Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/293,364

AUTOMOTIVE COOLANT LIQUID DEAERATOR UNIT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 30, 2024
Examiner
HOPKINS, ROBERT A
Art Unit
1776
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Pierburg Pump Technology GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1336 granted / 1577 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1611
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1577 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French reference(FR3016923A3) taken together with UK Patent Application(2117662). French reference in figures 1-3 teaches a passive automotive coolant liquid deaerator unit(degassing tank 10 connected as part of a cooling circuit in figure 1; translation stating “the space defined by the lower shell 36, forms a receiving tray for the heat transfer fluid (here coolant)”) for deaerating a circulating coolant liquid of a coolant circuit of an automobile, the passive automotive coolant liquid deaerator unit comprising a deaerator housing(upper shell 34 and lower shell 36) which defines a first deceleration chamber , the first decelerating chamber(second receiving zone 52 including wall 30) comprising a chamber liquid inlet(second inlet conduit 26), a chamber liquid outlet(second outlet duct 28), wherein a fluidic cross section of the first deceleration chamber(cross section defined as into the page of the housing in figure 3) is arranged to continuously increase between the chamber liquid inlet(26) and the chamber liquid outlet( 28; noting figure 3 where a width cross section of the second receiving zone 52 widens continuously between the inlet conduit 26 and outlet duct 28, providing for expansion and deceleration of an inlet liquid filled with gas, with gas that is separated accumulating in an upper gas pocket of upper shell 34). French reference is silent as to a deceleration opening which is arranged at a vertical top of the first deceleration chamber. UK Patent Application in figure 2 teaches a deaerator unit for deaerating a flowing liquid, the deaerator unit including a deaerator housing(hollow body 12) defining a deceleration chamber, a chamber liquid inlet(16), a chamber liquid outlet(18) , and a deceleration opening(passage 23 to air chamber 22) which is arranged at a vertical top of the deceleration chamber. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a deceleration opening arranged at a vertical top of the first deceleration chamber(52) of French reference in order to provide a mechanism for removing gas separated and accumulated in the upper gas pocket of the deaerator housing of French reference. With regards to claim 11 , French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the first deceleration chamber further comprises a cross section widening zone(cross section widens in second receiving zone 52), and the cross section widening zone has a horizontal width(horizontal width into the page of figure 3 of French reference) which is arranged to continually increase from an initial width to an end width. With regards to claim 12, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the continual increase of the horizontal width of the cross section widening zone from the initial width to the end width is linear. With regards to claim 13, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the cross section widening zone is arranged to begin directly after the chamber liquid inlet(noting expansion of the cross section directly downstream of second inlet conduit 26). With regards to claim 14, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the chamber liquid inlet(26) is arranged vertically higher than the chamber liquid outlet(28). With regards to claim 15, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the chamber liquid inlet(26) has an opening which has a lowest edge, the chamber liquid outlet(28) has an opening which has a highest edge, and the lowest edge of the opening of the chamber liquid inlet is arranged to be vertically higher than the highest edge of the opening of the chamber liquid outlet. With regards to claim 16, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the first deceleration chamber further comprises a bottom wall(bottom wall of lower shell 36) which is arranged between the chamber liquid inlet(26) and the chamber liquid outlet(28; start of bottom wall between inlet and outlet in figure 3 of French reference), and the bottom wall is arranged to lie substantially in a horizontal plane. Examiner notes position of liquid outlet(28) is positionable further along the lower wall without removal of function of transport of deaerated liquid to the outlet 28. With regards to claim 17, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the deaerator housing further defines a second deceleration chamber(first receiving zone 50) which is arranged to be substantially separate from the first deceleration chamber(separated from first deceleration chamber 52 by wall 30). With regards to claim 18, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the deaeration opening is provided for both the first deceleration chamber and the second deceleration chamber(noting a gas pocket in upper shell (34) of French reference is shared by first deceleration chamber(52) and the second deceleration chamber(50), therefore a deaeration opening as taught by UK Patent Application is also shared). With regards to claim 19, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the deaerator housing comprises a separation wall(wall 30) which is arranged to directly separate the first deceleration chamber from the second deceleration chamber. With regards to claim 20, French reference taken together with UK Patent Application further teaches wherein the deaeration opening is provided for both the first deceleration chamber and the second deceleration chamber(noting a gas pocket in upper shell (34) of French reference is shared by first deceleration chamber(52) and the second deceleration chamber(50), therefore a deaeration opening as taught by UK Patent Application is also shared). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 21 is 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. Claim 21 recites “the deaerator housing comprises a deaerator housing body, and the deaerator housing body defines an outlet ring channel for a flow pump wheel of an electrical flow pump unit which is adjacently mountable to the passive automotive coolant liquid deaerator unit.”. French reference taken together with UK Patent Application teaches a deaerator housing comprises a deaerator housing body, however French reference taken together with UK Patent Application does not teach or suggest the deaerator housing body defines an outlet ring channel for a flow pump wheel of an electrical flow pump unit which is adjacently mountable to the passive automotive coolant liquid deaerator unit. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT A HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm. 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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 5712707872. 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. /ROBERT A HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776 February 18, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 30, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582946
ERGONOMIC DEVICE FOR MIXING FLUIDS WITH CONTROLLED METERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582931
DRYING OF FILTER ELEMENTS IN A FILTER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582934
SMART DUST SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THAT SPRAYS ATOMIZED WATER THROUGH A FAN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578106
AIR CLEANER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577927
ADJUSTMENT STRUCTURE AND CARBURETOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1577 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month