DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
3. Claims 1-6, 8-20 are pending. Claims 1-6, 8-20 are under examination on the merits. Claims 1-5, 9-10, 14-17 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-6, 8-20 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 01/27/2026 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6, 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Yaw et al. (Heat Transfer Enhancement by Hybrid Nano Additives-Graphene Nanoplatelets /Cellulose Nanocrystal for the Automobile Cooling System (Radiator), Nanomaterials 2023, 13, 808, 1-28, hereinafter “Yaw”) in view of Akhlaghi et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0017720 A1, hereinafter “Akhlaghi”).
Regarding claims 1,8: Yaw teaches a nanocoolant fluid (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7) comprising: water, a coolant such as ethylene glycol, and hybrid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticles comprising a first nanoparticles and a second nanoparticles, the first nanoparticles being thermally conductive and hydrophobic such as graphene nanoplatelets (GnP), and the second nanoparticles being hydrophilic such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7). Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol (EG) and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water (W) is 60:40 (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2). Yaw does not expressly teach a surfactant, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35%, and wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less.
However, Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid (Page 1, [0002]) composition, comprising: a graphene derivative, the graphene derivative comprising at least one of graphene oxide, graphene nano plates and a biopolymer solution as the first mixture solution (Page 9, Claim 13) in a volume ratio in a range of 1:0.45 to 1:0.9 (graphene oxide aqueous solution: biopolymer solution)(Page 9, Claim 6), and forming the second mixture further comprises forming the anionic-surfactant solution by mixing the ionic surfactant and water with a concentration of the anionic-surfactant solution in a range of 0.5 mg/mL to 7 mg/mL (Page 9, Claim 7), wherein the surfactant comprises 0.004-0.42 wt. % of the total weight of the colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid composition (Page 9, Claim 17), and wherein the surfactant comprising sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Page 9, Claim 13) with benefit of providing to stabilize colloidal aphron fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the hybrid nanofluid, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid nanofluid by Yaw, so as to include sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35% as taught by Akhlaghi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to stabilize colloidal nanocoolant fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
It is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the hybrid ananofluid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding the volumetric ratio of (EG)/ (W) is 40:60 or less, Yaw’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of the hybrid nanofluid suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio (variables) in counterflow radiator to determine (affect) the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle (property) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-9) establishing that the type and amount of the hybrid nanofluid, and suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 2: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the first nanoparticles comprises graphene nanoplatelets (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 3: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal hybrid fluid comprises graphene oxide nanoparticles (Page 9, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 4: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the second nanoparticles comprises cellulose nanocrystals (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric ratio of the first of nanoparticles to the second type of nanoparticles is 1:1 (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 6: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric percent of the hybrid nanoparticles is 0.2% (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 9,13: Yaw teaches a nanocoolant fluid (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7) comprising: water, a coolant such as ethylene glycol, and hybrid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticles comprising a first nanoparticles and a second nanoparticles, the first nanoparticles being thermally conductive and hydrophobic such as graphene nanoplatelets (GnP), and the second nanoparticles being hydrophilic such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7). Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol (EG) and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water (W) is 60:40 (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2). Yaw does not expressly teach a surfactant, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35%, and wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less.
However, Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid (Page 1, [0002]) composition, comprising: a graphene derivative, the graphene derivative comprising at least one of graphene oxide, graphene nano plates and a biopolymer solution as the first mixture solution (Page 9, Claim 13) in a volume ratio in a range of 1:0.45 to 1:0.9 (graphene oxide aqueous solution: biopolymer solution)(Page 9, Claim 6), and forming the second mixture further comprises forming the anionic-surfactant solution by mixing the ionic surfactant and water with a concentration of the anionic-surfactant solution in a range of 0.5 mg/mL to 7 mg/mL (Page 9, Claim 7), wherein the surfactant comprises 0.004-0.42 wt. % of the total weight of the colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid composition (Page 9, Claim 17), and wherein the surfactant comprising sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Page 9, Claim 13) with benefit of providing to stabilize colloidal aphron fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the hybrid nanofluid, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid nanofluid by Yaw, so as to include sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35% as taught by Akhlaghi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to stabilize colloidal nanocoolant fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
It is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the hybrid ananofluid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding the volumetric ratio of (EG)/(W) is 40:60 or less, Yaw’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of the hybrid nanofluid suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio (variables) in counterflow radiator to determine (affect) the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle (property) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-9) establishing that the type and amount of the hybrid nanofluid, and suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric ratio of the first of nanoparticles to the second type of nanoparticles is 1:1 (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric percent of the hybrid nanoparticles is 0.2% (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 14,19: Yaw teaches a nanocoolant fluid (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7) comprising: water, a coolant such as ethylene glycol, and hybrid nanoparticles, the hybrid nanoparticles comprising a first nanoparticles and a second nanoparticles, the first nanoparticles being thermally conductive and hydrophobic such as graphene nanoplatelets (GnP), and the second nanoparticles being hydrophilic such as cellulose nanocrystals (CNC) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7). Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol (EG) and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water (W) is 60:40 (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2). Yaw does not expressly teach a surfactant, wherein the surfactant is sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35%, and wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less.
However, Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid (Page 1, [0002]) composition, comprising: a graphene derivative, the graphene derivative comprising at least one of graphene oxide, graphene nano plates and a biopolymer solution as the first mixture solution (Page 9, Claim 13) in a volume ratio in a range of 1:0.45 to 1:0.9 (graphene oxide aqueous solution: biopolymer solution) (Page 9, Claim 6), and forming the second mixture further comprises forming the anionic-surfactant solution by mixing the ionic surfactant and water with a concentration of the anionic-surfactant solution in a range of 0.5 mg/mL to 7 mg/mL (Page 9, Claim 7), wherein the surfactant comprises 0.004-0.42 wt. % of the total weight of the colloidal aphron/graphene hybrid fluid composition (Page 9, Claim 17), and wherein the surfactant comprising sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (Page 9, Claim 13) with benefit of providing to stabilize colloidal aphron fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
In an analogous art of the hybrid nanofluid, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hybrid nanofluid by Yaw, so as to include sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate surfactant and the volumetric percent of the surfactant is between 0.05% and 0.35% as taught by Akhlaghi, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to stabilize colloidal nanocoolant fluids utilizing reduced graphene oxide (Page 1, [0002]).
It is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (i.e., the hybrid ananofluid), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding the volumetric ratio of (EG)/(W) is 40:60 or less, Yaw’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of the hybrid nanofluid suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio (variables) in counterflow radiator to determine (affect) the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle (property) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-9) establishing that the type and amount of the hybrid nanofluid, and suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Regarding claim 15: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Akhlaghi teaches a colloidal hybrid fluid comprises graphene oxide nanoparticles (Page 9, Claim 13).
Regarding claim 16: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid, wherein the second nanoparticles comprises cellulose nanocrystals (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 17: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric ratio of the first of nanoparticles to the second type of nanoparticles is 1:1 (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein a volumetric percent of the hybrid nanoparticles is 0.2% (Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 20: The disclosure of Yaw in view of Akhlaghi is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yaw teaches the nanocoolant fluid,
wherein the coolant is ethylene glycol and a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-7; Page 13, 1st para, Results, lines 1-2).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Yaw does not teach a volumetric ratio of coolant to water is 40:60 or less, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have the motivation to modify the method of Yaw to use the ratio of ethylene glycol to water recited in the present application, since if a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the volumetric ratio of (EG)/ (W) is 40:60 or less, Yaw’s disclosure would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of the hybrid nanofluid suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio (variables) in counterflow radiator to determine (affect) the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle (property) (Page 1, Abstract, lines 5-9) establishing that the type and amount of the hybrid nanofluid, and suspended in (EG)/(W) ratio are result-effective variables. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."), and the improvement efficiency of heat transfer of a vehicle is recognized as a result-effective variable before determining that optimum ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
As further evidence, for example Beal et al. (US Pat. No. 5,22,013, hereinafter “’013”) teaches a coolant recycling apparatus has a boiler and condenser for distilling a glycol and water from a used coolant (Col. 1, lines 5-9). ‘013 teaches the ratio of water to glycol in the coolant will depend on the desired boiling and freezing points of the coolant, but is generally on the order of 50% water and 50% glycol by volume. The coolant usually also contains additives, generally referred to as inhibitors, which prevent rust corrosion and scaling inside the water jacket of an engine, water pump, radiator, and wherever else coolant is present in the cooling system for an engine (Col. 1, lines 16-25). ‘013 further teaches in most regions, the desired glycol concentration in the fresh coolant mixture 88 is generally 40-60% (i.e., 60-40% water), but the glycol concentration of the fresh coolant mixture 88 can be set to any desired value by adjusting the first and second temperatures and the mixing ratio (Col. 7, lines 49-56).
Tang et al.(US Pub. No.2023/0015125 A1, hereinafter ”’125”) teaches an example system includes a housing configured to house a portion of an electric machine and a heat transfer material, the heat transfer material is configured to contact a conductor of the portion of the electric machine and to remove heat from the conductor and transfer heat to the housing (Page 1, [0003]). ‘125 teaches liquid cooling system 104 may be configured to supply an ionic liquid coolant. An ionic liquid coolant may have a relatively high heat capacity (e.g., greater than 3 KJ/kg° C.) for absorbing heat and a relatively high thermal conductivity (e.g., greater than 0.2 W/m.Math.K) for transferring heat. In some examples, the liquid coolant of liquid cooling system 104 includes ethylene glycol and water, such as in a volume ratio between about 80:20 and about 20:80 (Page 3, [0021]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had both an apparent reason or suggestion to modify the prior art and predictability or a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success …. For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Further, if the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation such as the volumetric ratio of (EG)/ (W) is 40:60 or less, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
04/22/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights