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 Status
The claim amendments and remarks filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, and 4 are amended. Claims 2, 5, and 6 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are pending.
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 statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection for claim 3 is withdrawn in view of claim 3 being amended from dependent to independent form.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 over Murakami et al. as evidenced by Price et al. in view of ‘622 is withdrawn in view of claim 1 being amended to now include synthesizing propylene from methanol by an MTP method, synthesizing 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene by dimerizing propylene, and a by-product produced when synthesizing the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, wherein the by-product is at least one selected from the group consisting of 2,3-dimethyl-1-butene, 4-methyl-2-pentene, 2-methyl-1-pentene, and 2-methyl-2-pentene which has changed the scope of the claim.
35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 2-3 over Murakami et al. in view of ‘622 and in further view of Yamaguchi et al. in view of Nobuo et al. are withdrawn in view of claim 2 being cancelled and claim 3 being amended to independent form and adding synthesizing a crude oil by a Fischer-Tropsch method, distilling the crude oil to separate naphtha, synthesizing 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene by dimerizing the propylene, and mixing the naphtha, the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, and a by-product produced when synthesizing the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, wherein the by-product is at least one selected from the Markush group listed above which has changed the scope of the claim.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5 over ‘622 as evidenced by the EIA Energy Glossary for is withdrawn in view of claim 5 being cancelled.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 5 and 6 over ‘357 in view of ‘622 are withdrawn in view of claims 5 and 6 being cancelled.
New Rejections Necessitated by the Amendments filed on 04/22/2026
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP2013001841, published 01/07/2013, PTO-892 dated 1/27/2026) as evidenced by Price et al. (WO2011061221, published 05/26/2011, PTO-892 dated 1/27/2026) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (WO2011013780, published on 02/03/2011, IDS dated 06/27/2024) in further view of Nobuo et al. (JP 09111263, published on 04/28/1997, IDS dated 10/16/2025).
Murakami et al. discloses a gasoline fraction (fraction of 20 to 200 °C, evidenced by Price et al. to be naphtha) 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).
The teachings of Murakami et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Murakami et al. does not teach synthesizing propylene from methanol by an MTP method, synthesizing 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and a Markush group of by-products by dimerizing the propylene, and mixing the naphtha, 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and a by-product from the Markush group.
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. Gasoline is regulated to have a benzene concentration of 1.0 vol% or less. However, the current gasoline composition is designed to maximize the performance of the engine used, so when only a portion of its components such as benzene are removed from gasoline, the substitute component is replaced by gasoline. It is necessary to make up for it. In this case, it is preferable that the component to be supplemented has substantially the same distillation property and octane number as the component removed (see paragraph 0002). 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). The unleaded gasoline of the present invention may be any other gasoline base material as long as it contains the above-mentioned paraffin component (hydrogenated propylene dimers) as a gasoline base material and satisfies the composition conditions defined above. An example of other gasoline base materials used in producing the unleaded gasoline of the present invention include light naphtha obtained by distilling crude oil under atmospheric pressure. An example of a typical blending example in the case of blending the unleaded gasoline of the invention using these gasoline base materials is as follows: (1) light naphtha: 0 to 10% by volume, (2) Reformate: 0 to 65% by volume, (3) Light fraction of reformate (boiling point range: about 25 to 120 °C): 5 to 35% by volume, (4) Heavy fraction of reformate (boiling point range: about 110 to 200 °C): 15 to 45% by volume, (5) Light fraction of cracked gasoline (boiling point range: about 25 to 90 °C): 15 to 45% by volume, (6) alkylate: 0 to 25% by volume, (7) Paraffin fraction obtained by dimerizing propylene and subsequently hydrogenating the same: 5 to 30% by volume, (8) MTBE: 0 to 15% by volume, and (9) Butane: 0 to 10% by volume. When the unleaded gasoline of the invention is actually prepared, it is a matter of course that the amount of each gasoline base material to be used is selected from the above ranges so that the contents of 2,3-dimethylbutane, benzene, and oxygen-containing compounds in the finally obtained unleaded gasoline satisfy the requirements of the invention (see paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murakami et al. with the teachings of Yamaguchi et al. and Nobuo et al. by synthesizing a crude oil via an FT method and distilling the crude oil to obtain naphtha, as taught by Murakami et al., obtaining propylene by an MTP process, as taught by Yamaguchi et al., dimerizing the propylene to obtain 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and by-products such as 2,3-dimethyl-1-butene, and mixing the dimerization products with naphtha, as taught by Nobuo et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the naphtha obtained by a FT method with 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and a by-product obtained by dimerizing propylene from an MTP process because, as taught by Nobuo et al., the propylene dimers used in the blended fuel have similar fuel properties to that of benzene which is being regulated more heavily. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Nobuo et al. shows of successful example of using propylene dimers as a blending agent for a gasoline alternative fuel.
In regard to the limitation of the gasoline alternative fuel produced by the method having a research octane number of 89 or more, the research octane number is a property that would necessarily flow from the method by which the fuel was made and will be interpreted by the examiner as such.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (JP2013001841, published 01/07/2013, PTO-892 dated 1/27/2026) in view of Nobuo et al. (JP 09111263, published on 04/28/1997, IDS dated 10/16/2025).
The teachings of Murakami et al. were discussed above.
The teachings of Murakami et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Murakami et al. does not teach cracking the naphtha to obtain propylene, synthesizing 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and by-products by dimerizing propylene, and mixing naphtha, 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, and a by-product.
The teachings of Nobuo et al. were discussed above.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Murakami et al. with the teachings of Nobuo et al. by synthesizing a crude FT oil and distilling the crude oil to obtain naphtha, as taught by Murakami et al., and cracking the naphtha to obtain propylene, synthesizing 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and a by-product by dimerizing the propylene, and mixing the naphtha, 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene, and a by-product, as taught by Nobuo et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Murakami et al. with Nobuo et al. because, as taught by Nobuo et al., the propylene dimers used in the blended fuel have similar fuel properties to that of benzene which is being regulated more heavily. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Nobuo et al. shows of successful example of using propylene dimers as a blending agent for a gasoline alternative fuel.
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 a Markush group of by-products and mixing the light naphtha with the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and the Markush group of by-products.
The teachings of Nobuo et al. were discussed above.
‘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).
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.
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 synthesizing a crude oil by an FT method and fractionating the crude oil into a heavy and light naphtha, as taught by Shah et al., cracking the heavy naphtha to obtain propylene and dimerizing the propylene to synthesize 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and by-products including 2,3-dimethyl-1-butene, 4-methyl-2-pentene, 2-methyl-1-pentene, and 2-methyl-2-pentene, as taught by Nobuo et al., and mixing the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and by-products as a fuel additive, and light naphtha as the base fuel, as taught by ‘622, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art because, as taught by ‘622, there is a need for new fuel additives and fuel mixtures that display improved properties. 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.
In regard to the limitation of the gasoline alternative fuel produced by the method having a research octane number of 89 or more, the research octane number is a property that would necessarily flow from the method by which the fuel was made and will be interpreted by the examiner as such.
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.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takuma et al., Nobuo et al., and ‘622 by fractionating FT crude oil to obtain light naphtha, as taught by Takuma et al., cracking the heavy naphtha to obtain propylene and dimerizing the propylene to synthesize 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and by-products, as taught by Nobuo et al., and mixing the light naphtha and the 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene and by-products as taught by ‘622, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Takuma et al., Nobuo et al., and ‘622 because, as taught by ‘622, there is a need for new fuel additives and fuel mixtures that display improved properties. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/22/2026 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the rejections of the instant office action, but were not persuasive.
In regard to instant claim 1, applicant states that the instant method to produce gasoline alternative fuel according to claim 1 is capable of reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step of removing the above-mentioned by-products from 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene. Applicant further states that Murakami, Price, and ‘622, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest the invention having the unexpected result of omitting the fractionation step to decrease carbon dioxide emissions.
In response to the arguments regarding instant claim 1, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of applicant amending claim 1 in which the scope of the claim has been changed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
In regard to instant claim 3, applicant states the instant method to produce gasoline alternative fuel according to claim 3 is capable of reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step of removing the above-mentioned by-products from 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene. Applicant further states that none of Murakami, Price, ‘622, Yamaguchi, and Nobuo discloses or suggests the invention according to instant claim 3.
In response to the argument regarding instant claim 3, the previous rejection over Murakami et al. as evidenced by Price et al., ‘622, Yamaguchi et al., and Nobuo et al. has been withdrawn in view of applicant amending claim 3 in which the scope of the claim has been changed. However, the limitations of amended claim 3 are taught by Murakami et al. in view of Nobuo et al. as discussed above. Regarding the unexpected results of reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step, Nobuo et al. teaches an example method of an alternative fuel that does not include a fractionation step after the dimerization of propylene. Therefore, the prior art also teaches reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step.
In regard to instant claim 4, applicant states the instant method to produce gasoline alternative fuel according to claim 4 is capable of reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step of removing the above-mentioned by-products from 2,3-dimethyl-2-butene. Applicant further states that Shah, Nobuo, and ‘622 or Takuma, Nobuo, and ‘622 do not disclose or suggest the invention according to instant claim 4.
In response to the arguments regarding instant claim 4, the previous rejections over Shah, Nobuo, and ‘622 or Takuma, Nobuo, and ‘622 have been withdrawn in view of applicant amending claim 4 in which the scope of the claim has been changed. However, the limitations of amended claim 4 are taught by Shah, Nobuo, and ‘622 or Takuma, Nobuo, and ‘622 as discussed above. Regarding the unexpected results of reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step, Nobuo et al. teaches an example method of an alternative fuel that does not include a fractionation step after the dimerization of propylene. Therefore, the prior art also teaches reducing carbon dioxide emission by omitting a fractionation step.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
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 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) 272-5960. 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
Prosecution Insights