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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDermott et al. (WO 2021/158757)
In regards to claim 1, McDermott teaches lubricating oil composition for internal combustion engines comprising a boron-containing additive and boron-free dispersant, magnesium detergent, ashless friction modifier etc. (title, abstract). The base oil can comprise at least 50% Group III base oil, the boron additive can be a boron containing succinimide dispersant, and the magnesium detergent delivers at least 300 ppm of magnesium according to limitation b) of the claim [0007]. The base oil is present in a major amount of the composition according to limitation a) of the claim [0013]. The base oil has a kinematic viscosity at 100℃ (Kv100) of from 2.4 to 6.4 mm2/s (cSt) [0015].
The boron compound is present at amounts to deliver 75 to 250 ppm of boron into the composition according to claimed limitation [0019]. Molybdenum dithiocarbamates is optionally present at amounts of from 0 to 1.1%, and thus provides the limitation of substantial absence as claimed [0050]. Ashless friction modifiers include fatty acid derivatives such as ester, i.e., long chain fatty acid monoester of triglycerides etc., and is present in amounts of from 0.01 to 1.1% by weight of the composition according to limitation c) of the claim [0051 – 0057]. Viscosity modifier is optional, and when present can be from 0.05 to 2% in the composition according to limitation d) of the claim [0085, 0116].
In regards to claim 2, McDermott teaches the composition having the claimed limitation.
In regards to claim 3, McDermott teaches the composition having long chain fatty acid monoesters of triglycerides which are well known to include glycerol monooleate which are quickly envisaged or are at least obvious.
In regards to claim 4, McDermott teaches the composition and the viscosity modifiers of the claim [0086].
In regards to claims 5 – 7, McDermott teaches the composition comprises borated and boron-free dispersants such as succinimide [0016, 0030].
In regards to claims 8 – 11, 13 – 15, McDermott teaches the composition for lubricating internal combustion engines and having the claimed ingredients. Thus, when the composition is added to the engine the method of improving fuel efficiency of the engine would be intrinsically performed.
In regards to claim 12, McDermott teaches composition for internal combustion engines. Roller follower valvetrains are typical in OHC (overhead cam) engines which are conventional in the art (see Boffa et al. US 2007/0142239). Thus, the composition of McDermott which are suitable for lubricating conventional engines would be suitable for engines having roller follower valvetrains.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm.
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.
/TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights