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 07/24/2026 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/24/2026 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 18, 23 – 25, 27, 30, 31, 33 – 36, 38, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Graupner (WO 03/076554)
In regards to claim 18, Graupner teaches gasoline additives comprising hydrocarbyl amine for reducing injector nozzle fouling in a direct injection spark ignition engine. The hydrocarbyl group of the hydrocarbyl amine is linear or branched (page 3 lines 26 – 35). The hydrocarbylamine has a linear or branched hydrocarbyl group with molecular weight of from 140 to 255 (i.e., equivalent to C10 to C18 alkyl) and is useful in fuel at effective amounts that can be determined by routine testing by persons of skill in the art (abstract, page 4 lines 7 – 13, page 5 lines 3 – 11).
Therefore, the amount of the hydrocarbylamine in a concentrate (additive package) would be results effective. The use of additive packages for addition of the additives of Graupner into the fuel is conventional and obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art. The composition can comprise various conventional additives including antioxidants, detergents (dispersants), corrosion inhibitors, diluents, carrier fluids etc. (page 7 lines 1 – 6). Thus, the process of improving formulability and stability of a fuel additive composition by blending the composition with the hydrocarbylamine as claimed is provided.
The hydrocarbylamine is preferably linear C9-17 alkylamine of a formula (I) (page 4 lines 1 – 6). Since linear and branched hydrocarbyl groups are taught, it appears that branched C13 alkylamines would be quickly envisaged or would be obvious. Such groups would be expected to have the branching properties of the claim. Even, where the branching properties as claimed are overlapped, obviousness exists.
In regards to claims 23, 31, Graupner teaches the method and composition which further comprises conventional additives such as detergent (dispersants) etc., as discussed in US 5,855,629 by Grundy et al. which is incorporated by reference (Graupner, page 7 lines 1 – 7). Grundy recites additives such as Mannich reaction products in minor amounts of 10% or less or 0.1% or less (column 9 lines 39 – 56). Graupner teaches the gasoline composition having conventional additives but does not particularly recite the quaternary additive of the claim.
Greenfield et al. (US 2017/0107438) is added to teach the claimed additive. Greenfield teaches quaternary ammonium salts useful in fuel or lubricant composition for use in internal combustion engines [abstract, 0001]. The composition is useful for reducing or preventing injector deposits [0032 – 0036]. The fuel is gasoline or diesel composition and comprises the imide quaternary salt (imide quat) in amounts of 5 to 1000 ppm [0028]. The imide can have cations of the structures below
PNG
media_image1.png
344
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
529
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While the anion is not particularly recited, quaternary ammonium compounds intrinsically comprises anions. Greenfield teaches compounds are prepared using C4 to C10 hydrocarbyl containing dicarboxylic (i.e., polycarboxylic) acids or their anhydrides or C1 to C5 alcohol-derived mono or diesters [0048]. The remnant of the dicarboxylic acid, anhydride or ester forms the anion equivalent to A- of the claim.
Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were filed would have found it obvious to have used the quaternary ammonium salt of Greenfield in the composition of Graupner, as Greenfield teaches that they are useful for improving injector deposits in gasoline compositions similar to the purpose of Graupner.
In regards to claims 24, 25, 27, 30, 34, 35, Graupner in view of Greenfield teaches the composition comprising the ammonium compound of the claim. Greenfield teaches compounds are prepared using C4 to C10 hydrocarbyl containing dicarboxylic (i.e., polycarboxylic) acids or their anhydrides or C1 to C5 alcohol-derived mono or diesters [0048]. The remnant of the dicarboxylic acid, anhydride or ester forms the anion equivalent to A- of the claims. The hydrocarbyl group of the quaternizing agent is equivalent to R5 of the claims. The groups attached to the quaternary nitrogen (N+) are equivalent to the 4 organic residues of claim 23. Each of R6, R7 and R8 are preferably hydrocarbon comprising at least 20 carbon atoms and are equivalent to R2 to R4 of the claims. The group equivalent to R2 of the claim is R23-imide-R24 [0089, 0090]. The hydrocarbyl group (R24) attached to the imide is polyisobutylene (PIB) and has a number average molecular weight of from 1300 to 3000 [0049, 0221 – 0223].
In regards to claim 33, Graupner teaches the gasoline composition having the branched alkylamine having the claimed limitation as previously discussed.
In regards to claim 36, Graupner in view of Greenfield teaches the composition. Greenfield teaches the quaternizing agent is an oxalate such as dimethyl oxalate [0011].
In regards to claims 38, 39, Graupner teaches the composition can comprise nitrogen-detergent including polyalkenyl polyamines such as polyisobutylene polyamine and wherein the nitrogen-based detergents can have hydrocarbyl groups with molecular weights of 750 to 6000 (page 7 lines 19 – 25). The polyisobutylene are prepared from isobutene. The claimed products are taught, and the process of forming them does not carry patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art on the record by Graupner (WO 03/076554) or Greenfield et al. (US 2017/0107438) fails to teach the claimed additive structures.
Claims 26, 28, 29 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Graupner fails to teach branched C13 alkylamines as claimed. The argument is not persuasive.
Graupner teaches hydrocarbyl amines having molecular weights of from 140 to 255 daltons which encompasses linear or branched C10 to C18 alkyl groups. Thus, while linear alkyl groups are preferred, both are encompassed by the molecular weights provided.
Applicant argues that the use C13 branched alkylamine in oil is superior and unexpected better than the corresponding linear alkylamines as discussed in the declaration by Marc Walter dated 07/24/2026. The declaration has been considered. The argument is not persuasive.
The inventive examples in the declaration are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
While the claims allow for the use of the branched alkylamine at amounts of from 5.31 to 10% in the additive package, or preferably at from 10 to 3000 ppmw in the fuel, the inventive examples recite a composition having 5.31 to 8 wt. % (53,100 ppmw) which do not support the breadth of the claimed range, nor demonstrates criticality at the upper amounts.
The argument is not persuasive.
The comparative Formulation 5 provided similar superior properties as each of the inventive examples of Formulations 4 and 6, thus rebutting the allegation of unexpected improvement in results.
Secondly, the examples merely appear to demonstrate intrinsic properties of branched alkylamines. They do not demonstrate criticality or synergistic properties. There is no baseline for what would have been expected.
Applicant previously argued that dodecylamine was the closest prior art. The argument was not persuasive.
Graupner teaches hydrocarbyl amines with the hydrocarbyl group having molecular weights of from 140 to 255 which encompasses C13 alkylamines. Therefore, the closest prior art of Graupner allows for the use of C13 linear and branched hydrocarbyl amines such as alkylamines.
Thus, applicant fails to provide an inventive exampled that are commensurate in scope with the claims and compared to the closest prior art for demonstrating unexpected results sufficient to rebut the case of obviousness.
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
Prosecution Insights