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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment file July 10, 2026 in which claims 1, 7, and 13 were amended.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112 is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claims 2, 8 and 14 and the amendment to claim 13.
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 3, 4, 9, 10 and 15-16 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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected because claim 1 does not provide proper antecedent support for the compounds recited in these claims. Applicant has amended claim 1 by deleting the carrier fluid.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected because claim 7 does not provide proper antecedent support for the compounds recited in these claims. Applicant has amended claim 7 by deleting the carrier fluid.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected because claim 13 does not provide proper antecedent support for the compounds recited in these claims. Applicant has amended claim 13 by deleting the carrier fluid.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,261,441 in view of Dubeck (US 3,849,083) with Hashimoto (US 5,298,038) as an evidentiary reference.
GB teaches a fuel composition comprising gasoline, a polyoxyalkylene compound and a nitrogen-containing detergent (see abstract). The nitrogen-containing detergent/dispersant is many of the common detergent/dispersants used in fuel compositions (see page 4-page 7). The polyoxyalkylene compound has the formula R1-(R2-O)n-R3 where R1 is H, OH, alkyl (C1- 200 C atoms), aryl (up to 200 C atoms), R2 is alkylene having 2-10 carbon atoms, R3 is H, OH, alkyl(1-200 C atoms), aryl (up to 200 C atoms) and n is from 1-500 (see page 7, line 27 through page 8, lines 1-6).
The composition may contain an antioxidant such as 2-tert-butylphenol (meets the limitations of the claimed carrier fluid) (see page 10, lines 3-8). The additives may be prepared as a concentrate (see page 12, lines 9-20). GB teaches that the additive composition may be employed in gasoline or diesel fuels (see page 12, lines 21-24). Example 1 is a concentrate that contains the components. GB teaches that the additives are present in the fuel in an amount of less than 3000 ppm (see page 13, lines 1-8). GB meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
GB fails to teach the amine-based detergent of the formula R4-O (CH2)y NHR5. However, Dubeck meets this limitation.
Dubeck teaches a gasoline containing ether amines of the formula R-O-L-NH2 wherein R is C8-C30 alkyl and L is (CH2)3. The ether amines reduce or remove undesirable deposits in the engine (see col. 1, lines 5-13). The ether amines are used in amounts from 5-4000 ppm (see col. 7, lines 25-28). Hashimoto teaches that the ether amines of Dubeck, which are used as a cleaning agent for the carburetor, also provide some cleaning action on engine intake systems (see col. 1, lines 46-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ether amines in fuel compositions such as GB because GB is concerned with controlling engine deposits and Dubeck teaches that ether amines reduce or remove undesirable deposits in engines.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,261,441 in view of WO 9010051.
GB teaches a fuel composition comprising gasoline, a polyoxyalkylene compound and a nitrogen-containing detergent (see abstract). The nitrogen-containing detergent/dispersant is many of the common detergent/dispersants used in fuel compositions (see page 4-page 7). The polyoxyalkylene compound has the formula R1-(R2-O)n-R3 where R1 is H, OH, alkyl (C1- 200 C atoms), aryl (up to 200 C atoms), R2 is alkylene having 2-10 carbon atoms, R3 is H, OH, alkyl(1-200 C atoms), aryl (up to 200 C atoms) and n is from 1-500 (see page 7, line 27 through page 8, lines 1-6).
The composition may contain an antioxidant such as 2-tert-butylphenol (meets the limitations of the claimed carrier fluid) (see page 10, lines 3-8). The additives may be prepared as a concentrate (see page 12, lines 9-20). GB teaches that the additive composition may be employed in gasoline or diesel fuels (see page 12, lines 21-24). Example 1 is a concentrate that contains the components. GB teaches that the additives are present in the fuel in an amount of less than 3000 ppm (see page 13, lines 1-8). GB meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
GB fails to teach the amine-based detergent of the formula R4-O (CH2)y NHR5. However, WO meets this limitation.
WO teaches a motor fuel composition comprising (1) a gasoline suitable for combustion in a spark-ignited internal combustion automotive engine, and (2) an intake valve deposit controlling amount of an additive comprising one or more C6+ aliphatic primary amines, one or more gasoline dispersants selected from the group consisting of polyalkylamines and Mannich bases, and a nonvolatile fluidizer oil (see abstract). WO teaches that in addition to the alkyl amines that ether amines of the form R-O-R’-NH2 are also suitable for use as the detergent constituent of its invention. R and R’ are hydrocarbyl of 2 to about 20 carbon atoms (see page 6, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ether amines in fuel compositions such as GB because GB is concerned with controlling engine deposits and WO teaches that ether amines reduce or remove undesirable deposits in engines.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to independent claims 1, 7 and 13 reciting that the carrier fluid comprises hydrocarbyl phenol renders the rejections moot.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. GB teaches the addition of hydrocarbyl phenols which meet the limitation of the claims wherein the hydrocarbyl group contains 4 carbon atoms (2-tert-butylphenol).
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 CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18697891/20260825
Prosecution Insights