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 18/622546 application originally filed March 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20, filed May 05, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 05, 2026 has been entered.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata et al. (EP 3957707 A1) in view Serve (WO 2023/247891 A1) hereinafter cited under English Translation.
Regarding Claim 1
Obata discloses in the abstract, a fuel composition for a lean burn engine.
Obata discloses in paragraphs 0016-0040, the fuel composition comprises:
the content of normal paraffins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms may be, for example, 30 vol% or less, relative to the total amount of hydrocarbons having 4 to 6 carbon atoms;
the content of isoparaffins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms may be, for example, 20 vol% or more, relative to the total amount of hydrocarbons having 4 to 6 carbon atoms;
the content of olefins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms may be, for example, 5 vol% or more, relative to the total amount of hydrocarbons having 4 to 6 carbon atoms;
in the hydrocarbons having 4 to 6 carbon atoms, for example, normal paraffins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms, isoparaffins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms, olefins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms, and an aromatic compound having 6 carbon atoms (benzene) may be included. The aromatic content in the fuel composition is 25 vol% or less;
examples of the oxygen-containing aliphatic compounds include alcohols, ethers (for example, ethyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, ETBE (ethyl-tert-butyl ether)). In the fuel composition, the content of the oxygen-containing compound may be, for example, less than 50 vol%, relative to the total amount of the fuel composition.
Obata does not disclose the fuel composition having naphthenes and therefore Obata has met the limitation of the present invention of not exceeding 20% by volume of naphthenes (not exceeding 20 % by volume encompasses zero).
It is to be noted, Obata further discloses in paragraph 0029, the fuel composition may contain hydrocarbons having more than 6 carbon atoms in the amount of less than 50 vol% which fails to meet the presently claimed range of an amount of hydrocarbons having more than 6 carbon atoms is 70% or more by volume of the composition.
However, it is known in the art for a fuel composition to comprise hydrocarbons in a range of more than 70 vol%, as taught by Serve.
Serve discloses on page 2, a fuel composition intended for vehicles comprising a spark ignition engine (or gasoline engine), and which has particular properties.
Serve discloses on page 3 and 4, (i) from 70 to 95% by mass of a mixture of hydrocarbons. The composition contains a mixture (i) of hydrocarbons containing: a) from 5 to 30% by mass of aromatic compounds; b) from 50 to 90% by mass of non-cyclic paraffins containing at least 4 carbon atoms; and c) 1 to 15% by mass of naphthenes.
Serve discloses on page 4, the composition also contains non-cyclic paraffins (i)b) containing at least 4 carbon atoms. By “paraffins” we designate in a manner known per se branched alkanes (also called iso-paraffins or iso-alkanes) and unbranched alkanes (also called n-paraffins or n-alkanes). According to the invention, the non-cyclic paraffins (i)b) consist entirely of a mixture of n-paraffins and isoparaffins with a higher mass ratio of the quantity of iso-paraffins to the quantity of n-paraffins or equal to 8. Said paraffins (i)b) are preferably chosen from those comprising from 5 to 12 carbon atoms, more preferably from 5 to 10 carbon atoms.
The hydrocarbon mixture (i) advantageously contains the content of the paraffins (i)b) ranges from 50 to 90% by mass, more preferably from 60 to 80% by mass, relative to the mass of the hydrocarbon mixture (i).
It is to be noted, the paraffinic hydrocarbons of Serve overlap the paraffinic hydrocarbons of Obata and Serve further teaches the amount of hydrocarbons present in the fuel composition aid in improving the octane number.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art the amount of hydrocarbons present in the fuel composition can range to up to 100% depending on the hydrocarbon blend, as taught by Serve and Obata due to the amount of hydrocarbons present in the fuel composition aid in improving the octane number.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3
Obata discloses in paragraph 0005, to provide a fuel composition for a lean burn engine capable of expanding the lean limit of a lean burn engine.
Regarding Claim 4
Obata discloses in paragraph 0025, in the fuel composition of the present embodiment, the content of olefins having 4 to 6 carbon atoms may be, for example, 5 vol% or more, relative to the total amount of hydrocarbons having 4 to 6 carbon atoms.
Obata does not disclose the fuel composition having iso-olefins and therefore Obata has met the limitation of the present invention of not exceeding 20% by volume of iso-olefins (not exceeding 20 % by volume encompasses zero).
Regarding Claims 5-7
Obata discloses in paragraph 0037-0038, examples of the oxygen-containing aliphatic compounds include alcohols, ethers (for example, ethyl alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, ETBE (ethyl-tert-butyl ether)). In the fuel composition, the content of the oxygen-containing compound may be, for example, less than 50 vol%, relative to the total amount of the fuel composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “Serve makes no mention of selecting, among these C5-C12 iso-paraffins, the ones having more than six carbon atoms. Serve teaches that that is a percent of the hydrocarbons, which are in turn 70 % - 95 % by mass of the composition. The distinction between volume and mass is not addressed in the Advisory Action. Instead, the Advisory Action asserts that the 50 % to 90 % by mass C5-C12 iso-paraffins in Serve overlap with 70 % by volume of C5-C9 iso-paraffins, interpreting claim 1 to read on the hydrocarbons only being iso-paraffins.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. It is maintained, Obata modified by Serve discloses the claimed invention. Additionally, it is to be noted, the applied prior art references are not relied upon to teach the exact ranges of iso-paraffins, paraffins, olefins, naphthenes, oxygenates, hydrocarbons and aromatics due to the present rejection is a obviousness rejection based upon overlapping and/or within the claimed ranges. It is maintained, through the teachings of Obata modified by Serve the claimed invention has been disclosed with the applied references specifically disclosing the claimed carbon atoms in a concentration amount that is up to 100%. Therefore, Obata modified by Serve has met the limitations of claims 1-7 of the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilson et al. (EP 3218450 B1) discloses in paragraph 0015, a method of improving the power output in a spark ignition internal combustion engine using a liquid fuel composition comprising (a) a gasoline base fuel and (b) from 0.5 to 50% v/v of naphtha, preferably wherein the spark ignition internal combustion engine is comprised within the powertrain of a hybrid electric vehicle.
Dauphin et al. (US 2024/0218274) discloses in the abstract, a fuel composition comprising: (i) 60 to 94% by mass of a hydrocarbon mixture comprising: (a) 35 to 55% by mass of aromatic compounds; (b) 30 to 50% by mass of a mixture of n-paraffins and iso-paraffins containing at least 5 carbon atoms, with a ratio of the amount of iso-paraffins to the amount of n-paraffins greater than or equal to 3; and (c) 5 to 15% by mass of naphthenes; (ii) 5 to 36% by mass of ethanol; and (iii) 1 to 10% by mass of butane. This composition is useful for fueling a spark ignition engine in motor vehicles intended for use by the general public or in competition.
Price et al. (US 2018/0230391) discloses in the abstract, a gasoline fuel formulation which contains 60% v/v or more of a combination of (a) a biologically-derived alcohol and (b) a mixture of C4 to C12 hydrocarbon fuel components, all of which hydrocarbon fuel components have been derived, whether directly or indirectly, from catalytic conversion of a biologically-derived oxygenate component, wherein the concentration of the alcohol (a) in the formulation is from 0.1 to 30% v/v.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights