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 .
The amendment dated 06/30/2026 has been considered and entered. The amendment overcomes the previous rejections based on indefiniteness and obviousness double patenting, which are hereby withdrawn. New grounds of rejections are made below as necessitated by the amendment.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. The claim recites jet fuel from a non-conventional source which is ambiguous as what constitutes a non-conventional source or a non-conventional jet fuel is not defined in the specification. While conventional sources are specifically defined in the specification, it is unclear what fuels would fall into the non-conventional jet fuel sources, gasoline, diesel, alcohol, gas oil, or any one of myriads of known fuels? Applicant does not provide any hydrocarbon chain length for defining what fuels fall into the category of jet fuels from which one may exclude the defined conventional jet fuels from the claimed non-conventional jet fuel.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginestra et al. (US 2018/0230392)
In regards to claim 1, Ginestra recites blending of synthetic cyclo-paraffinic kerosene fuel component comprising at least 99.5% hydrocarbon content and at least 50% cyclo-paraffinic into kerosene base fuel to provide a jet fuel or rocket fuel (abstract). The composition comprises a) a kerosene base fuel, and b) a synthetic cycloparaffinic kerosene fuel which is present at 1 to 97 vol.% of the blend which provides the limitation of the synthetic jet boiling range fraction having less than 80% isoparaffin a) of the claim, and thus providing a calculated amount of the remainder of the kerosene base fuel of from 3 to 99 vol. % [0011, 0086].
The kerosene base fuel can be isoparaffin, i.e., isopar and thus provides the limitation of the isoparaffinic blend of the claim [0046]. The jet fuel has freezing point of the claim [0032, 0039]. The composition has T10 distillation temperature of between 185 and 210℃ and the distillation endpoint (i.e., final boiling point) of 274℃ in one embodiment [0039]. In Table 5, the fuel comprises cycloparaffins, paraffins, aromatics, PNA, and unclassified components which had a C8-C18 hydrocarbon fraction at 98.5 wt.% and C19+ of 0.4 wt. % for the SK fraction post fractionation 2 Pass HT [0129].
In regard to claim 2, Ginestra teaches the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regard to claim 3, Ginestra teaches the composition wherein the synthetic component is bio-derived [0040].
In regard to claim 4, Ginestra teaches the composition having the bio-derived synthetic cycloparaffinic kerosene fuel which appears to provide the non-conventional source of the claim.
In regard to claim 5, Ginestra teaches the composition having the claimed limitation as previously stated.
In regard to claim 6, Ginestra teaches the composition having the kerosene base fuel which appears to provide conventional jet fuel in the claimed amounts.
In regard to claims 7, 8, Ginestra teaches the fuel having similar ingredients and in amounts overlapping the claimed range and would be expected to have similar properties as claimed.
In regard to claim 9, Ginestra teaches fuel having aromatics components of 0.5% after a 2 Pass HT (Table 5).
In regard to claim 10, Ginestra teaches the composition having the claimed limitation (Table 5).
In regard to claim 11, Ginestra teaches the composition which can comprise isopar (isoparaffinic component) which appears to provide the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 12, Ginestra teaches the jet fuel composition which appears to meet the claimed limitation.
In regard to claim 13, Ginestra teaches the composition which can comprise kerosene base fuel having C8 to C18 hydrocarbon at calculated amounts of from 3 to 97% as previously discussed. Thus, C8 hydrocarbons are not required and even when present as the only hydrocarbon in the base fuel, could be present at 3%.
In regard to claims 14 – 20, Ginestra teaches the composition having the claimed limitations as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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