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 .
Response to Amendment
This is the response to amendment filed 02/24/2026 for application 18506536.
Claims 6-17 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Claims 1-5 have been cancelled.
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(s) 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TERRANOVA (U.S. 6065638) in view of BAJEK (U.S. 3,999,959) and CARPENTER et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0133754).
TERRANOVA teaches a real time blending apparatus and method.
Regarding claim 6, TERRANOVA teaches an apparatus for dispensing a blended fuel including first and second real time octane sensors in fluid communication with sources of low and high-octane blend components.
TERRANOVA teach in lines 37 -42 of column 1 that a low octane blend component is expected to have an octane of about 86 to 87 and a high-octane blend component is expected to have an octane of about 92 to 93.
Antiknock index is an average of motor octane number and research octane number.
One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the low octane blend component to have an antiknock index of about 86 to 87 and the high-octane blend component to have an antiknock index of about 92 to 93 respectively.
TERRANOVA teaches in lines 26-31 of column 2 that the apparatus and method allows for creating posted octane levels (assigned octane number)
The apparatus also includes first and second flow control valves in fluid communication with the first and second octane sensors respectively for independently controlling the flow rates of the low level and high-level blend components.
One embodiment is taught Fig 1, and lines 18-55 of column 4.
Low octane source 100 contains a low octane fuel blend component (regular octane gasoline) and high-octane source 200 contains a high-octane fuel blend component (premium octane gasoline).
Supply lines 101 (regular octane pipe) and 201 (premium octane pipe) have first and second real time octane sensors 310 and 312 and first and second flow control valves 306 (second valve that regulates the flowing of the premium octane pipe) and 308 (first valve that regulates the flowing of the premium octane pipe).
The first and second real time octane sensors 310 and 312 are taught in lines 4-14 of column 4 to be capable of determining the octane level and transmitting a signal to a dispenser controller or some other device. The dispenser controller is able to correct the blending process.
(periodically sampling the premium octane gasoline and the regular octane gasoline in the premium octane pipe and the regular octane pipe respectively)
The low octane fuel blend component and high-octane fuel blend components flow through supply lines 101 and 201 to a blend manifold 340.
BAJEK is relied on to teach supplying a butane source through a third pipe.
BAJEK teaches a motor fuel blending control system in which blend components are mixed together. The blend components include at least two gasoline streams, with 2 dissimilar octane ratings, are mixed with a butane-rich stream. BAJEK teaches in lines 56-69 of column 6, and lines 1-4 of column 7, that butane is introduced through a line and regulated with control valve 12.
BAJEK teaches in lines 54-68 of column 4 Reid vapor pressure is a measure of volatility that may be analyzed. BAJEK further teaches in lines 27-37 of column 1 that vapor pressure is a principal concern that must be addressed after octane rating. (predetermined volatility rating with the volatility rating being vapor pressure)
As shown in Fig 1, the individual properties of octane number or vapor pressure measurements of the butane is not individually measured and sent to be analyzed.
Furthermore, ethanol and butane both inherently have a vapor pressure rating.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a source of butane and introduce it through a line with a control valve (third valve) to the apparatus that TERRANOVA teaches.
The motivation to do so can be found in lines 27-45 of column 1 of BAJEK. BAJEK teaches that the addition of butane is a technique that can be used to achieve the desired vapor pressure.
BAJEK is also relied on to teach obtaining both research octane numbers and motor octane numbers.
BAJEK teaches that multiple characteristics may be analyzed, and monitored.
BAJEK teaches in lines 53-68 of column 4 that the characteristics include research octane numbers and motor octane numbers.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust or modify the octane sensors that are in TERRANOVA to collect both research octane numbers and motor octane numbers.
The motivation to do so can be found in lines 27-45 of column 1 of BAJEK. BAJEK teaches that a principal consideration of motor fuel blending is octane and volatility. Collecting the research octane numbers and motor octane numbers would afford more information to adjust the blending amounts of gasolines and butane to reach the desired octane and volatility.
BAJEK teaches in lines 27-45 of column 1 that vapor pressure is a consideration for gasolines and teaches in Fig 1 analyzing both octane and volatility with separate monitors.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect vapor pressure as a characteristic alongside the octane sensors for the supply lines for regular octane source and high-octane source in the apparatus that TERRANOVA teach.
