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 03/23/2026 has been considered and entered. The amendment cancels claim 1 which overcomes the previous rejection of the claim. The amendment recites the values for x and n which overcomes the previous rejections based on indefiniteness and which are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claim 2 – 10, 15 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (WO 2021/090021)
In regards to claim 2, Ross teaches fuel composition and additive comprising diesel fuel or gasoline fuel for engines, and the additive is a reaction product of a polycarboxylic acid and an alcohol having 5 or more carbon atoms (abstract, page 1 lines 3 – 7). The composition comprises an additive which is a reaction product of polycarboxylic compound having a formula (I) which is analogous to the compound in the claim (page 5 lines 25 – 33). The polycarboxylic acids includes acids such as itaconic acid, etc. and anhydrides or isomers (page 7 lines 30 – 36).
The fuel composition and additive are useful in engines turbocharged with EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) as claim (page 51, Example 4). The alcohol is a monohydric or polyhydric alcohol, and monohydric alcohols are preferred (page 11 lines 1, 2). The monohydric alcohol can be straight or branched with a structure of CH3(CH2)xOH where x is 4 to 23 and includes hexanol, octanol, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol etc. (page 13 lines 15 – 22, page 21 lines 27 – 35). Ross teaches reduction of deposits with the composition (page 4 lines 17 – 21). When the additive and fuel is used in the EGR system the same properties of reduction of deposits would thus be provided as claimed.
Ross teaches the composition having the claimed fuel and additive and used for reduction of deposits in diesel engines having an EGR and thus provides the method of reducing deposits by applying the fuel and additive during use of the system. The additive is a reaction product of the claim as previously stated.
In regards to claims 3 – 9, Ross provides the method and teaches the composition having the polycarboxylic acids and alcohols of the claims as previously stated.
In regards to claim 10, Ross provides the method and teaches reaction of the acid and alcohol at ratios of 1:2 to 2:1 (page 16 lines 33 – 39).
In regards to claim 15, Ross provides the method and teaches triesters, oligomers and polymers of the reaction products and thus would be expected to provide repeat units that overlaps the claimed limitation.
In regards to claim 16, Ross provides the method and teach the reaction product of the polycarboxylic acid and alcohol and their oligomers and polymers. The molecular weight of an acid such as itaconic acid of 130 and an alcohol of a structure of CH3(CH2)xOH where x is 23 already provides a molar mass of about 480. Triesters, provide molecular weights of over 1400, while oligomers (i.e., higher than triesters such as tetra-esters of molecular weight of about 1900 molecular weight and higher) and also polymers of higher repeat units and molecular weights would be expected to provide molecular weights overlapping the claimed range.
In regards to claim 17, Ross provides the method and teaches the composition wherein the additive is used in the fuel at amount of from 0.1 to 10,000 ppm or preferably from 10 to 50 ppm (page 17 lines 10 – 19).
In regards to claim 18, Ross provides the method and engines turbocharged with EGR as previously stated. EGR for turbocharges are known include hybrid EGR.
In regards to claims 19 – 28, Ross provides the method and similar engines and the reduction of deposits and would be expected to possess similar limitations as claimed.
In regards to claim 29, Ross provides the method and teaches diesel engines such as marine diesel engines, road or non-road (i.e., off road) use (page 18 lines 26 – 28).
In regards to claim 30, Ross provides the method of reducing deposits in similar engines and the composition as claimed and would be expected to have similar properties as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ross fails to teach the polymeric reaction product of the claims but instead recites a condensation product such as an ester which can be in the form of polymers. The argument is not persuasive.
While Ross recites that the reaction product can comprise esters, the product is not exclusively an ester. Rather, Ross recites that the reaction product can have varying structures depending on the nature of the acid and alcohol (see page 15 lines 30 – 32). Also, applicant’s own reaction product comprises esters as the R groups are greater than 10% non-hydrogen (i.e., hydrocarbons). Thus, since variety of products are taught by Ross, and since Ross teaches the same reaction ingredients that similarly prepares polymers and esters as with the claimed products, similar products as claims would be expected.
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