CTNF 18/551,803 CTNF 91704 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 03/30/2026. Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are currently pending. The Drawings filed 09/21/2023 are approved by the examiner. The IDS statements filed 11/30/2023 and 01/28/2026 have been considered . Initialed copies accompany this action. 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, 16, and 18-21 , in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged . The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to establish that a serious search and/or examination burden exists and examining all the groups together would not impose a serious search burden . This is not found persuasive because a search and/or examination burden is not germane to restriction requirements made in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. National stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 require a unity of invention analysis rather than an independent and distinct analysis. The present application is a national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371; see page 4 of the ADS filed 09/21/2023 and the Form PCT/DO/EO/903 dated 12/12/2023. As stated in the restriction requirement mailed 03/17/2026, the identified groups lack unity of invention (a posteriori) because the shared technical feature of a hard water stabilizer that is a polymer comprising acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, maleic acid, and/or itaconic acid having a weight average molecular weight of at least 3,000 g/mol and loss of mass in the temperature range of 200-300°C of not more than 10% is not a specification technical feature as it does not make a contribution of the prior art in view of Turcotte et al. (US 5,290,468 A). See p.5 of the restriction requirement. Additionally, the identified groups additionally lack unity of invention a posteriori in view of the prior art rejections below . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The office will consider rejoinder of the non-elected inventions if/when the election invention is allowable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11, 13, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the inclusion of “optionally, further inhibitors and typical coolant constituents” in the aqueous coolant. While optional, the recitation of further “ typical coolant constituents”, notably the addition of “typical to “coolant constituents”, is indefinite. The addition of the word “typical” to the other clear and definite expression “coolant constituents” adds relativity and/or subjectivity to the term that renders it indefinite. There is not an objective standard for determining what coolant constituents are “typical” or non-typical. Determining what coolant constituents are “typical” or non-typical requires a subjective opinion of a person selecting the coolant constituents. For purposes of claim interpretation, the claim is open to the optional inclusion of additional components of any kind due to the open “comprising” language of the claim. Claims 2-11, 16, and 18-21 are also indefinite for their dependency on claim 1. Note that claim 12 is not indefinite because it does not necessarily require the unclear “typical coolant constituents” due its intermediate product claim interpretation (see below). Claim 5 recites the component (C) may be selected to be merely “an alkali metal salt”. However, parent claim 1 requires component (C) is “at least one phosphate, carbonate, and/or sulfate in the form of its free acids or its salts”, requiring at least a phosphate acid or salt, a carbonate acid or salt, or a sulfate acid or salt. It is unclear under an indefiniteness rationale (rather than a clear-cut 112(d) rationale) whether the limitations of claim 5 further limit and/or include all the limitations of parent claim 1 because it is unclear if the “alkali metal salt” requires a phosphate, carbonate, or sulfate in a alkali metal salt form or an alkali metal salt with any anion. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to read as “… sulfates, and hydrogensulfates in the form of a free acid or an alkali metal salt thereof”. Note this also improves grammar and clarity between “sulfates, hydrogensulfates” (not separately objected to for brevity as it is comprehensively stated, here). For purposes of further examination and claim interpretation, claim 5 is construed only to the extent it further limits and includes all the limitations of claim 1 (additional non-phosphate/carbonate/sulfate alkali metal salts are not considered) In claim 9, the recitation of (G) potentially being selected as “alkyl- and alkenylsuccinic acids and -glutaric acids” is unclear so as to render the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is required for this species/genera of organic carboxylic acid (G). The addition of a hyphen to alkyl and glutaric acids and none with alkenyl succinic acids further complicates the issue. Does this recitation require 1) one of alkyl succinic acid, alkenyl succinic acid, or glutaric acid, 2) one of alkyl succinic acid or alkenyl succinic acid and glutaric acid, 3) both a alkyl succinic acid and alkenyl succinic acid or just a glutaric acid, 4) all of alkyl succinic acid, alkenyl succinic acid and glutaric acid, etc.? For further examination, while optional due to its recitation in the alternative from the dozens of other acid species, merely one of alkyl succinic acid, alkenyl succinic acid, or glutaric acid will read on the species/genera. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation In addition to the foregoing, the following is noted for purposes of claim interpretation. Claim 12 recites, “A coolant concentrate for producing the aqueous coolant according to the claim 1, comprising: …”. Please note the unusual syntax of this claim nesting dependency to claim 1 as an intended use limitation (that the concentrate of claim 12 is “for producing the aqueous coolant according to claim 1”) affords the claim a more broad scope than might be appreciated. The dependency to the composition of claim 1 within an intended use limitation has the implication that claim 12 includes any sort of precursor or intermediate product that is capable of being used to obtain the composition of claim 1 so long as the recited concentrations of claim 12 are met. In other words, the coolant concentrate composition (a precursor or intermediate product) does not necessarily the presence of any water due to the open-ended “not more than 15% by weight of water (A)” that includes zero as its lower boundary. It does also not necessarily require the presence of the unclear “typical coolant constituents” as those could be added later (along with water) to obtain the aqueous coolant. However, the composition indeed requires the (B), (C), and (D) components of claim 1 in the recited non-zero concentrations. To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In claim 10, the recitation of a pH of 4 to 11.5 “established with lithium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, or potassium hydroxide” is a product by process limitation. Product by process limitations are not limited to the recited steps except to the extent they suggest structure of the composition. Here, the claim requires the recited pH (H+ or OH- ions) and the presence of lithium, sodium, or potassium ions and does not necessarily require a pH adjustment by literal addition/presence of the recited alkali metal hydroxides. The recited alkali metal hydroxides are strong bases that dissolve in water to give OH- ions and Li/Na/K+ ions. Compositions with OH- ions and one of K+, Na+, or Li+ ions (regardless of whether actually added by LiOH, NaOH, or KOH) and the recited pH read on the claimed limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 10, 16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pfitzner et al. (US 5,454,967 A) . As to claim 1, Pfitzner et al. teach a phosphate-containing, glycol-based coolant mixture with hard water stability (abstract). An exemplary coolant mixture thereof comprises, in wt.%, 1.5% dipotassium hydrogen phosphate, 0.15% polyacrylic acid MW 4000 as 50% strength aqueous solution, and 92.305% monoethylene glycol (col. 3 lines 26-41). This contains all of water (via the aqueous solution of polyacrylic acid), an alkylene glycol (monoethylene glycol), a phosphate (dipotassium hydrogen phosphate), and a hard water stabilizer that is a homopolymer of acrylic acid having a molecular weight of at least 3,000 g/mol (the 4000 MW polyacrylic acid). In the event it is disputed the inventive composition comprises a concentration of water to be an aqueous coolant, note that the example then prepares an aqueous solution containing 33% by volume of the coolant mixture (col. 3 lines 45-46) and the reference envisages mixing the glycol-based formulation with a larger amount of water to render the coolant ready for use (col. 2 lines 31-33). The additionally claimed limitations of the hard water stabilizer (D) component having a loss of mass of 10% or less in the temperature range of 200-300°C are presumed inherent from the exemplary polyacrylic acid MW 4000 taught by the reference. The cited example anticipates the claimed limitations. Alternatively regarding claim 1 under an obviousness rationale, Pfitzner et al. teach the coolant mixture generally comprises an ammonium and/or alkali metal phosphate, an oligomeric or polymeric carboxylic acid with a molecular weight of 1,000-100,000, water, and glycol (abstract). The glycol is preferably monoethylene glycol (col. 3 lines 3-4). Accordingly, the reference meets the (A) water, (B) alkylene glycol (glycol/ethylene glycol), and (C) phosphate components. Regarding the claimed (D) component, Pfitzner et al. teach the oligomeric/polymeric carboxylic acid are polyacrylic, olgiomaleic, and maleic acid/acrylic acid copolymers and preferably have a molecular weight of 2,000-10,000 (col. 2 lines 40-46). This overlaps the scope of the hard water stabilizer (D) as being a homo- or copolymer comprising polymerized acrylic acid and/or maleic acid having a molecular weight of at least 3,000 g/mol; the preferred molecular weight range of 2k-10k certainly overlaps and encompasses the claimed 3k+ range. While Pfitzner et al. fail to meet the claimed limitations under the meaning of anticipation, the cited teachings of the reference nevertheless meet the claimed limitations under a prima facie case of obviousness due the acrylic acid and maleic acid homo- and co-polymers having a molecular weight strongly overlapping and encompassing the claimed range. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive within the scope of the claim by providing an acrylic acid and/or maleic acid homo- and co-polymer with a molecular weight within the claimed range in order to obtain a coolant composition with improved or merely sufficient hard water stability with a reasonable expectation of success. While not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the additionally claimed hard water stabilizer (D) component having a loss of mass of 10% or less in the temperature range of 200-300°C would flow naturally from the cited teachings of the reference due to the identity of the oligomeric/polymeric carboxylic acids (polyacrylic and/or polymaleic acid homo- and co-polymers) and molecular weight thereof (up to 100,000 and preferably 2,000-10,000) being substantially the same as, and overlapping, that instantly claimed. Any remaining claim limitations are optional and/or process limitations describing how a property is measured. As to claim 2, the cited example discloses the composition comprises magnesium nitrate hexahydrate, which meets the claimed limitations. Additionally note the examples go on to mix the exemplary mixture with water (col. 3 lines 44-50), meaning there is water comprising alkaline earth metal (magnesium) ions from the above water soluble magnesium salt. Alternatively, the reference disclosing the composition has hard water stability implies the composition may indeed comprise alkaline earth metal ions as claimed. Hard waters contain alkaline earth metal ions, e.g., calcium and magnesium, and soft waters lack or have a lower concentration of these ions. Nevertheless, the reference further teach the presence of a water-soluble magnesium compound (abstract), which reads on the presence of alkaline earth metal ions in the water. As to claims 3 and 4, monoethylene glycol (i.e., monomeric 1,2-ethylene glycol) is preferred and exemplified as the glycol of the composition (Id.). As to claims 5 and 20, the cited example comprises dipotassium hydrogen phosphate, which is a monophosphate alkali metal/potassium salt . Alternatively, the phosphate may be an alkali metal salt of ortho-, meta- or pyrophosphates (col. 2 lines 47-54), which reads on the claimed diphosphate, triphosphate, and/or oligophosphate alkali metal salt. As to claims 6 and 21, the composition (both broadly and as exemplified) further comprises at least one azole derivative (abstract and col. 3). Benzotriazole and tolyltriazole are the azole derivatives. As too claim 7, the composition (both broadly and as exemplified) further comprises an alkali metal molybdate (abstract and col. 3). As to claim 10, the example has a pH of 8.5 (meaning OH- anions are present) and has sodium and potassium ions present via their presence in the exemplified components (col. 3), which reads on the product-by-process limitations of a pH of 4 to 11.5 established with sodium hydroxide and/or potassium hydroxide. As to claims 16 and 18, the background section of the reference presents the purpose of the inventive coolant is to solve certain problems and/or suitably be a coolant in cooling systems in automobiles (i.e., vehicles) having internal combustion engines (col. 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage or obviously provide the inventive coolant of the reference to a cooling system for cooling an internal combustion engine of a vehicle in order to adequately protect the cooling system from corrosion and/or impart improved hard water stability thereto with a reasonable expectation of success . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfitzner et al. (US 5,454,967 A) . The disclosure of Pfitzner et al. is relied upon as set forth above. As to claim 12, the disclosed concentrations of components in the mixture (that is a concentrate that is later diluted with water to obtain a ready to use coolant, Id.) read on the claimed concentrate because they overlap the concentrations claimed. See the abstract and top of col. 2 teaching the (initial) mixture comprises 0.05-5 wt.% water, 0.5-3 wt.% of phosphate, 0.02-0.5 wt.% of the polymeric carboxylic acid reading on the claimed hard water stabilizer, and remainder glycol necessary to make 100 wt.% (exemplified as ~92 wt.%). Any remaining other components are optional and/or are additionally within the additional components claimed. As to claim 11, with the above overlapping concentrations of components in the mixture reading the concentrate in mind, the disclosed dilution of the mixture to obtain the ready to use aqueous coolant reads on the claimed aqueous coolant concentrations because they overlap the concentrations claimed. The example takes the mixture and obtains a coolant comprising 33 vol. % of the mixture in water (Id.). Pfitzner et al. further teach the mixture may be mixed with water in an amount of 10-80 vol% of the mixture in water (col. 3 lines 9-12). Diluting the (initial) mixture comprises 0.05-5 wt.% water, 0.5-3 wt.% of phosphate, 0.02-0.5 wt.% of the polymeric carboxylic acid reading on the claimed hard water stabilizer, and remainder glycol necessary to make 100 wt.% (exemplified as ~92 wt.%) in water in an amount of 10-80 vol.