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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 December 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 February 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 July 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 October 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dietl et al. (US 2013/0284971, hereinafter referred to as “Dietl”).
As to Claim 1: Dietl teaches a composition comprising alkylamine ethoxylates (Abstract). Dietl further teaches an example which comprises octylamine ethoxylate with 2 EO unites [0109].
As to Claim 2: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the ethylene oxide adduct of alkylamine can be n-hexadecylamine [0059].
As to Claim 3: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the composition can include antifoams (i.e., defoaming agents) [0084].
As to Claim 4: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the composition further includes water and propylene glycol [0109].
As to Claim 5: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 6: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 2 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the composition can include antifoams (i.e., defoaming agents) [0084].
As to Claim 7: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 2 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the composition further includes water and propylene glycol [0109].
As to Claim 8: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 2 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 9: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 3 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the composition further includes water and propylene glycol [0109].
As to Claim 10: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 3 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 11: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 4 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 12: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 6 (supra). Dietl further teaches that the composition further includes water and propylene glycol [0109].
As to Claim 13: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 6 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 14: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 7 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 15: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 9 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
As to Claim 16: Dietl teaches the composition of claim 12 (supra). Dietl does not expressly teach the composition has a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower. Consequently, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Dietl. However, Dietl teaches a product prepared with all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts by a substantially similar process. According to the original specification, the composition comprises water and glycols as well as an amine-based alkaline additive to keep the coolant conductivity low [0005]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. a conductivity of 100 µS/cm or lower, would naturally flow from a composition with all the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts prepared by a similar process. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2111.01 (I)(II). If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights