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 Status
Claims 1-6 were filed on 07/10/2023. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application claims foreign priority to Japanese application no. 2022-126383 filed on 08/06/2022. The certified copies of the foreign priority applications filed on 07/10/2023 are acknowledged.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2023, 06/27/2024, and 10/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites a method for producing a gasoline alternative fuel according to claim 2, wherein instead of synthesizing propylene from methanol by the MTP method, propylene is obtained by cracking naphtha. Claim 3 discloses an alternative approach to the method presented in claim 2 and therefore, fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP 2013001841, published on 01/07/2013) as evidenced by Price et al. (WO2011061221, published on 05/26/2011) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,225,622 B1 ('622 published on 01/18/2022).
Murakami et al. discloses a gasoline fraction (fraction of 20 to 200 °C) of a product obtained by performing a one-step FT reaction that can be used as a base material of a gasoline composition. The gasoline fraction can be recovered by a conventional method such as distillation (see paragraph 0066). Murakami et al. does not explicitly teach the gasoline fraction (fraction of 20 to 200 °C) from an FT gasoline as being naphtha.
The boiling point range for a naphtha fuel component, as evidenced by Price et al., is a liquid hydrocarbon distillate fuel component containing hydrocarbons which will typically boil below 205 °C, such as from 40 to 205 °C. Therefore, one would immediately recognize that the fraction of Murakami would necessarily contain naphtha fuel component because the boiling point range of naphtha taught by Murakami et al. is a narrow range of the boiling point of naphtha taught by Price et al.
The teachings of Murakami et al. as evidenced by Price et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Murakami et al. does not teach mixing the naphtha obtained by a Fischer-Tropsch method with 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene.
‘622 teaches a fuel mixture comprising a fuel and an octane boosting additive. The octane boosting additives are selected from the Markush group consisting of myrcene, geraniol, 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, alloocimene, limonene, dimethyl prenol, or combinations thereof (see claim 1). Octane boosting additives increase a fuel’s resistance to autoignition, and thereby prevent engine knock which decreases the engines efficiency overtime (see paragraph 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Murakami et al. as evidenced by Price et al. and ‘622 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by mixing naphtha obtained by an FT method with 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the naphtha fuel component with 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene because this will increase the fuels resistance to autoignition and lead to better engine efficiency overtime as taught by ‘622. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references aim to improve the utility and efficiency of gasoline alternative fuels.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP 2013001841, published on 01/07/2013) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,225,622 B1 ('622, published/patented on 01/18/2022) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (WO2011013780, published on 02/03/2011) in view of Nobuo et al. (JP 09111263, published on 04/28/1997).
The combined teachings of Murakami et al. and ‘622, as applied to claim 1, were discussed above.
The combined teachings of Murakami et al. and ‘622 differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that the combined teachings of Murakami et al. and ‘622 do not teach a method for producing gasoline alternative fuel further comprising synthesizing propylene from methanol by an MTP method, and synthesizing 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene by dimerizing the propylene and synthesizing propylene by cracking naphtha.
Yamaguchi et al. teaches a MTP (Methanol to Propylene) process is known in which propylene is selectively produced by recycling olefins other than the produced propylene to a reaction vessel. In the production of propylene, for the purpose of selectively producing propylene, it is advantageous in terms of production efficiency to construct an MTP process in which at least a part of the olefin other than propylene contained in the reaction product gas is recycled to the reactor and the MTP process for selectively producing propylene can be effectively constructed, which is industrially extremely advantageous as taught by Yamaguchi et al. (see paragraphs 03 ,08, and 0028 of translated version).
Nobuo et al. teaches an unleaded gasoline obtained by hydrogenating a dimerization reaction product of propylene as a gasoline base material. Nobuo et al. further discloses propylene to be the feedstock for the dimerization reaction can of course be a high purity propylene capable of being a petrochemical feedstock, a light oil fraction obtained by atmospheric distillation of crude oil, a propylene fraction obtained by catalytic cracking of heavy naphtha such as reduced pressure light oil obtained by reduced pressure distillation, a propylene fraction obtained by steam pyrolysis of naphtha, or the like can be used. In either case it is preferred that the purity of propylene is high. The dimerization reaction of propylene can be carried out by any method (paragraph 005 of the specification).
Furthermore, Nobuo et al. discloses that the propylene dimers consist of 1-hexene, 2-hexene, 3-hexene, 2-methyl-1-pentene, 2-methyl-2-pentene, 4-methyl-1-pentene, 4-methyl-2-pentene, 2,3-dimethyl-1-butene, 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and the like (paragraph 008 of the specification).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Murakami et al. and ‘622 with Yamaguchi et al. and Nobuo et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by obtaining propylene by either an MTP process or cracking naphtha and dimerizing the propylene to obtain 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene because a process to produce propylene efficiently would be industrially advantageous as taught by Yamaguchi et al. A person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success because all references aim to improve the utility and efficiency of gasoline alternative fuels.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Shah et al. ("Upgrading of Light Fischer-Tropsch Products, published on 11/30/1990) in view of Nobuo et al. (JP 09111263, published on 04/28/1997) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,225,622 B1 (‘622, published on 01/18/2022).
