pH of from 2 to 4.5 [Table 4]. The emulsion can be used as a fuel or as a component of a fuel (i.e., diesel fuel) composition, such as mixing with fuels such as kerosene or gas oil, and are useful in engines and applications such as in marine vessels etc. [0202]. Craige does not teach glycerol.
Gregoli teaches oil-in-water emulsions similar to Craige (title). Gregoli teaches the composition can comprise freezing point depressant additives such as ethylene glycol, glycerol etc., which is preferably ethylene glycol and can be present at amounts of 0.5 to 80% in the continuous phase (column 8 lines 18 – 31; column 40 lines 30 – 45). Thus, it appears obvious to have used similar amounts of other freezing point reagents such as glycerol in the composition.
Persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have used the glycerol antifreeze agent of Gregoli, and in the recited amounts, in the composition of Craige, as they are drawn to analogous fuel emulsions and since Gregoli teaches the glycerol provides the function of preventing freezing of the fuel.
Craige teaches the composition which can have a secondary surfactant at from 0 to 2%, but does not particularly recite an alcohol. Di Biase teaches similar oil and water emulsions comprising non-ionic surfactant which includes fatty alcohols, wherein the surfactants can have from 1 to 8 carbon atoms (i.e., allowing for lower alcohols such as butanol etc. as surfactants) (page 8 lines 29 – page 9 lines 20). Thus, the persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claim was filed would have found it obvious to have used the alcohol cosurfactant of DiBiase as secondary surfactants of Craige, as DiBiase teaches they are suitable for such use.
In regards to claim 2, Craige teaches the composition having the claimed ingredients as previously stated.
In regards to claim 3, Craige teaches the composition having the hydrocarbon residue amount as claimed. Amounts of about 40% can be higher than 40% and would be so close to 50% as to be obvious.
In regards to claims 5, 6, Craige in view of Di Biase teaches the composition which can have a secondary surfactant at from 0 to 2%, such as butanol (i.e., C4 alcohol) as previously stated.
In regards to claim 7, Craige in view of Gregoli teaches the composition comprising glycerol in the claimed amounts and thus would be expected to provide similar ash content from the glycerol as claimed.
In regards to claim 10, Craige teach the composition comprising the organic acids and pH of the claim as previously stated.
In regards to claim 11, Craige teaches the composition comprising polymeric stabilizer as previously stated.
In regards to claim 12, Craige teaches the emulsion having polymeric stabilizers but does not particularly recite the stabilizers of the claim. The polymeric stabilizers of the claim are well known in the art in view of Brunelle et al. (GB 2562381A) which are useful in similar composition as Craige and would have been obvious for use in the composition of Craige (abstract).
In regards to claim 13, Craige teaches the emulsion having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regards to claims 15, 16, Craige teaches the fuel composition as previously stated.
In regards to claim 17, Craige teaches method for preparing the emulsion by heating, mixing and blending the claimed components (abstract).
In regards to claims 20, 21, Craige teaches the composition having the claimed limitations as previously stated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 18, 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Craige et al. (US 2018/0320096) fails to teach composition having the hydrocarbon oil content of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim objections alleging that the composition is not a proper oil-in-water emulsion is erroneous is moot as the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that fatty alcohols strictly require carbon atoms of at least C8 by definition. The argument is erroneous.
In paragraph 0018, Zaher (US 2014/0303408) teaches fatty alcohols having C4 to C22 carbon atoms which overlaps the range recited by the claim. In claim 9, Myllyoja et al. (US 2007/0161832) recites fatty alcohols having carbon atoms of from C4 to C24 which overlaps the ranges recited by the claims. Thus, it is clear that the art recognizes butanols, pentanols and hexanols which are C4 to C6 monohydric alcohols as fatty alcohols contrary to applicant’s allegation.
Applicant previously argued that Craige et al. (US 2018/0320096) does not teach the hydrocarbon content of up to 50% in the composition as claimed. The argument was not persuasive.
Craige teaches the composition can comprise water to oil content ratio of 1:1 which allows for the hydrocarbon oil to be present at 50% as claimed.
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