CARPENTER is relied on to teach a pipe for flowing ethanol with a fourth valve for regulating the flow of ethanol.
CARPENTER teaches preparation and optimization of oxygenated gasolines.
CARPENTER teaches in paragraph 26 that oxygenates may be added that are alcohols, such as ethanols.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a pipe for flowing ethanol with a fourth valve for regulating flow of the ethanol.
The motivation to do so can be found in paragraph 7 of CARPENTER. Oxygenates have high octane and are a more economical source of gasoline.
Ethanol and butane both have inherent values for octane number and volatility ratings such as vapor pressure. These inherent values would be accounted for in regards to initial dispensing prior to adjusting the amounts as well as adjustments throughout the process (assigned values for an octane rating and volatility value for each of butane and ethanol).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, BAJEK teaches in lines 15-23 of column 5 that volatility characteristics that may be collected include boiling points, vapor/liquid ratios and vapor pressure.
Regarding claim 8, BAJEK teaches in lines 54-68 of column 4 Reid vapor pressure is a measure of volatility that may be analyzed.
Measuring, analyzing and adjusting blend ratios to meet the specifications of gasolines would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, CARPENTER teaches in paragraph 30 that one property to be monitored includes 50 percent distillation.
Measuring, analyzing and adjusting blend ratios to meet the specifications of gasolines would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 10-11, TERRANOVA teaches in lines 33-55 of column 4 that signals 314 and 316 are sent to dispenser electronics with a site controller to modify the flow rates (same analyzer).
CARPENTER teaches in paragraph 37 analyzing using infrared and with automated means.
It would be well within one of ordinary skill in the art to automate the site controller with infrared means in analyzing the characteristics such as octane and adjusting the flow rates accordingly.
Regarding claims 12, TERRANOVA teaches flow meters 302 and 304 (first and second receptable) for low octane blend component and high-octane blend component respectively.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to flow the butane and ethanol into the flow meters 302 and 304 in modified TERRANOVA.
CARPENTER teaches in paragraphs 29-32 analyzing and then adjusting based on spectra data and creating a model. Ethanol and butane both have inherent values for octane number and volatility ratings such as vapor pressure. These inherent values would be accounted for in regards to initial dispensing prior to adjusting the amounts as well as adjustments throughout the process (assigned octane value and volatility value for each of butane and ethanol).
Regarding claim 13, CARPENTER teaches in paragraphs 29-32 analyzing and then adjusting based on spectra data and creating a model. Automating a manual process has been held to be obvious.
Regarding claim 14, TERRANOVA teaches a flow-meters 302 and 304 that may be construed as a first analyzer cell and a second analyzer cell.
Regarding claim 15, the values of butane and ethanol in regards to octane numbers and vapor pressure are known in the art.
Regarding claim 16, BAJEK teaches in lines 54-68 of column 4 Reid vapor pressure is a measure of volatility that may be analyzed. CARPENTER teaches in paragraph 30 that one property to be monitored includes 50 percent distillation.
Regarding claim 17, TERRANOVA does teach in lines 37 -42 of column 1 that a low octane blend component is expected to have an octane of about 86 to 87 and a high-octane blend component is expected to have an octane of about 92 to 93. The mid octane blend would be expected to be between the low octane and high octane and be from 88-91.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists wherein the claimed ranges overlap.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “assigned value” for the octane number of ethanol is not equivalent to the inherent octane value of ethanol.
Applicant argues that the “assigned value” for the octane number of butane is not equivalent to the inherent octane value of butane.
Applicant references multiple items in the declaration filed 06/13/2025 that applicant believes demonstrate that the “assigned value” for ethanol can vary at any given fuel blending terminal and based on variations in molecular composition.
Applicant points out in item 8 that that the molecular content of a given neat gasoline can vary significantly depending on the refinery that produced it.
Examiner agrees that a given neat gasoline molecular content can vary significantly and have a different chemical composition.
Applicant points out in item 9 that blending 10% ethanol with neat gasolines with different molecular content can have a highly variable effect on the final octane of the final blend.