% in water reads on and overlaps the claimed concentrations. Any remaining other components are optional and/or are additionally within the additional components claimed. As to claim 13, note the above rejections and rationale to provision of the reference’s coolants to automobile/internal combustion engine cooling system (Id.). The claimed apparatus structure and limitations thereof of the method for cooling internal combustion engines are notoriously conventional and routine, and operation of these systems reads on the conventional/routine limitations. The purpose and structure of cooling systems is to, via the coolant, transfer heat from an object at a higher temperature to another object at a lower temperature to cool the object at a higher temperature. The objects read on heat exchangers as heat is exchanged between the coolant and the objects. Internal combustion engines routinely and normally operate at temperatures around 100°C (~200°F) (i.e., certainly between or encompassing 60-300°C) and cooling system thereof are very conventionally and routinely configured to pump liquid coolant therein to a manifold in thermal contact with the engine to absorb heat from the engine (operating a first heat exchanger) and transfer the coolant to a radiator that is in thermal contact with ambient air (i.e., certainly between or encompassing -50°C to 100°C and at least 50°C lower than the engine operating temperature when at normal operating temperature) passing over fins of the radiator via a fan blowing the air over the fins and/or forced over the fins by driving that removes heat from the coolant (operating as a second heat exchanger). While the limitations of claim 13 are not fairly anticipated by the reference, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably and obviosuly expect their presence and/or regard them as conventional from provision of the coolant to a vehicle internal combustion engine cooling system as disclosed and motivated by the reference. As to claim 19, while the 4.5k+ molecular weight and not more than 2% by weight 200-300°C mass loss are not anticipated/exemplified by the reference, as similarly stated above, the preferred molecular weight range of 2k-10k certainly overlaps and encompasses the claimed 3k+ range and the more narrow loss of mass would flow naturally from the cited teachings of the reference due to the identity of the oligomeric/polymeric carboxylic acids (polyacrylic and/or polymaleic acid homo- and co-polymers) and molecular weight thereof (preferably 2,000-10,000) being substantially the same as, and overlapping, that instantly claimed . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfitzner et al. (US 5,454,967 A) as applied to claim s 1-7, 10-13, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Dietl et al. (US 2014/0224193 A1) . The disclosure of Pfitzner et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Pfitzner et al. teach the coolant mixture can contain further conventional components (col. 3 lines 6-7) but fails to teach the additional presence of carboxylic acids as instantly claimed. However, Dietl et al. is similarly drawn to antifreeze concentrates and aqueous coolant compositions thereof comprising a number of substantially the same components as Pfitzner et al. such as water, glycol, phosphate salts, and polyacrylic/maleic hard water stabilizers (abstract, para. 0018, 0032, 0053, 0072 & 0075) where various carboxylic acid compounds may be added as an additional corrosion inhibitor in the composition (para. 0017 and 0033-0038). Suitable carboxylic acids include monocarboxylic acids having 3-16 carbon atoms and species thereof such as propionic acid, pentanoic acid, hexanoic acid, etc. (para. 0034 and 0036), which meet the claimed monocarboxylic acid having 2 to 18 carbon atoms of claim 8 and species of claim 9. Suitable carboxylic acids also include dicarboxylic acids having 3 to 21 carbon atoms (para. 0034), which overlap the claimed dicarboxylic acid having 4 to 20 carbon atoms of claim 8. Additionally, suitable dicarboxylic acids include succinic acid, glutaric acid, pimelic acid, etc. (para. 0036), which meet the claimed species of claim 9. Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the carboxylic acid compound(s) taught by Dietl et al. as an additional component in Pfitzner et al.’s coolant compositions in order to improve or at least affect the corrosion inhibiting properties of the coolant with a reasonable expectation of success. Prior Art Cited But Not Applied The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or to support the above grounds of rejection: The Car Temperature Gauge: What you Need to Know about your Vehicle (2019) NPL is a cited reference of interest that has diagrams and temperatures thereof of typical, conventional vehicle cooling systems that support the official notice taken in the above grounds of rejection. Dietl et al. (US 2014/0224193 A1), while relied upon above as a secondary reference for claims 8 and 9, also supports the official notice taken in the above grounds of rejection. See, for example, para. 0002-0007 disclosing cooling apparatus of internal combustion engines (and vehicles thereof) are usually configured as cooling circuits transferring heat from the engine to a radiator. Zientek (US 4,676,919 A) also supports the official notice taken in the above grounds of rejection regarding typical engine operating temperatures (col. 18 lines 21-35). The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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. /MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 /M.R.D./ April 29, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 11 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 12 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 13 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 14 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 15 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 16 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/551,803 Page 17 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights