DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Serodio (U.S. Publication 2022/0370965).
Regarding claim 1, Serodio teaches a method for producing thermodynamically stable microemulsion (paragraph 17 teaches a thermodynamically stable microemulsion) hydro-fuel (figures 8, 8A and paragraph 8 teaches a water in fuel emulsion which is considered reading on a hydro-fuel) comprising: providing at least one base fuel (figure 8A item 12F inlet feeds, paragraph 94 fuel line 29b is considered providing a base fuel ); adding at least one surfactant to said base fuel (paragraph 95 teaches nozzles 19a and 20a provide a surfactant to the fuel); mixing said at least one base fuel and said at least surfactant in a stationary mixer to form a fuel and surfactant blend (paragraph 95 teaches dosing surfactant into the mixture, materials are mixed in conduit 290g, paragraph 46, 47 teach figure 8 and 8a as a static mixer which is considered reading on a stationary mixer ); adding water to said fuel and surfactant blend (paragraph 97 teaches nozzle 221 for dosing water into the mixture); mixing said water and said fuel and surfactant blend to produce said hydro-fuel (paragraph 98 teaches inline water in fuel which is considered reading on said hydro-fuel). Regarding claim 1, while Serodio teaches a hydrophilic-lipophilic difference greater than zero (see paragraph 29), Serodio is silent to a specific value in the claimed range. Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary the HLD number to obtain the desired emulsion.
Regarding claim 3, Serodio teaches wherein said water is purified before said step of adding water to said fuel and surfactant blend (paragraph 181 teaches deionized water or demineralized water which is considered reading on purified water).
Regarding claim 4, Serodio teaches wherein said water is purified by at least one of the following methods: desalination, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, distillation or deionization (paragraph 181 teaches deionization).
Regarding claim 5, Serodio teaches wherein said base fuel comprises at least one of the following: diesel, gasoline, heavy fuel oil, marine fuels, kerosene, jet fuel, biodiesel, renewable diesel or synthetic e-fuel (paragraph 9 teaches biodiesel and renewable diesel).
Regarding claim 6, Serodio teaches measuring at least one quality of said thermodynamically stable microemulsion hydro-fuel (paragraph 183 teaches adjusting the lipophilic formulation which is considered a quality of said hydro-fuel and inherently requires a way to measure the formulation, paragraph 52 teaches sensors to monitor predetermined operating parameters); and comparing said measured quality against at least one predetermined value (paragraph 183 teaches achieving predetermined operation parameters which is considered inherently requiring measuring and comparing a current value to a predetermined value in order to achieve said predetermined operational parameters).
Regarding claim 7, Serodio teaches a method for producing thermodynamically stable microemulsion (paragraph 17 teaches a thermodynamically stable microemulsion) hydro-fuel (figures 8, 8A and paragraph 8 teaches a water in fuel emulsion which is considered reading on a hydro-fuel) comprising: providing at least one premix (the premix is considered fluid upstream of item 221), wherein said premix comprises a blend of at least one base fuel (paragraph 94, material upstream of item 221 include a fuel from item 12f) and at least one surfactant (material upstream of item 221 includes surfactant from item 19a, 20a, see paragraph 95 ); adding water to said premix (paragraph 97 teaches nozzle 221 for dosing water into the mixture); and mixing said water and said premix in at least one stationary mixer (paragraph 41 teaches as static mixer) to produce said thermodynamically stable microemulsion hydro-fuel (paragraph 98 teaches inline water in fuel which is considered reading on said hydro-fuel). Regarding claim 7, while Serodio teaches a hydrophilic-lipophilic difference greater than zero (see paragraph 29), Serodio is silent to a specific value in the claimed range. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary the HLD number to obtain the desired emulsion.
Regarding claim 9, Serodio teaches wherein said water is purified before said step of adding water to said premix (paragraph 181 teaches deionized water or demineralized water which is considered reading on purified water).
Regarding claim 10, Serodio teaches wherein said water is purified by at least one of the following methods: desalination, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, distillation or deionization (paragraph 181 teaches deionization).
Regarding claim 11, Serodio teaches wherein said base fuel comprises at least one of the following: diesel, gasoline, heavy fuel oil, marine fuels, kerosene, jet fuel, biodiesel, renewable diesel or synthetic e-fuel (paragraph 9 teaches biodiesel and renewable diesel).
Regarding claim 12, Serodio teaches measuring at least one quality of said hydro-fuel (paragraph 183 teaches adjusting the lipophilic formulation which is considered a quality of said thermodynamically stable micro-emulsion hydro-fuel and inherently requires a way to measure the formulation, paragraph 52 teaches sensors to monitor predetermined operating parameters); and comparing said measured quality against at least one predetermined value (paragraph 183 teaches achieving predetermined operation parameters which is considered inherently requiring measuring and comparing a current value to a predetermined value in order to achieve said predetermined operational parameters).
Regarding claim 13, Serodio teaches an in-line blending apparatus for producing thermodynamically stable (paragraph 17 teaches a thermodynamically stable microemulsion) microemulsion hydro-fuel (figure 8a, the materials being worked upon are considered intended use) comprising: a) a first fluid conduit having an inlet configured to receive at least one base fuel (inlet proximate item 29b is an inlet considered capable of receiving a fuel, paragraph 94 teaches a fuel line); b) an inlet configured to receive at least one surfactant into said fluid conduit (inlet from which item 19a and 20a feed proximate item 290h, paragraph 94 teaches feeding a surfactant); c) a pump configured to pump said at least one base fluid and said at least one surfactant through a first static mixer (item 33 is considered reading on a first static mixer, paragraph 121 teaches the use of a fuel pump to pump material into the mixer device); d) a second conduit configured to receive effluent from said first static mixer (conduit proximate item 290g upstream of item 33); e) an inlet configured to receive mix water into said second conduit (opening into 290g in which water is fed, paragraph 97 teaches water is fed via nozzle 221); f) a second stationary mixer configured to mix said mix water with said fuel and surfactant blend to produce said thermodynamically stable microemulsion hydro-fuel (item 34 is considered reading on a secondary mixer which mixes the water injected at item 221 plus the base fuel and water injected upstream). Regarding claim 13, while Serodio teaches a hydrophilic-lipophilic difference greater than zero (see paragraph 29), Serodio is silent to a specific value in the claimed range. Regarding claim 13, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to vary the HLD number to obtain the desired emulsion.
Regarding claim 14, Serodio teaches wherein said mix water is purified by at least one of the following methods: desalination, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, distillation or deionization (while the water is considered the material worked upon by the in-line blending apparatus, paragraph 181 teaches deionization).
Regarding claim 15, Serodio teaches wherein said base fuel comprises at least one of the following: diesel, gasoline, heavy fuel oil, marine fuels, kerosene, jet fuel, biodiesel, renewable diesel or synthetic e-fuel (while the fuel is considered the material worked upon by the in-liner blending apparatus, paragraph 9 teaches biodiesel and renewable diesel).
Regarding claim 16, Serodio teaches wherein said apparatus is disposed on a vehicle (paragraph 40 teaches the use of a vehicle such as a truck for use in producing the microemulsion).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serodio (U.S. Publication 2022/0370965) in view of Gregory (U.S. Publication 2004/0040615).
Regarding claim 17, Serodio teaches the in-line mixing apparatus disposed on a vehicle (paragraph 40 teaches the use of a vehicle such as a truck for use in producing the microemulsion). Regarding claim 17, Serodio is silent to the vehicle specifically being a marine vehicle on a body of water. Regarding claim 17, Gregory teaches a preparing a hydro-fuel (paragraph 26, the fuel and water are considered reading on a hydro-fuel) with fuel (paragraph 18), surfactant (paragraph 19), water (paragraph 1) disposed on a marine vessel (paragraph 8 teaches a marine vessel). Regarding claim 17, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Serodio with the vehicle of Gregory in order to allow for transportation of the fuel mixture over water.
Regarding claim 18, the source of water is considered intended use of the in-line mixing apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Serdio (U.S. Publication 2022/0370965) teaches nano emulsions which are not considered thermodynamically stable. However, Serdio teaches microemulsions, and specifically teaches thermodynamically stable microemulsions (paragraph 17).
Applicant argues that claims 1, 7 and 13 additionally have been amended to include that at least one surfactant comprises an HLD value in the range of -3 to +3. However, paragraph 29 teaches an HLD value greater than 0 for microemulsions. And therefore, it’s considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the HDL value to obtain the desired emulsion. A new ground of rejection is provided, necessitated by amendment.
The remarks regarding the remaining claims are based off the remarks regarding claims 1, 7, and 13 and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
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 ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774