Examiner agrees that blending 10% ethanol with gasolines of different chemical composition may arrive at a different final octane of the final blend.
Applicant points out in item 10 that blending increasing amounts of ethanol with different chemical classes reveals non-linear increases. Applicant concludes that the inherent value of ethanol is not necessarily equivalent to the “assigned value” for octane for ethanol.
This is not persuasive as the inherent octane value of ethanol does not change. The effect of the ethanol on different chemical compositions results in different final octane for different blends.
Applicant further argues that similar reasoning for “assigned value” of butane not being the inherent value of butane.
Applicant references multiple items in the declaration filed 06/13/2025 that applicant believes demonstrate that the “assigned value” for butane can vary.
Applicant points out in item 12 that the butane isomer ratio of certified butane used for butane blending may vary significantly based on geographically distinct fuel blending terminals.
This is not persuasive as applicant is suggesting that different chemical compositions of butanes and isomers of butane would have different chemical properties. This is not germane to the inherent octane value of butane specifically.
Applicant points out in item 13 that isobutane has a much higher octane value than n-butane and that the octane number of commercial butane supplies for gasoline blending varies widely.
This is not persuasive as an inherent value for the butane streams still exist. For example, BAJEK teaches a mixed butane-rich stream in lines 30-52 of column 3 that has an octane rating of 90.0 to about 100.2.
The present claims are explicitly directed toward “assigned values for an octane number and a volatility value for each of the ethanol and the butane”
The present specification also does not define the term “assigned value” or “assigned octane value”
The discussion in the specification that addresses the term “assigned value” is in paragraph 63 in the context of it being a value that may be preprogrammed.
Recognizing that ethanol and a butane-rich stream individually have inherent octane values is accounting for assigned values of ethanol and a butane-rich stream.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The combination of TERRANOVA (U.S. 6065638) in view of BAJEK (U.S. 3,999,959) and CARPENTER et al. (USPGPUB 2013/0133754) is relied on to address the present claims.
BAJEK and CARPENTER et al. are being relied on to teach modifying TERANOVA.
BAJEK teaches specifically a butane rich stream with specific properties. BAJEK teaches that a principal consideration of motor fuel blending is octane and volatility. The single butane rich stream employed would have a known octane and vapor pressure.
BAJEK provides the motivation to add butane to adjust for vapor pressure (volatility rating).
CARPENTER provides the motivation to add ethanol as an oxygenate with high octane for adjusting octane numbers.
It is emphasized that ethanol and butane streams both have inherent values for octane number and volatility such as vapor pressure. These inherent values would be accounted for in regards to initial dispensing prior to adjusting the amounts given that they, the ethanol and butane streams, are used specifically for adjusting vapor pressure and octane numbers.
Both BAJEK and CARPENTER teach measuring properties of a blended composition and then adjusting amounts supplied based and the measurements.
Applicant argues there would be undue experimentation in obtaining the octane values of the butane streams is not persuasive given that the octane value of the butane stream would be known and chosen based on the known values.
TERRANOVA is the primary reference and teaches monitoring the octane level of components and ensuring that the blended components available in the on-site fuel storage tanks are capable of creating the posted octane levels.
Applicant argues that TERRANOVA only teaches active measuring and not on “assigned” (unmeasured) values for any fuel blend component.
This is not persuasive as ensuring that the blended components available in the on-site fuel storage tanks are capable of creating the posted octane levels does not only have to be by active measurement. The blending components are previously chosen for use as a component.
The “assigned value” for ethanol or a butane stream may be known beforehand and chosen for use as a blending component.
It is emphasized that ethanol and butane streams both have inherent values for octane number and volatility such as vapor pressure. These inherent values would be accounted for in regards to initial dispensing prior to adjusting the amounts given that they, the ethanol and butane streams, are used specifically for adjusting vapor pressure and octane numbers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WEBER et al. (U.S. 3,383,190) teach a fuel blending system in which 3 different tank components are fed into a blending tank.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MING CHEUNG PO whose telephone number is (571)270-5552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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 at 5712726381. 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.
/MING CHEUNG PO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/ELLEN M MCAVOY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights