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 19/018692 application originally filed January 23, 2025.
Amended claims 1-7 and 17-25, filed June 10, 2025, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 10, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 and 17-25 in the reply filed on June 10, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that similarly, examining the two groups does not impost a serious search burden. The two groups share the same technical subject matter (renewable marine fuel blends comprising BDTB and/or renewable diesel having at least 70% n-paraffins), (the unexpectedly high solubility number, the use of bio-derived residues and high-cloud renewable diesel as marine blendstocks that do not compete with on-road markets), and the same prior-art landscape (marine fuel formulations under ISO 8217 and IMO 2020). The classifications cited by the Examiner are within the same C10L1 subclass and would be searched using the same keywords, the same CPC text searches, and the same non-patent literature databases (ASTM/EN marine fuel standards, biodiesel processing literature). Any prior art reading on the composition claims of Group I would necessarily be considered for the method claims of Group II, and vice versa. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement mailed May 05, 2026 sets forth a reason why a serious search burden would exist (that the inventions require acquire a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter) and applicant has merely asserted that a serious search burden would not exist due to the same technical subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1, 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kiiski et al. (WO 2020/109653 A1) hereinafter cited under US 2022/0033717 “Kiiski”.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7
Kiiski discloses in the abstract, a marine fuel blend comprising renewable hydrotreated fuel is disclosed. The present marine fuel blend is environmentally friendly and has good pour point and storage stability.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0014, a method of improving storage stability of marine fuel by blending a first marine fuel with renewable hydrotreated fuel. Preferably the first marine fuel is DMB type or RMB type quality marine fuel.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0025, marine fuel blend has properties that make it suitable for use as a marine fuel, and in particular for use where long term storage, arctic conditions, clean combustion, low sulphur emission and low carbon footprints are needed. The fuel blend is particularly useful for use in life-boats, ice breakers and auxiliary engines.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0052, DMB refers to distilled marine bunker or distilled marine fuel. RMB refers to residual type marine bunker or residual marine fuel. Both DMB and RMB type marine fuels comply with the standard ISO8217:2017.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0060, the marine fuel blend is of RMB type and comprises 0.5-50 wt-% renewable hydrotreated fuel. This range is particularly useful to obtain a strong synergistic effect in the pour point and storage stability.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0079, the renewable hydrotreated fuel complies with EN 15940:2016 for paraffinic diesel fuels.
Kiiski discloses in paragraphs 0071-0074, the renewable hydrotreated fuel feedstock may comprise: one or more free fatty acid distillates, such as palm fatty acid distillate and/or soya free fatty acid distillate; one or more free fatty acid containing bio based feedstock, such as crude and refined palm based oil, technical corn oil, tall oil, seed oil, animal fat, waste cooking oil, jatropha curcas oil, fish oil, microbial oil, and/or algae oil; by-products from fatty acid methyl ester and bio based chemicals production and/or oil derived from lignocellulosic biomass; and/or one or more lower molecular weight acids containing bio based feedstock such as pyrolysis oil and/or sludge palm oil.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0075, the renewable hydrotreated fuel the amount of the paraffinic component in the range of carbon number C15-C18 is at least 70 wt-%.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0077, optionally, in the renewable hydrotreated fuel the amount of the paraffinic components in the range of carbon number C3-C14 is less than 25 wt-%. Further, optionally in the renewable hydrotreated fuel the amount of the paraffinic components in the range of carbon number C19-C24 is less than 25 wt-%, such as less than 20 wt-%. The above distribution of paraffinic components is typical for the renewable hydrotreated fuel of the present invention. The flash point is determined with the amount of the light paraffinic components and sooting is minimized with the amount of heavier components.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0078, blend the renewable hydrotreated fuel in a desired amount with aromatic hydrocarbons, naphthenic hydrocarbons, a fossil fuel, and/or FAME (bio-diesel). However, preferably the marine fuel does not contain FAME, or its amount is kept very low, to achieve good long-term storage stability which results from oxidation of FAME.
Kiiski discloses in paragraph 0030, the marine fuel has a sulphur content of less than 0.5 wt-%.
The claimed invention is anticipated by the reference because the reference teaches a composition which comprises all of the claimed components. In the alternative, no patentable distinction is seen to exist between the reference and the claimed invention absent evidence to the contrary.
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).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The applied prior art fails to teach the combination of independent claim 1 and the claimed biodiesel distillation tower bottoms of dependent claims 3-5.
Claims 7-25 are allowed. The applied prior art fails to teach the a marine fuel or fuel blending composition comprising: a blend of heavy residual fuel oil and biodiesel distillation tower bottoms, wherein the composition comprises less than 3.5 wt.% sulfur, wherein the composition comprises 1.0 vol.% to 70 vol% of the biodiesel distillation tower bottoms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Plaza et al. (US 2008/0282606) discloses in the abstract, systems for producing a biodiesel product from multiple feedstocks may include a biodiesel reactor, a decanter, a flash evaporator and a distillation column. In other embodiments of the present invention, a process for producing a biodiesel comprises distilling a biodiesel reaction product to remove tocopherols and sterol glucosides and, optionally, adding biodiesel stabilizers to the resultant biodiesel to enhance thermal stability. The components of the system are interrelated so that parameters may be regulated to allow production of a custom biodiesel product.
Jin et al. (US 2013/0014431) discloses in the abstract, a fuel composition and the process of making the fuel composition are described. More specifically, a novel biomass derived low sulfur bunker fuels composition and the method of making thereof. Embodiment of the invention discloses a novel low sulfur bunker fuels composition derived from blending various bio-oil with other heavy residual fuel oils and distillates where final sulfur content and carbon intensity is controlled by the ratio of bio-oil to other heavy residual fuel oils and distillates. Embodiment of the invention also discloses a process of making a novel biomass derived low sulfur bunker fuels by blending various bio-oil with other heavy residual fuel oils and distillates.
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
Prosecution Insights