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 § 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dardas 11193420 in view of Opalka 20170107960 and NPL: Beaver - Development of Oxygen Scavenger Additives for Future Jet Fuels, referred as Beaver thereafter, and as evidenced by NPL: Vincenzina - Domino Reaction for the Sustainable Functionalization of Few-Layer Graphene, referred as Vincenzina thereafter.
Regarding claim 1, Dardas teaches the invention as claimed: A fuel system (Fig. 1 and col. 1, ll. 24-29) comprising:
a hydrocarbon fluid conduit (annotated Fig. 1) having a fluid passage (the space inside said conduit where the fuel flows) through which hydrocarbon fluid flows, the hydrocarbon fluid being fuel (col. 1, ll. 24-29) and including oxygen (the dissolved oxygen in the fuel, per col. 1, ll. 14-29) and having an oxygen content (the quantity of said dissolved oxygen presents in said fuel); and
an additive delivery assembly (28 in Fig. 2 that positioned upstream from filter 44 in annotated Fig. 1) including an additive (104, which may be anti-oxidants, see Fig. 2 and col. 3, ll. 55-58 and col. 4, ll. 47-52) to increase thermal stability of the hydrocarbon fluid (col. 1, ll. 14-28), the additive delivery assembly (28) being disposed relative to the hydrocarbon fluid conduit (per col. 3, ll. 38-47 and see Figs. 1-2) such that the additive (104; per col. 3, ll. 55-58 and col. 5, ll, 1-5, 104 dispenses into the fuel via membrane contactor 102) comes into contact with the hydrocarbon fluid (when the fuel passing though the 28 from 106 to 108) as the hydrocarbon fluid flows through the fluid passage (see Figs. 1-2); and
a removal assembly (filter 44) positioned, at least partially, downstream of the additive delivery assembly (28, see annotated Fig. 1 and col. 3, ll. 38-47), and the removal assembly (44) is a filter (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
829
1186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dardas does not teach said removal assembly including a remover to physically remove suspended particles from the hydrocarbon fluid.
However, Opalka teaches a removal assembly (fuel filter 120, Fig. 7A) for a hydrocarbon fluid system (jet fuel system for aircraft, [0033 and [0039]), and the removal assembly (120, Fig. 7A) including a remover (160 having fiber mesh 162 and oxygen-containing radical remover 164, Figs. 7A-7B) to physically remove suspended particles from the hydrocarbon fluid (per [0052], 160 removes small particles comparing to the large particles removed by screen 20/24 in Figs. 1-3 and [0035 and 0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the disclosed but non-depicted filter of Dardas to be Opalka’s filter including a remover to physically remove suspended particles from the hydrocarbon fluid in order to remove oxygen-containing radicals that cannot be removed by the deoxygenator and molecular oxygen scavenger devices from the fuel and to further prevent fuel system performance degradation (Opalka, [0033-0034]).
Dardas in view of Opalka does not teach said additive is an oxygen getter configured to reduce oxygen content of said hydrocarbon fluid and producing oxidation products within the hydrocarbon fluid, wherein the oxygen getter has an activation temperature at which the oxygen getter produces the oxidation products, the activation temperature being from one hundred seventy degrees Fahrenheit to three hundred degrees Fahrenheit, such that said additive delivery assembly is an oxygen gettering assembly, said removal assembly is an oxidation product removal assembly, and said remover is an oxidation product remover configured to physically remove the oxidation products from said hydrocarbon fluid.
However, Beaver teaches an additive (1,2,5-trimethylpyrrole, i.e., TMP, see title and abstract, and as evidence by NPL – Vincenzina that teaches TMP is liquid in abstract) for a hydrocarbon fluid, which is a jet fuel (title) is an oxygen getter (TMP chemically reacts with molecular oxygen to form TMP oxidation products, see left column in p. 444 and Scheme 1 in p. 445) to reduce the oxygen content of the hydrocarbon fluid (by chemically binding molecular oxygen, see (5) in Scheme 1 in p. 445) and produce oxidation products (the TMP oxidation product) within the hydrocarbon fluid (TMP is placed in the hydrocarbon fluid, such that the TMP oxidation product chemically produced exits within the hydrocarbon fluid), and the oxidation products is insoluble in the hydrocarbon fluid and needed to be addressed (p. 444 and right column in p. 447),
wherein the oxygen getter (TMP) has an activation temperature at which the oxygen getter produces the oxidation products (the temperature that the TMP efficiently and passively reacts with oxygen), the activation temperature being from one hundred seventy degrees Fahrenheit to three hundred degrees Fahrenheit (per right column in p. 447, TMP has a low activation temperature as 120 Celsius, which is 248 Fahrenheit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to provide Dardas in view of Opalka with Beaver’s teaching of using an additive, i.e., the liquid TMP (as evidenced by Vincenzina), as an oxygen getter to reduce the oxygen content of the hydrocarbon fluid and produces oxidation products within the hydrocarbon fluid, such that
an oxygen gettering assembly including an oxygen getter to reduce the oxygen content of the hydrocarbon fluid, the oxygen gettering assembly being disposed relative to the hydrocarbon fluid conduit such that the oxygen getter comes into contact with the hydrocarbon fluid as the hydrocarbon fluid flows through the fluid passage, the oxygen getter producing oxidation products within the hydrocarbon fluid, wherein the oxygen getter has an activation temperature at which the oxygen getter produces the oxidation products, the activation temperature being from one hundred seventy degrees Fahrenheit to three hundred degrees Fahrenheit (the modification is using Beaver’s TMP solution as Dardas’s additive in Dardas’s additive delivery assembly); and
an oxidation product removal assembly positioned, at least partially, downstream of the oxygen gettering assembly, the oxidation product removal assembly including an oxidation product remover to physically remove the oxidation products from the hydrocarbon fluid (Beaver’s TMP reacts with dissolved oxygen to form the TMP oxidation produces that are insoluble in the hydrocarbon fuel, which are physically removed by Opalka’s filter downstream from Dardas’s additive delivery assembly)
in order to improve oxidatively and thermally stable of hydrocarbon fuel (Beaver, left column in p. 441 and right column in p. 447).
Regarding claim 3, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the oxygen getter (Beaver’s TMP, see title) is located in a replaceable cartridge (Dardas’ 100, see Dardas’ col. 5, ll. 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the fluid passage (the space inside Dardas’ fluid conduit where the fuel flows, see Dardas’ annotated Fig. 1 in claim 1) includes a periphery (where the fuel contact Dardas’ membrane-based contactor 102, see Dardas’ Fig. 2 and col. 3, ll. 47-58 and col. 5, ll. 1-5), and the oxygen gettering assembly (Dardas’ additive delivery assembly 28 in Dardas’ Figs. 1-2 having Beaver’ TMP as the additive, see Beaver’s title) is disposed to position the oxygen getter (Beaver’ TMP, see Beaver’s title) around the periphery of the fluid passage (see Dardas’ Fig. 2 and col. 3, ll. 47-58 and col. 5, ll. 1-5).
Regarding claim 6, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the oxygen gettering assembly (Dardas’ additive delivery assembly 28 in Dardas’ Figs. 1-2 having Beaver’ TMP as the additive, see Beaver’s title) includes a liquid storage chamber (Dardas’ 116, see Dardas’ Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 50-54, and col. 5, ll. 1-5) containing the oxygen getter (Beaver’s TMP, see title) in a liquid form (as evidenced by Vincenzina’s abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the oxygen gettering assembly (Dardas’ additive delivery assembly 28 in Dardas’ Figs. 1-2 having Beaver’ TMP as the additive, see Beaver’s title) includes a membrane (Dardas’ membrane-based contactor 102) separating the liquid storage chamber (Dardas’ 116) from the fluid passage (at the portion where fuel passes through Dardas’ 28 from Dardas’ 106 to Dardas’ 108, see Dardas’ Fig. 2), the membrane (Dardas’ membrane-based contactor 102) being permeable to the oxygen getter (Beaver’ TMP, see Beaver’s title) to allow a controlled release of the oxygen getter into the hydrocarbon fluid in the fluid passage (see Dardas’ col. 3, ll. 55-64).
Regarding claim 8, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the liquid storage chamber (Dardas’s 116) is fluidly coupled to the fluid passage (at the portion where fuel passes through Dardas’ 28 from Dardas’ 106 to Dardas’ 108, see Dardas’ Fig. 2) to add the oxygen getter (Beaver’ TMP, see Beaver’s title) to the hydrocarbon fluid in the fluid passage as an additive (see Dardas’s col. 3, ll. 55-64 and Beaver’s title).
Regarding claim 15, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the oxidation product removal assembly (Opalka’s filter 120 in Opalka’s Figs. 7A-7B removes Beaver’s insoluble TMP oxidation products, see Beaver’s p. 444 and right column in p. 447) is disposed to position the oxidation product remover (Opalka’s 160) within the fluid passage (the space inside Dardas’ fluid conduit where the fuel flows and the Opalka’s filter 120 is position at where Dardas’ filter 44 is, see annotated Fig. 1 in claim 1).
Regarding claim 21, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches wherein the oxidation product remover (Opalka’s filter 120 in Opalka’s Figs. 7A-7B removes Beaver’s insoluble TMP oxidation products, see Beaver’s p. 444 and right column in p. 447) is a porous material (Opalka’s 162 is fiber mesh, see Opalka’s [0053]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dardas 11193420 in view of Opalka 20170107960 and NPL: Beaver as evidenced by NPL: Vincenzina, and in further view of Cordatos 20200086239.
Regarding claim 17, Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver further teaches a deoxygenation system including an oxygen removal assembly configured to remove oxygen from the hydrocarbon fluid, the oxygen gettering assembly (Dardas’ additive delivery assembly 28 in Dardas’ Figs. 1-2 having Beaver’ TMP as the additive, see Beaver’s title) together with the oxidation product removal assembly (Opalka’s filter 120 in Opalka’s Figs. 7A-7B removes Beaver’s insoluble TMP oxidation products, see Beaver’s p. 444 and right column in p. 447) being the oxygen removal assembly (because the oxygen element is bonded in Beaver’s TMP oxidation products, which is physically removed by Opalka’s filter 120 ).
Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver does not teach said deoxygenation system including a first oxygen removal assembly and a second oxygen removal assembly each configured to remove oxygen from the hydrocarbon fluid, and the second oxygen removal assembly is said oxygen removal assembly formed by said oxygen gettering assembly together with said oxidation product removal assembly.
However, Cordatos teaches a fuel system (title) comprising a deoxygenation system, the deoxygenation system including a first oxygen removal assembly (the fuel tank deoxygenation system comprising a spiral contactor 400 uses nitrogen-enriched air 124 to remove oxygen element contained in the dissolved oxygen from the fuel, see [0041 and 0044-0047] and Figs. 3-4 see Figs. 3-4) and a second oxygen removal assembly (the membrane-bases in-line deoxygenator 110 in Fig. 1, also see [0037-0038]) each configured to remove oxygen from the hydrocarbon fluid (fuel, title),
wherein the first oxygen removal assembly (the fuel tank deoxygenation system comprising a spiral contactor 400, see Figs. 3-4) is positioned in a fuel tank (404, Fig. 4) upstream from the second oxygen removal assembly (110 in Fig. 1), such that the size and overall weight of the second oxygen removal assembly can be adjusted according to the oxygen removal requirement and budget for the fuel system ([0039] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to provide Dardas in view of Opalka and Beaver with Cordatos’ the first oxygen removal assembly positioned in the fuel tank upstream from the second oxygen removal assembly, such that
the deoxygenation system including a first oxygen removal assembly and a second oxygen removal assembly each configured to remove oxygen from the hydrocarbon fluid, the oxygen gettering assembly together with the oxidation product removal assembly being the second oxygen removal assembly
in order to prevent explosion in the fuel tank (Cordatos, [0031 and 0036]) and to enable an adjustment of the size and weight of the membrane-base in-line oxygen removal assembly according to the oxygen removal requirement and budget (Cordatos, [0039]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dardas 11193420 in view of Opalka 20170107960, NPL: Beaver, and Cordatos as evidenced by NPL: Vincenzina, and in further view of O'Connor 20200141575.
Regarding claim 18, Dardas in view of Opalka, Beaver, and Cordatos further teaches wherein the first oxygen removal assembly (Cordatos’ fuel tank deoxygenation system comprising Cordatos’ spiral contactor 400, see Cordatos’ Figs. 3-4) is an inert gas system (Cordatos’ 124, see Cordatos’ [0041 and 0044-0047]).
Dardas in view of Opalka, Beaver, and Cordatos does not teach the first oxygen removal assembly is a sparging system.
However, O'Connor teaches an oxygen removal assembly (200) uses an inert gas (e.g., nitrogen [0054]) as a stripping gas or as a sparging gas to remove oxygen from the fuel in the contactor ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to provide Dardas in view of Opalka, Beaver and Cordatos with O'Connor’s teaching of using the inert gas as a sparging gas to remove oxygen from the fuel, such that
the first oxygen removal assembly is a sparging system
because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, i.e., in this case, an inert gas, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, i.e., using the inert gas as sparging gas, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Dardas in view of Opalka, Beaver, Cordatos, and O'Connor further teaches wherein the sparging system (Cordatos’ fuel tank deoxygenation system comprising Cordatos’ spiral contactor 400 in Cordatos’ Figs. 3-4 using Cordatos’ inert gas 124 as sparging gas as taught by O'Connor’s [0054]) is positioned upstream (because Cordatos’ fuel tank deoxygenation system comprising Cordatos’ spiral contactor 400 is positioned in the fuel tank, see Cordatos’ Fig. 4) of the oxygen gettering assembly (formed by Dardas’ additive delivery assembly 28 in Dardas’ Figs. 1-2 having Beaver’ TMP as the additive, see Beaver’s title and Opalka’s filter 120 in Opalka’s Figs. 7A-7B removes Beaver’s insoluble TMP oxidation products, see Beaver’s p. 444 and right column in p. 447 ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot because said arguments does not applied to the new combination of the previously applied references and the new reference being used in the current office Action, necessitated by amendment. However, to the extent possible, Applicant's arguments have been addressed above, at the appropriate locations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights