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 18/707762 application originally filed May 06, 2024.
Amended claims 1-14, filed July 21, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II claims 7-13 in the reply filed on July 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 21, 2025.
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) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kar et al. (US 20210363445) hereinafter “Kar”.
Regarding Claims 7-13
Kar discloses in the paragraph 0002, marine fuel compositions having high naphthenic content and low aromatic content, such as marine fuel oils, marine gas oils, and methods for forming such fuel compositions.
Kar discloses in paragraph 0015, a fuel composition comprising: 5 vol % to 60 vol % of a distillate fraction and 40 vol % to 95 vol % of a resid-containing fraction, wherein the resid-containing fraction comprises a T90 distillation point of 550° C or more, a kinematic viscosity at 50° C of 40 cSt to 150 cSt, a sulfur content of 0.2 wt % or less, a BMCI of 40 or less, and a weight ratio of aliphatic sulfur to total sulfur of 0.2 or more.
Kar discloses in paragraph 0040, various blending components can be added to an atmospheric or vacuum resid fraction to form low carbon intensity marine fuels with unexpectedly high ratios of naphthenes to aromatics and unexpectedly low sulfur contents. In some aspects, at least a portion of the blend components can correspond to renewable blending components. Kar further discloses in paragraph 0149, another potential blending route for low carbon intensity vacuum gas oils can be to blend a vacuum gas oil with a conventional resid fraction to form low sulfur or very low sulfur fuel oils. The low density of these low carbon intensity vacuum gas oils means that they could be used to correct density in a blend, thereby expanding the use of high density component such as LCO, HCO, FCC bottoms, and visbreaker tars for making marine fuel oils.
Kar discloses in paragraph 0058, moreover, when the second component is at least one hydrocarbon residue chosen from a vacuum residue and a visbreaking residue, it was observed in a surprising manner that the fatty acid alkyl esters have an effect on the pour point of the mixture (typically determined according to the standard ISO 3016-2019) greater than the effect provided by fluxants of petroleum origin usually used. In particular, the difference between the pour point of the first component of fatty acid alkyl esters and the pour point of the mixture increases with the content of first component of the mixture, this difference being greater in absolute value than the difference in absolute value between the pour point of a fluxant of petroleum origin and the pour point of a mixture of this fluxant of petroleum origin with the second component (in other words, for a mixture in which the first component has been replaced by a fluxant of petroleum origin). This effect is greater for the visbreaking residues than for the vacuum residues.
Kar discloses in paragraph 0053, renewable blending components can correspond to renewable distillate and/or vacuum gas oil and/or vacuum resid boiling range components that are renewable based on one or more attributes. Some renewable blending components can correspond to components that are renewable based on being of biological origin. Examples of renewable blending components of biological origin can include, but are not limited to, fatty acid methyl esters (FAME), fatty acid alkyl esters, biodiesel, biomethanol, biologically derived dimethyl ether, oxymethylene ether, liquid derived from biomass, pyrolysis products from pyrolysis of biomass, products from gasification of biomass, and hydrotreated vegetable oil.
Kar further discloses in paragraph 0126, as shown in Table 2, low carbon intensity fuel oils that satisfy the specifications for an RMD80 fuel oil can be formed with blends ranging from 5 vol % to 60 vol % in biodiesel (fatty acid alkyl esters, FAME), with the balance (40 vol % to 95 vol %) corresponding to low carbon intensity atmospheric resid. Because of the low sulfur content, density, and kinematic viscosity of the low carbon intensity atmospheric resid fractions, even addition of 5 vol % of biodiesel can result in a blend with satisfactory properties. Additionally, addition of 5 vol % or 10 vol % of biodiesel can be sufficient to form a blended fuel oil product with a pour point of 30 or less. More generally, low carbon fuels can be formed that include 5 wt % to 95 wt % of a shale oil atmospheric resid having a high naphthene to aromatic ratio and a low sulfur content. Also more generally, any convenient type of renewable distillate can be used, such as biodiesel, hydrotreated vegetable oil, or another convenient distillate boiling range fraction derived from a renewable source.
It is to be noted, Kar fails to specifically a viscosity having 15 to 75% lower than a viscosity based on the calculated formula(s) of the presently claimed invention.
However, Kar does specifically teach it is known in the art to blend renewable distillates with resid-containing fractions in order to maintain or lower kinematic viscosities, sulfur content and intensity of the fuel.
Therefore, through the teachings of Kar, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to blend the effective amount of renewable distillates, i.e. biodiesel (FAME), with resid-containing fractions of Kar to achieve the result of maintaining or lower kinematic viscosities within the claimed reduction percentage of the calculated kinematic viscosities using the claimed formula(s), as shown in the teachings of Kar, specifically Table 2 of Kar. 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.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guay et al. (US 2022/0169934) discloses in the abstract, provided are marine fuels or fuel blending compositions, methods of making such fuels or compositions and methods of potentially reducing the life cycle carbon intensity of marine fuels or a fuel blending compositions. The marine fuel or fuel blending composition disclosed herein includes at least 20 vol % of a resid-containing fraction, and from 5 vol % to 80 vol % of one or more renewable fuel blending components. The one or more renewable fuel blending components includes one or more fatty acid alkyl esters. Optionally the one or more renewable fuel blending components may include gas-to-liquid hydrocarbons from renewable synthesis gas, hydrotreated natural fat or oil, hydrotreated waste cooking oil, hydrotreated tall oil, pyrolysis gas oil, or combinations thereof. Optionally, the resulting marine fuel or fuel blending composition can have a BMCI−TE difference value of 15 or less.
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