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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 – 6, 8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims each recites broad recitations or ranges, and the claims each also recites narrower or preferred recitations or ranges which is/are the narrower statement of the ranges/limitations. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 11, 19 recites the limitation "deposit control additive (iii)" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 – 16, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papin et al. (WO 2014/173844) in view of Selvidge et al. (US 2006/0130394)
In regards to claim 1, Papin teaches additive for improving oxidation stability and/or storage stability of fuels comprising a Mannich reaction product of alkylphenol-aldehyde and an alkylamine or alkylpolyamine (abstract). The aldehyde has a 1 to 8 carbon atoms, i.e., formaldehyde, amine is a 1 to 30 carbon alkyl amine or polyamine, and the alkylphenol is a 1 to 30 carbon monoalkyl phenol such as nonylphenol (page 3 lines 14 – page 4 lines 32). The fuel can be diesel fuel comprising the Mannich alkylphenol product at from 5 to 5000 ppm and can comprise various additives such as antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, biocides, stabilizers, etc. (page 5 lines 10 – 34). In the examples, the additive composition comprises 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-nonylphenol and the Mannich phenol mixed at 50:50 ratio (Table 2). Thus, it is obvious to use both phenolic compounds at similar amounts in the composition.
Thus, phenol containing additive (i) are provided by the Mannich product and the tert-butyl-nonylphenol. The composition can comprise other additives such as alkyl nitrates such as 2-ethylhexyl nitrate and alkyl peroxide which provides limitation (ii) of the claim (page 10 lines 10 – 13). The amount of the alkyl nitrate or alkyl peroxide which are conventionally known to be cetane improvers in fuels are not particularly recited, but will be present at low amounts as they are optional ingredients.
Selvidge teaches diesel fuels can comprise cetane improvers such as alkyl nitrates or alkyl peroxides in amounts of from 100 to 6000 ppm [0013]. Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were filed would have found it obvious to have used the nitrates and peroxides in the composition of Papin in amounts recited by Selvidge, as Selvidge provides useful amounts for such ingredients in diesel fuels.
When the phenolic compound such as the Mannich additive and the cetane improvers are used in the amounts discussed above, they will provide ratios overlapping the claimed range. By mixing the claimed additives in the diesel fuel which is a liquid fuel, the method for reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbon pollutants in fuels would be intrinsically provided.
In regards to claims 2, 3, Papin and Selvidge provide the claimed method and composition having the claimed phenol as previously stated.
In regards to claims 4 – 6, Papin and Selvidge provide the claimed method and composition having the Mannich reaction product as previously discussed. All the amines are primary amines, thus providing the at least two primary amines, and the alkyl groups of the alkylamine or alkylpolyamine have from 1 to 30, or 4 to 30 carbon atoms which are fatty alkyl groups (page3 line 20 – page 4 line 23).
In regards to claim 7, Papin and Selvidge provide the claimed method and composition having both 2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-nonylphenol and Mannich product which is a modified alkylphenol-aldehyde resin of the claim as previously stated.
In regards to claim 8, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and teach the composition having 2-ethylhexyl nitrate of the claim as previously stated.
In regards to claims 9, 18, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and composition having claimed ingredients at 50:50 or 1:1 ratio as previously stated.
In regards to claim 10, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and composition. Papin teaches additives such as succinimides which are deposit control additives of the claim (page 10 lines 18 – 22).
In regards to claim 11, 19, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and teach the composition having the phenol additive(s) in amounts of from 5 to 5,000ppm as previously stated. While Papin teaches the presence of other additives such as succinimides, the amount in the composition is not particularly recited. Jung et al. (US 2014/0338253) teaches fuel additive composition comprising succinimides which are useful in fuels such as diesel fuels in amounts of from 10 to 500 ppm [0054]. Thus, persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were filed would have found it obvious to have used succinimide in the amounts recited by Jung in the composition of Papin, as Jung teaches useful amounts of such ingredients in fuels. When both additives are used in the amounts recited above, they would provide ratios overlapping the claimed range.
In regards to claim 12, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and composition. Papin teaches the fuel can be diesel, biodiesel, gas oil, gasoline, jet fuels etc. (page 22 lines 16 – 21).
In regards to claims 13, 14, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and composition with the claimed additives and would be expected to possess the same properties of reducing the emissions solid particles and unburnt hydrocarbons as claimed.
In regards to claims 15, 16, 20, Papin and Selvidge provide the method and composition useful in diesel engines and thus would have been obvious to have used their additives in the diesel engines of the claims. According to KSR rationale, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is a basis for obviousness. In this case, it would have been obvious to try the additives of Papin in the engines of the claims with a reasonable expectation of success as they are generally known additives for use in various fuels including diesel fuels of a wide variety of applications.
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