Shah et al. teaches a method for upgrading light FT products. Coal-derived naphtha was obtained from an FT process which was then hydrotreated and batch fractionated into a full-boiling-range naphtha, a light naphtha, and a heavy naphtha (see section 3.3).
The teachings of Shah et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Shah et al. does not teach cracking the heavy naphtha obtained by the distillation of the FT crude oil to obtain propylene and dimerizing the propylene to afford 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and mixing the light naphtha with the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene.
The teachings of Nobou et al. and ‘622 were discussed above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shah et al., Nobuo et al., and ‘622 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by cracking the heavy naphtha to obtain propylene, dimerizing the propylene to synthesize 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, and mixing the light naphtha and the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene in the process to make a gasoline alternative fuel from a FT method because a process to stably produce propylene efficiently would be industrially advantageous. A person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success because the references aim to improve the utility and efficiency of gasoline alternative fuels.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takuma et al. (JP 2022111455, published on 08/01/2022) in view of Nobuo et al. (JP 09111263, published on 04/28/1997) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,225,622 B1 (‘622, published on 01/18/2022).
The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Takuma et al. teaches a method for producing gasoline is described in which cyclopentane is added to FT light naphtha to reform the FT light naphtha to produce a reformed gasoline having a high-octane number. The FT light naphtha is obtained by fractionating the FT crude oil according to boiling range. The FT crude oil is separated into FT diesel, jet fuel, and FT light naphtha. (see paragraphs 0012 and 0013).
The teachings of Takuma et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Takuma et al. does not teach cracking the heavy naphtha to obtain propylene, dimerizing the propylene to synthesize 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, and mixing the light naphtha and the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene.
The teachings of Nobuo et al. and ‘622 were discussed above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Takuma et al., Nobuo et al., and ‘622 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by cracking the heavy naphtha to obtain propylene, dimerizing the propylene to synthesize 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, and mixing the light naphtha and the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene in the process to make a gasoline alternative fuel from a FT method because a process to stably produce propylene efficiently would be industrially advantageous. A person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success because the references aim to improve the utility and efficiency of gasoline alternative fuels.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 11,225,622 B1 (‘622, published on 01/18/2022) as evidenced by the EIA Energy Glossary (published on 07/11/2011).
The claim limitation of naphtha produced being produced by a Fischer-Tropsch method is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself (See MPEP 2113(I)).
‘622 teaches a fuel mixture comprising a fuel and an octane boosting additive. ‘622 includes petroleum blendstock in the Markush group of fuels in the fuel mixture (see claim 2). Furthermore, ‘622 lists a Markush group of octane boosting additives which includes 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene. The octane boosting additive could increase a fuel's ability to resist autoignition, and thereby prevent a phenomenon known as engine knock (see background, paragraph 001).
The teachings of ‘622 differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘622 does not exemplify an embodiment of the fuel mixture where the fuel is naphtha and the octane boosting additive is 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene.
Naphtha is defined in the EIA Energy Glossary to be a motor gasoline blending component, another term for petroleum blendstock. Therefore, Naphtha is viewed as synonymous to petroleum blendstock.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a petroleum blendstock (naphtha) as a fuel and 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene as the octane boosting additive from the Markush groups disclosed in ‘622 to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the fuel mixture of petroleum blendstock (naphtha) and 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene because this will increase the fuels resistance to autoignition and lead to better engine efficiency overtime by decreasing engine knock as taught by ‘622. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the reference aims to improve the utility and efficiency of gasoline alternative fuels.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,599,357 ('357, published on 02/04/1997) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,225,622 B1 (‘622, published on 01/18/2022).
‘357 teaches methods and compositions for reducing toxic compounds and the maximum reactivity of exhaust products emitted by spark-ignition combustion engines. For the compositions taught, a Markush group of hydrocarbonaceous gasoline base stocks that can be used in forming the gasoline blends include light naphtha fractions (see column 5, 3rd full paragraph).
The teachings of ‘357 differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘357 does not teach adding 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene to the gasoline mixture.
The teachings of ‘622 were discussed above.
It would have been obvious to combine ‘357 and ‘622 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by using light naphtha as a gasoline base material and adding 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene as an octane boosting additive because this will increase the fuels resistance to autoignition and lead to better engine efficiency overtime as taught by ‘622. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references aim to improve the utility and efficiency of gasoline alternative fuels.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-5906. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/KRISTEN W BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693