DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 7-9 are canceled. The remaining claims 1-6 do not appear to be amended. Claims 1-6 are pending and examined on the merits.
Response to Amendments
Because claims 7-9 are canceled, the claim objections, the 112(a) rejections, and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 03/16/2026 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as explained below.
Applicant contends that the prior art rejection amounts to “cherry picking” YOSHIMURA without considering YOSHIMURA as a whole (see Remarks at 5). This is not persuasive. YOSHIMURA’s ¶ 0006—which is used for the prior art rejection—clearly explains the cleaning properties belong to terpenes: “the terpene compounds of terpene hydrocarbons . . . function to swell or dissolve contaminant components such as carbon on the metal surface of an engine carburetor and peel them off from the metal surface . . . .” Moreover, the carbon-cleaning properties of terpenes are widely known in the prior art. See YOSHIMURA at ¶ 0006; HATZIEMMANOUIL (US PGPUB 2009/0313887) at ¶ 0053; GOSS (US PGPUB 2010/0031558) at ¶ 0040; OGAWA (US PGPUB 2015/0108252) at ¶ 0018; JANNSON (US PGPUB 2015/0284744) at ¶ 0192.
Applicant’s arguments do not change the fact that: (1) terpenes already existed in the prior art; (2) using terpenes in the context of cleaning engines was already taught or suggested by the prior art. See YOSHIMURA, HATZIEMMANOUIL, GOSS, OGAWA, and JANNSON.
Applicant contends that YOSHIMURA “nowhere teaches any separate utility of terpenes used by themselves” (Remarks at 5). This is contradicted by YOSHIMURA’s ¶ 0006. Moreover, it’s well known in the prior art that terpenes have carbon-cleaning properties, especially in the context of cleaning engines. See, e.g., YOSHIMURA at ¶ 0006; HATZIEMMANOUIL (US PGPUB 2009/0313887) at ¶ 0053; GOSS (US PGPUB 2010/0031558) at ¶ 0040; OGAWA (US PGPUB 2015/0108252) at ¶ 0018; JANNSON (US PGPUB 2015/0284744) at ¶ 0192.
The remaining arguments against YOSHIMURA—e.g., terpenes must be used with other chemicals to be effective (see Remarks at 5-6)—are overly narrow without support, because the cleaning properties belong to terpenes (see YOSHIMURA at ¶ 0006). Also, the same/similar arguments have been presented and addressed before. See, e.g., 01/05/2026 Non-Final Action at ¶ 5; 07/01/2025 Final Action at ¶ 5.
Applicant’s argument against BARTLEY—e.g., BARTLEY teaches specific recipes so BARTLEY’s composition cannot incorporate terpenes (see Remarks at 6)—is conclusory without evidentiary support. This argument was previously presented and addressed. See, e.g., 09/05/2025 Advisory Action at pg. 3; 11/26/2025 Advisory Action at pg. 3.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “liquid droplets” (see Remarks at 7) do not address the fact that water is still optional in BARTLEY’s composition. So the argument that BARTLEY’s composition must contain “at least 10% water” is unsupported.
In conclusion, because Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and because claims 1-6 do not appear to be amended, the § 103 rejections of claims 1-6 are maintained.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARTLEY et al. (US PGPUB 20180002645), in view of YOSHIMURA (Japanese Publication JPH101698A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 1, BARTLEY teaches a method of removing carbon deposits (see ¶ 0002) from an internal combustion engine (see ¶¶ 0002, 0011) that is not a diesel compression-ignition engine (cleaning gasoline engines, see title, ¶¶ 0108, 0133; cleaning gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines, see ¶¶ 0095, 0132, 0140-55; see also ¶¶ 0140-55, listing examples of road vehicles, some of which run on gasoline).
BARTLEY teaches that the carbon deposits are those found in a road vehicle (see ¶¶ 0132-33, 0140-55), i.e., they are road vehicle carbon deposits. In other words, they are “carbon deposits that built up over time during the running of such engine in cities and on highways under a variety of conditions, including different speeds, acceleration patterns, different fuels, different motor oils, and different weather conditions” (see also ¶¶ 0132-33, 0140-55, the road vehicles have tens of thousands miles driven).
