Fireclean’s Latest Patent Appeal is 100% Interesting

As they have often mentioned, Fireclean has applied for a patent (see exhibit A of this lawsuit for the complete application) regarding two topics: an oil composition and a method for cleaning firearms. Several years ago, they described their product in various ways as containing “at least” 25% vegetable oil by volume.


Their patent was rejected in June of 2016 and again in October of 2016, for being both too close to prior art and not being specific enough about the formula.

In April of 2017, they filed a last-ditch appeal which abandoned most of their previous claims, including all composition claims:

Instead they focused on the method portion of the patent claims, which included this line:

So Fireclean is now applying for a patent which describes a method for cleaning firearms requiring an oil composition that is a) “about 100% vegetable oil” and b) does not contain a compound which is not a vegetable oil, otherwise it would continue to conflict with the mentioned Legros patent.

Fireclean has not attached this latest 2017 patent appeal to their lawsuit against me in Arizona, or any of their previous appeals which further clarified the composition of Fireclean. Instead they present the court with, and rely upon the wording of, the original patent application from 2013, which describes “at least” 25% vegetable oil.

Just a few days ago, there was a USPTO Office Action which tentatively identified some allowable subject matter in their patent application – claims 16 and 18. Claims 16 and 18 relate to the method of treating the metal with Fireclean, either by “drying the deposited oil composition by heating at a temperature of about 100 to 400 degrees fahrenheit” (Claim 16) or “immers(ing) at a temperature of about 100 to 400 degrees fahrenheit for a period between about 10 minutes to 24 hours.” These actions require an “about 100%” vegetable oil composition.

Dropping all prior pretenses of it being “above 25% vegetable oil,” Fireclean’s latest patent application describes the product only as “about 100% vegetable oil,” – yet they continue to claim the sentence “Fireclean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking” is something worth suing over.

4 thoughts on “Fireclean’s Latest Patent Appeal is 100% Interesting”

  1. This explains a lot. They knew that what you said was true. They knew that if the truth was known; their company would fail. So it was imperative that you be silenced. So they did in the hopes that you will settle and agree to say, “Fireclean is not vegetable oil.” Then they merely have to point at you instead of having to prove that it wasn’t vegetable oil.
    You foiled their plan.

  2. Who cares if it is Gelfling Essense – If it works and you like it, use it. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. They should have adopted that position along time ago. They need to quit fighting in the weeds before their own lawsuit compels them to divulge the fact that FC is either Canola Oil or more likely – just as effective as Canola Oil.

    Someone has got to do an AR Melt Down Comparison of three guns. One with Canola Oil, one with FC, and one with something like Mobil-1. Lets see what the results are.

  3. I see this as a vindication for you, Andrew.

    I hope your lawyer can make the most of this revelation, and with any luck your judge will see this lawsuit for the desperate lunacy it is, and throw FireClean out on their ass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *