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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/372758 application originally filed September 26, 2023.
Amended claims 1, 3 and 6, filed October 10, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 2, 4 and 5 have been canceled. Claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 10, 2025 has been entered.
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 1 and 3 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.
Amended claim 1 includes equations that define the “determining” step but the equations fails to define the values that are within certain ranges/parameters that are required to “determine”. It is unclear as to the what ranges of the blends are required in order to achieve the octane value (i.e. what is the range of the “mixing ratio of ethanol”). Further clarification and/or amending of the claims are required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 2009/0193711) hereinafter “Clark” in view of Abdul-Manan et al. (US 2018/0346837) hereinafter “Abdul-Manan”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3
Clark discloses in paragraph 0012, a liquid fuel composition suitable for use in an internal combustion engine comprising:(a) from 50 to 90% v/v of a C1-C4 alcohol; (b) from 10 to 50% v/v of a Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha; and optionally (c) up to 10% v/v of a C3-C6 hydrocarbon component.
Clark discloses in paragraph 0023, the C1-C4 alcohol may be any monohydric alcohol containing from 1 to 4 carbon atoms or mixture thereof. The C1-C4 alcohol may be a primary, secondary or tertiary alcohol, or mixture thereof. Clark further discloses in paragraph 0024, the C1-C4 alcohol can be derived from any known natural or synthetic source. Conveniently, the C1-C4 alcohol may be derived from a natural source, for example, by fermentation of biomass.
Clark discloses in paragraph 0041, in addition to the C1-C4 alcohol, the liquid fuel composition of the present invention contains a naphtha derived from the product of a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process (a “Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha”). Clark discloses in paragraph 0042, by “Fischer-Tropsch derived” is meant that the naphtha is, or is derived from, a product of a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process (or Fischer-Tropsch condensation process). A Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha may also be referred to as a GTL (Gas-to-Liquid) naphtha.
Clark discloses in paragraph 0045, the Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha may be obtained directly from the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, or derived indirectly from the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, for instance by fractionation of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products and/or by hydrotreatment of Fischer-Tropsch synthesis products. Hydrotreatment can involve hydrocracking to adjust the boiling range and/or hydroisomerisation which can improve cold flow properties by increasing the proportion of branched paraffins (iso-paraffins). Clark discloses in paragraph 0046, other post-synthesis treatments, such as polymerisation, alkylation, distillation, cracking-decarboxylation, isomerization and hydroreforming, may be employed to modify the properties of Fischer-Tropsch condensation products.
Clark discloses in paragraph 0056, suitably, the Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha component of the present invention will consist of at least 70% w/w, of paraffinic components. By the term “paraffinic”, it is meant a branched or non-branched alkane (herein also referred to as iso-paraffins and normal paraffins) or a cylcoalkane. Preferably the paraffinic components are iso- and normal paraffins. Clark discloses in paragraph 0058, the weight ratio of iso-paraffins to normal paraffins may suitably be greater than 0.1 and may be up to 12; suitably it is from 2 to 6. The actual value for this ratio may be determined, in part, by the hydroconversion process used to prepare the gas oil from the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis product.
Clark discloses in paragraph 0059, the olefin content of the Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha component is preferably 2.0% w/w or lower. The aromatic content of the Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha component is preferably 2.0% w/w or lower.
Clark discloses in paragraph 0083, the liquid fuel composition can also be referred to as a gasoline, for example, the liquid fuel composition can conveniently be used as an E85 or E70 gasoline.
It is to be noted, Clark discloses the process of determining a mixing ratio a bioalcohol and Fischer-Tropsch light naphtha to produce a liquid fuel composition, including it is known in the art to use various hydrogenation processes to produce Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha in order to yield various hydrocarbons for fuel (i.e. paraffins, olefins, alcohols, ethers, etc.).
Clark fails to specifically teach determining and calculating the octane value and the olefin to paraffin values of the Fischer-Tropsch naphtha.
However, Abdul-Manan discloses in the abstract, gasoline fuel composition suitable for use in an internal combustion engine comprising: (a) Fischer-Tropsch derived naphtha at a level from 2 to 20% v/v; (b) at least one aromatic octane booster present at a level of 0.75 to 8% v/v or less; and (c) a gasoline base fuel; wherein the gasoline fuel composition comprises 40% v/v or less of aromatics. In a preferred embodiment, the Research Octane Number (RON) of the gasoline fuel composition is increased while maintaining the aromatic content of the gasoline fuel composition at a level of 40% v/v or less, based on the gasoline fuel composition.
Abdul-Manan discloses in paragraph 0055, it will be appreciated by a person skilled in the art that the gasoline base fuel may already contain some naphtha components. The concentration of the naphtha referred to above means the concentration of naphtha which is added into the liquid fuel composition as a blend with the gasoline base fuel and the octane booster compound, and does not include the concentration of any naphtha components already present in the gasoline base fuel.
Abdul-Manan discloses in paragraphs 0108-0111 and Examples, measuring and calculating the octane values and ratios of olefins and paraffins. Abdul-Manan determined the combination of alcohols and FT light naphtha increase the octane values and improve the paraffinic content.
It is to be noted, Abdul-Manan discloses calculating the octane values and ratios of olefins and paraffins but fails to specifically define the claimed equations of claim 1 of the present invention. However, through the teachings of Clark and Abdul-Manan it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a desired octane value through optimizing the various blend components (i.e. gasoline, ethanol, olefins, paraffins, etc.) through known workable ranges in order to achieve the desired octane values that meets known gasoline standards. The applicant is reminded that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. It is well-settled that optimizing a result effective variable is well within the expected ability of a person of ordinary skill in the subject art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine hydrogenated Fischer-Tropsch naphtha and alcohols, as taught by Clark and Abdul-Manan. The motivation to do so is Fischer-Tropsch naphtha aid in increasing the octane values and improving the paraffinic content.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “In contrast, none of the cited references, including Clark and Abdul-Manan, alone or in combination disclose the above features. Although Abdul-Manan ( [0108-0111] and Table 1) discloses measurements and calculations related to octane values and aromatic content, there is no disclosure of measuring the olefin content of the base components, nor any calculation of octane value based on olefin content or isomerization ratio. Accordingly, the method of claim 1 includes features that are neither taught nor suggested by the cited references, and offers a novel and non-obvious solution for producing a low-carbon-intensity fuel composition with an optimized blending strategy.”
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. See above 112 2nd rejection wherein the newly submitted claimed amendments are indefinite due to the equations of claim 1 are unclear. Therefore, it is maintained, Clark modified by Abdul-Manan teaches and/or suggest the method of claims 1 and 3 of the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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 on 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771