BARTLEY teaches the engine includes an induction system (see, e.g., title, abstract, ¶¶ 0002, 0011-12, 0095-101, 0103, 0107), combustion chambers (see, e.g., title, abstract, ¶¶ 0002, 0012, 0097, 0099, 0101, 0103, 0107, 0132), and an exhaust system (see ¶¶ 0097, 0099, Figs. 2-3; a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the typical internal combustion engine includes an exhaust system).
BARTLEY’s method includes the steps of: selecting at least one chemical (using a cleaning composition, which is a mixture of several components, see, e.g., abstract, Claims 1 & 38, ¶¶ 0007, 0011, 0013, 0017, 0036, 0050, Tables 1 & 2) and introducing liquid droplets of the selected at least one chemical (see ¶¶ 0094-95, 0103, delivering the cleaning composition in the form of aerosol/mist/fog/droplets, thereby wetting engine surfaces) into the engine’s induction system while the engine is running (see ¶¶ 0095, 0103).
BARTLEY teaches that its cleaning composition may comprise non-polar solvents (see abstract, claim 1, ¶ 0007), such as non-polar hydrocarbon solvents (see ¶¶ 0027-30). Examples of non-polar hydrocarbon solvents include non-polar cycloaliphatic solvents (see ¶ 0030) and non-polar aromatic hydrocarbons (see ¶ 0028).
BARTLEY teaches that water is an optional component of the cleaning composition (see ¶ 0058; see Table 1, water can be 0), which means water can be omitted.
BARTLEY teaches that various modifications may be made to its invention (see ¶ 0158).
BARTLEY does not explicitly teach that its cleaning method uses at least one chemical selected from “oil of turpentine (TPT), y-terpinene (y-T), p-cymene (p-C), terpinolene (TO), alpha-pinene (A-p), (-)-beta-pinene (b-p), camphene (ch), 3- carene (3-c).”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional to use terpenes—a family of non-polar hydrocarbon solvents that include members such as alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, terpinolene—to dissolve and remove carbon deposits from an engine surface. See YOSHIMURA at ¶¶ 0006-08.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify BARTLEY’s method to incorporate one or more terpenes (e.g., alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, terpinolene) into BARTLEY’s cleaning composition, with reasonable expectation of removing carbon deposits from the engine. First, terpenes are a well-known family of solvents effective at dissolving and removing carbon deposits from an engine surface (see YOSHIMURA); given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate one or more terpenes into BARTLEY for removing carbon deposits from the engine. Second, BARTLEY teaches that its cleaning composition may include non-polar solvents (including non-polar hydrocarbons), wherein various modifications may be made to its invention, and it’s already well understood, routine, and conventional to use terpenes—which are non-polar hydrocarbons—to dissolve and remove carbon deposits on an engine surface (see YOSHIMURA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A. The terpenes as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., dissolving and removing carbon deposits in the engine), thereby yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA: one or more terpenes (e.g., alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, terpinolene) would be incorporated into BARTLEY’s cleaning composition, which would be introduced as liquid droplets into the engine’s induction system while the engine is running.
Lastly, the remaining claim language (see the three bullet points below) is interpreted as the intended results/outcomes of performing the step of “introducing liquid droplets of the selected at least one chemical into the induction system while the engine is running”:
“solubilizing at least some of the road vehicle carbon deposits in the induction system and the combustion chambers with the liquid droplets of the selected at least one chemical”;
“removing at least a portion of the solubilized road vehicle carbon deposits from the induction system”;
“burning at least a portion of the solubilized road vehicle carbon deposits in the combustion chambers as part of the combustion process which takes place while the engine is running.”
This is because after a person has started running the engine and has introduced liquid droplets of the chemical into the induction system of the running engine, no further action is required on that person in order to perform solubilizing, removing, and burning. Moreover, the method as taught by the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA would achieve such results/outcomes or is reasonably expected to achieve such results/outcomes, because the combination teaches the same step (e.g., introducing liquid droplets into the induction system while the engine is running) using a chemical (e.g., terpenes) that this application discloses as having effective carbon-removing properties (see specification at ¶¶ 0142-44).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches using one or more terpenes, which means the selected chemical (e.g., a terpene selected from alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, terpinolene) is mixed with a different chemical (e.g., a different terpene selected from alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, terpinolene). This means the combination teaches: the step of introducing (as explained above) is introducing liquid droplets of the mixture of the selected chemical (e.g., a terpene) and the selected other different chemical (e.g., a different terpene) into the induction system while the engine is running; and the step of solubilizing (as explained above) is solubilizing at least some of the road vehicle carbon deposits in the induction system and the combustion chambers with liquid droplets of the mixture of the selected chemical (e.g., a terpene) and the selected other different chemical (e.g., a different terpene).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches using a chemical composition, which is a mixture of several components, wherein the composition comprises one or more terpenes (e.g., at least one chemical selected from alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, terpinolene).
The combination teaches that the cleaning composition also includes non-polar solvents such as “C5-C18 straight chain, branched, and cyclic hydrocarbons” (see BARTLEY at ¶ 0030), which includes n-heptane (C7 straight chain), octane (C8 hydrocarbon), n-nonane (C9 straight chain), decane (C10 hydrocarbon), dodecane (C12 hydrocarbon), hexadecane (C16 straight chain). This means the combination teaches: the selected at least one chemical (e.g., one or more terpenes) is mixed with at least one other chemical selected from n-heptane, octane, n-nonane, decane, dodecane, and hexadecane; and the step of solubilizing (as explained above) is solubilizing at least some of the road vehicle carbon deposits in the induction system and the combustion chambers with liquid droplets of the mixture of the selected at least one chemical (e.g., terpenes) and the at least one other chemical (e.g., C5-C18 hydrocarbons).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA teaches the method as set forth in Claim 3. As explained above, the combination teaches the selected at least one chemical (e.g., terpenes) is mixed with dodecane (C12 hydrocarbon).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA (as applied to Claims 1 and 3 above), in further view of GRIEVE (UK Publication GB2521275).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1. As explained above, the combination teaches selecting at least one terpene from alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, and terpinolene.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the selected terpene(s) are “mixed with at least one other chemical selected from 2-ethylhexyl nitrate, (2-EHN), di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP); isopropyl nitrate (IPN), nitropropane (NP), tert-butyl peracetate (TBP), di-tert-amyl peroxide (DTAP), tert-butyl peroxybenzoate (TBPB), and tert-butyl hydroperoxide (TBHP)”; and the resulting mixture is used for solubilizing the road vehicle carbon deposits.
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for an engine-cleaning composition to include a cetane number modifying additive such as di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP) to modify the cetane number of the cleaning composition. See GRIEVE at pg. 13 line 6-8.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA to incorporate di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP), with reasonable expectation of modifying the cetane number. First, DTBP has the benefit of modifying the cetane number of an engine-cleaning composition; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate DTBP. Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for an engine-cleaning composition to include DTBP (see GRIEVE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The DTBP as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., modify cetane number), thus yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of BARTLEY, YOSHIMURA, and GRIEVE: the selected terpene(s) would be mixed with DTBP; and the resulting mixture would be used to remove carbon deposits, i.e., the step of solubilizing is solubilizing at least some of the road vehicle carbon deposits in the induction system and the combustion chambers with liquid droplets of the mixture of the selected at least one terpene and the DTBP.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA teaches the method as set forth in Claim 3. As explained above, the combination teaches selecting at least one terpene from alpha-pinene, beta-pinene, p-cymene, camphene, terpinene, and terpinolene.
The combination does not explicitly teach that the selected terpene(s) are “mixed with di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP).”
But it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for an engine-cleaning composition to include a cetane number modifying additive such as di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP) to modify the cetane number of the cleaning composition. See GRIEVE at pg. 13 line 6-8.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of BARTLEY and YOSHIMURA to incorporate di-tert-butyl peroxide (DTBP), with reasonable expectation of modifying the cetane number. First, DTBP has the benefit of modifying the cetane number of an engine-cleaning composition; given this benefit, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate DTBP. Second, it’s well understood, routine, and conventional for an engine-cleaning composition to include DTBP (see GRIEVE). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A. The DTBP as incorporated would serve the same function as before (e.g., modify cetane number), thus yielding predictable results.
In the resulting combination of BARTLEY, YOSHIMURA, and GRIEVE: the selected terpene(s) would be mixed with DTBP.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached on (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights