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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner confirms that Group I is claims 1-34, Group II is claims 35-40 and
Group III is claims 41-42. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions have different classifications and require a different field of search and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-17, 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evich et al (RU2290425 (already of record, translation provided)).
Regarding claims 1-4, 8-17, 21-29, Evich et al teaches an antifreeze composition having anticorrosion properties comprising 10.5wt% of caproic acid or its sodium or potassium salt, 10.2wt% of caprylic acid or its sodium or potassium salt, 10.8wt% of benzenecarboxylic acid or its sodium or potassium salt, 0.5wt% of tolyltriazole, 0.01wt% of sodium molybdate, 0.03wt% sodium polyacrylate, 0.3wt% salt of monoalkylphosphoric acid and 0.002wt% antifoam (which satisfies about 1:1 ratio of first and second monocarboxylic acid and 1:2 ratio of benzoic acid to first and second monocarboxylic acid) (Example 19). Evich et al further teaches octanoic and nonanoic acid (Table 1C). Evich et al further teaches a pH of 7.5-9.5 (Table 3). Evich et al further teaches a further carboxylic acid (Table 1B, 1C). Evich et al further teaches monoalkylphosphoric acid having the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
60
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Abstract).
Evich et al teaches the features of the instant claims; hence, Evich et al anticipates the claims.
Claims 1, 4, 8-14, 17, 21-23, 25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (CN102533230).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8-14, 17, 21-23, 25, 27-29, Wang et al teaches a coolant composition that is excellent on corrosion inhibition (Paragraphs 10, 42) comprising 0.8 wt% sodium octanoate, 1wt% dodecanoic acid, 1.2wt% sebacic acid, 1wt% benzoic acid, 0.2wt% methylbenzotriazole, 0.01wt% defoaming agent, 0.10 wt% of inositol hexaphosphate (Table 1).
Wang et al teaches the limitations of the instant claims; hence, Wang et al anticipates the claims.
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 1-24, 27-30, 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden et al (US Patent 4,647,392) in view of Gershun et al (US Patent 5,741,436 (already of record)).
Regarding claims 1-24, 27-30, 33-34, Darden et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Darden et al teaches a corrosion inhibitor composition comprising aliphatic monobasic acid or alkali metal salt of said acid and a dibasic acid or alkali metal salt of said acid and triazole (Col. 3, Lines 53-60). Darden et al further teaches 0.1-15wt% of aliphatic monobasic acid or salt thereof and 0.1-15wt% of dibasic acid or salt thereof (Col. 4, Line 65-Col. 5, Line-2). Darden et al further teaches 0.1-0.5wt% of a triazole, preferably tolyltriazole (Col. 4, Lines 30-32). Darden et al further teaches additional corrosion inhibitors in the amount of 0.01-5wt% such as alkali metal benzoate (Col. 5, Lines 5-9) such as sodium benzoate (Table I). Darden et al further teaches aliphatic monobasic acid components including one or more of octanoic, nonanoic, decanoic, undecanoic and dodecanoic acid of alkali metal thereof (Col. 3, Line 65-Col. 4, Line 2). Darden et al further teaches the addition of metal hydroxides including sodium, potassium, lithium, barium, calcium and magnesium (Col.4, Lines 39-41). Darden et al further teaches 0.01-5wt% of additional corrosion inhibitors such as alkali metal silicates, alkali metal nitrates, alkali metal nitrites and alkali metal molybdates (Col. 5, Lines 5-11). Darden et al further teaches dibasic acid or alkali metal salt thereof includes sebacic acid (Col. 4, Lines 19-20). Darden et al further teaches a pH in the rage of about 6.5-9.5 (Col. 4, Lines 60-62). However, Darden et al fails to specifically disclose the weight ratio of benzoic acid to the combination of the first and second monocarboxylic acid, the weight ratio of the first and second monocarboxylic acid and the weight ratio of benzoic acid to the combination of first and second monocarboxylic acid and additional carboxylic acid.
In the same field of endeavor, Gershun et al teaches an organic acid corrosion inhibitor composition comprising a C8 monocarboxylic acid component or salt thereof and a decanoic acid or salt thereof. The corrosion inhibitors of this invention provide improved corrosion protection to metal surfaces compared to convention inhibitors and provide surprisingly improved corrosion protection compared to inhibitors containing only a single monocarboxylic component (Abstract). Gershun et al further teaches C8 monocarboxylic acid to decanoic acid at a ratio from 100:1 to about 1:1, preferably about 3:1 (Col. 4, Lines 30-34).
With regard to the weight ratio of benzoic acid to the combination of the first and second monocarboxylic acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the weight ratio of benzoic acid to the combination of the first and second monocarboxylic acid in Darden et al in view of Gershun et al as Darden et al teaches 0.1-15wt% of aliphatic monobasic acid or salt thereof and 0.1-15wt% of dibasic acid or salt thereof, 0.1-0.5wt% of a triazole and additional corrosion inhibitors in the amount of 0.01-5wt% such as alkali metal benzoate; hence, this teaching overlaps the instantly claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05I.
With regard to the weight ratio of the first and second monocarboxylic acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a ratio of the first and second monocarboxylic acid n Darden et al in view of Gershun et al in order to provide improved corrosion protection with the combination of first and second monocarboxylic acids as taught in Gershun et al.
With regard to the weight ratio of benzoic acid to the combination of first and second monocarboxylic acid and additional carboxylic acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the weight ratio of benzoic acid to the combination of the first and second monocarboxylic acid in Darden et al in view of Gershun et al as Darden et al teaches 0.1-15wt% of aliphatic monobasic acid or salt thereof and 0.1-15wt% of dibasic acid or salt thereof, 0.1-0.5wt% of a triazole and additional corrosion inhibitors in the amount of 0.01-5wt% such as alkali metal benzoate; hence, this teaching overlaps the instantly claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05I.
Claims 25-26, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden et al (US Patent 4,647,392) in view of Gershun et al (US Patent 5,741,436 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-24, 27-30, 33-34 above, and in further view of Evich et al (RU2290425 (already of record, translation provided)).
Regarding claims 25-26, 31, Darden et al and Gershun et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Darden et al Gershun et al teach the features above. However, Darden et al and Gershun et al fail to specifically disclose an alkyl phosphoric acid salt, an acrylate polymer and a salt that will produce magnesium ions wherein the acrylate polymer to the magnesium ions is greater than 5 and less than 25.
In the same field of endeavor, Evich et al teaches a corrosion inhibiting composition comprising a combination of mono and dicarboxylic acids, triazole, sodium polyacrylate and salt of an alkyl phosphoric acid, wherein the phosphoric acid salt has the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
60
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Paragraphs 16-17, 53, 55, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an alkyl phosphoric acid salt and an acrylate polymer in Darden et al and Gershun et al in view of Evich et al in order to provide corrosion inhibiting properties. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a sodium polyacrylate in Darden et al in view of Gershun et al in view of Evich et al in order to prevent precipitation. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. With respect to the salt that will produce magnesium ions wherein the acrylate polymer to the magnesium ions is greater than 5 and less than 25, it would have been obvious that the salt Darden et al will produce magnesium and the addition of the acrylate polymer is for preventing precipitation, hence, adjusting the amount of the acrylate polymer based on the amount of magnesium ions would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darden et al (US Patent 4,647,392) in view of Gershun et al (US Patent 5,741,436 (already of record)) as applied to claims 1-24, 27-30, 33-34 above, and in further view of Miyake et al (US Patent 6,096,236).
Regarding claim 32, Darden et al and Gershun et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed. Darden et al Gershun et al teach the features above. However, Darden et al and Gershun et al fail to specifically disclose toluic acid.
In the same field of endeavor, Miyake et al teaches an antifreeze/coolant composition for inhibiting corrosion of metals comprising alkylbenzoic acid as the corrosion inhibitor such as p-toluic acid (Abstract, Col. 2, Lines 35-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided p-toluic acid in Darden et al Gershun et al in view of Miyake et al as the corrosion inhibiting benzoic acid component. Simple substitution of benzoic acid corrosion inhibiting component for another would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 March 18, 2026