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
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 14 December 2023. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13 and 18-22) in the reply filed on 16 September 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-13 and 18-22 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 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.
With regard to claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation of less than 50 ppm, and the claim also recites less than 25ppm and further less than 10 ppm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of 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 1-8 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US-20160017200-A1) in view of Maes (US-20050051754-A1).
With regard to claims 1-2 and 18, Yang teaches a heat transfer fluid (i.e., coolant) comprising a freezing point depressant (e.g. ethylene glycol, para [0014]), water, or a combination thereof; an inorganic phosphate (i.e., corresponding to the claimed inorganic compound); a carboxylate; an azole compound; calcium ion; and water-soluble polymer (e.g. N-vinyl pyrrolidone or polyvinylpyrrolidone paras [0038 and 0049]) (para [0015]).
Yang further teaches that the water may be included in addition to the freezing point depressant (e.g. alcohol, para [0016]), and that the resulting concentrate may be diluted with water to form a 40 to 60 vol. solution (paras [0018-0019]). This disclosure reads on the coolant composition comprising N-vinylpyrrolidone and a base fluid consisting of water and alcohol. Yang further specifies that the depressant concentration is 15 to 99wt.% of the total concentrate (para [0009]), and that the inorganic phosphate concentration is 0.002 to 5 wt.% of the total concentrate (20 to 50,000 ppm, para [0024]). These disclosed ranges overlap with the claimed alcohol concentration in a range of 10-99.95 wt.%, as well as the claimed requirement that the base fluid constitutes more than 75 wt.% of the total composition, and that the inorganic compound is present at less than 100 ppm.
Yang does not explicitly teach the electrical conductivity of the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Maes teaches a composition comprising carboxylic acids, liquid alcohol (i.e., monoethylene glycol), and thiazoles and/or triazoles (Abstract).
Furthermore, Maes teaches that the choice of base fluid directly influences electrical conductivity (para [0029]). Maes teaches to improve the reduction in electrical conductively the selection of the carboxylate inhibitor is also crucial to exhibit electrical conductivity fluids <100 μS/cm (para 0031]). Maes teaches that hydrocarbyl triazoles, thiazoles, and other complexing agents effectively remove metal ions and ionic contaminants that would otherwise disrupt low electrical conductivity (para [0033]). To provide adequate freeze protection, the typical operation range for glycol-based depressants spans 30 to 70% of the concentrated heat transfer fluid in water, for instance working example contains a 50 vol.% monopropylene glycol-based coolant achieves an electrical conductivity of <20 μS/cm (para [0038]), which falls in the claimed ranges.
With regard to the electrical conductivity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid of Yang to include low electrical conductivity components—specifically, carboxylate, corrosion inhibitors, azoles, water and an alcohol-glycol mixture to exhibit an electrical conductivity within the parameters of Maes. Maes would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to tailor a base fluid comprising water, alcohol, carboxylates, and corrosion inhibitors to efficiently achieve and maintain a low electrical conductivity, specifically as low as 20 μS/cm (paras [0029-0038]). The references collectively teach the optimization of the base fluid utilizing similar additives and components. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to set Yang’s fluid to arrive at the claimed electrical conductivity lower than 50 μS/cm. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claims 3-4, and 20, Yang teaches that the representative alcohol for use in the depressant is ethylene glycol (i.e., monoethylene glycol), 1,3-propylene glycol (i.e., 1,3-propanediol), 1,2-propylene glycol (i.e., monopropylene glycol), glycerol (para [0016]), which reads on the claimed limitation. Yang further provides a working example of ethylene glycol (para [0089]).
Furthermore, Yang teaches that the concentration of the depressant may vary depending on the application, specifying a range of approximately 15 to 99 wt.% (para [0017]). Yang additionally teaches that the concentrate is further diluted with water of 40 to 60 vol.% (para [0018]). Upon accounting for the dilution with water, the resulting concentration of the depressant (i.e., alcohol) is approximately 42.60 wt. to 62.54 wt.% which overlaps the claimed alcohol concentration range of 30 to 70 wt.%.
[For calculation purposes: Ethylene glycol was used as the depressant to determine the density (1.1132). For 40 vol.% Water / 60 vol.% Ethylene glycol: Mass of Water = 40 mL x 1.000g/ml = 40.0 g. Mass of EG = 60 mL x 1.1132g/mL = 66.792. Final wt.% = (66.792/66.792+40.0)x100=62.54%. For 60 vol.% Water / 40 vol.% Ethylene glycol: Mass of Water = 60mL x 1.000g/ml = 60.0 g. Mass of EG = 40 mL x 1.1132g/mL = 44.528g. Final wt.% = (44.528/44.528+60.0)x100=42.60 wt.%]
With regard to the overlapping range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Yang would guide one having ordinary skill in the art tailor the depressant concentration depending on the application (para [0017]).Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claims 5-6 and 21, Yang teaches that the water-soluble polyelectrolyte polymer (e.g. vinylpyrrolidone) exhibits a molecular weight ranging from 200 to 200,000 Daltons (1 Dalton = 1g/mol) (para [0045]), which reads on the claimed ranges due to overlapping.
With regard to claim 7, Yang teaches that the heat transfer fluid comprises azoles, such as thiazole, triazoles (para [0025]), which reads on the claimed limitations.
With regard to claim 8, Yang teaches an inorganic phosphate concentration in the heat transfer fluid ranges from approximately 0.002 to 5wt.% (20 to 50,000 ppm), which overlaps the claimed range.
With regard to claim 19, Yang teaches vinylpyrrolidone-based homopolymers, and copolymers (para [0046]), and more specifically identifies polyvinylpyrrolidone (HP165) as a suitable water-soluble polymer (para [0049]).
Claim 9, 10-11, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US-20160017200-A1) in view of Maes (US-20050051754-A1) as applied to claims 1-8, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Yong (CN-109652809-A).
The teachings of Yang and Maes are discussed above.
With regard to claim 9, Yang does not explicitly teach the concentration of N-vinylpyrrolidone polymer. However, Yang teaches a ready-to-use heat transfer fluid, wherein the depressant may be present in an amount of 1 to 90 wt.% of the total composition and then diluted with water around 50 vol.% (paras [0077 and 0079]), which would yield the upper limit of 95 wt.% of base fluid and read on the claimed concentration base fluid being more than 90 wt.%.
In the same field of endeavor, Yong teaches a coolant comprising ethylene glycol, water, organic azole, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and corrosion inhibiter (Abstract). Yong further teaches that due to the water solubility and film-forming properties of pyrrolidone, it provides clarifying and anti-coagulation effects, while also preventing dirt redeposition. Consequently, incorporating polyvinylpyrrolidone as a corrosion inhibiting component in an ethylene-glycol-water based coolant facilities the formation of a protective film, preventing coolant precipitation and metal surface scaling, and provides a bactericidal effect that enhances coolant stability and shelf life (para [0016])
Furthermore, Yong teaches polyvinylpyrrolidone, with a concentration of 50-200 mg/L (0.0047 to 0.0186 wt.%) to the entire concentration (Abstract), which overlaps the range claimed.
[For calculation purposes: To determine the true weight percentage (w/w), based on the mass of the 65/35 ethylene glycol/water solvent mixture per liter must be calculated: Ethylene glycol mass (650 mL): 723.58 grams (density ≈ 1.1132 g/mL), Water mass (350 mL): 350.00 grams (density ≈ 1.000 g/mL), Total solution mass (1 L): 1,073.58 grams, Minimum PVP (50 mg/L): 0.050 g / 1,073.58 g × 100% = 0.0047 wt.% and Maximum PVP (200 mg/L): 0.200 g / 1,073.58 g × 100% = 0.0186 wt.%]
With regard to the concentration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the water-soluble polymer of Yang. Specifically, polyvinylpyrrolidone as the water-soluble polymer into the concentration parameters demonstrated by Yong. Yong would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate polyvinylpyrrolidone due to its attendant benefits in water solubility, clarification, anti-condensation, stability, and extended storage life (para [0016]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Yang’s water-soluble polymer to comprise a polyvinylpyrrolidone within the parameters of Yong to achieve these recognized properties.
With regard to claim 10, Yang teaches a heat transfer fluid pH range between 6.8 and 9.5 (para [0052]), which reads on the claimed range due to overlapping.
With regard to claim 11, Yang teaches that the representative alcohol for use in the depressant is ethylene glycol (i.e., monoethylene glycol), 1,3-propylene glycol (i.e., 1,3-propanediol), 1,2-propylene glycol (i.e., monopropylene glycol), glycerol (para [0016]), which reads on the claimed limitation. Yang further provides a working example of ethylene glycol (para [0089]).
Furthermore, Yang teaches that the concentration of the depressant may vary depending on the application, specifying a range of approximately 15 to 99 wt.% (para [0017]). Yang additionally teaches that the concentrate is further diluted with water of 40 to 60 vol.% (para [0018]). Upon accounting for the dilution with water, the resulting concentration of the depressant (i.e., alcohol) is approximately 42.60 wt. to 62.54 wt.% which overlaps the claimed alcohol concentration range of 30 to 70 wt.%.
[For calculation purposes: Ethylene glycol was used as the depressant to determine the density (1.1132). For 40 vol.% Water / 60 vol.% Ethylene glycol: Mass of Water = 40 mL x 1.000g/ml = 40.0 g. Mass of EG = 60 mL x 1.1132g/mL = 66.792. Final wt.% = (66.792/66.792+40.0)x100=62.54%. For 60 vol.% Water / 40 vol.% Ethylene glycol: Mass of Water = 60mL x 1.000g/ml = 60.0 g. Mass of EG = 40 mL x 1.1132g/mL = 44.528g. Final wt.% = (44.528/44.528+60.0)x100=42.60 wt.%]
As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Yang would guide one having ordinary skill in the art tailor the depressant concentration depending on the application (para [0017]).Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 13, Yang teaches a ready-to-use heat transfer fluid comprising water and a heat transfer fluid concentrate (i.e., alcohol, para [0016]) (para [0010]), which reads on the claimed ready-to-use heat transfer fluid consisting solely of water and alcohol.
With regard to claim 22, Yang teaches a heat transfer fluid pH range between 6.8 and 9.5 (para [0052]), which reads on the claimed range due to overlapping.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US-20160017200-A1), in view of Maes (US-20050051754-A1) and Yong (CN-109652809-A) as applied to claims 9, 10-11, 13 and 22 above, and further in view of Anton Paar et al. “Viscosity of Automotive Antifreeze and Kodama (US-20190177591-A1).
The teachings of Yang, Maes, and Yong are discussed above.
With regard to claim 12, Yang, Maes, and Yong do not explicitly teach the kinematic viscosity of the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Anton Paar et al. teaches an antifreeze coolant comprising ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, corrosion inhibitors, and other additives such as foam depressant (Pure Substance). Anton Paar et al. further teaches that this antifreeze is mixed with water to form a diluted substance at an antifreeze-to-water ration of 50:50 or 40:60. Anton Paar et al. notes that mixtures with lower antifreeze content exhibit lower viscosity, which leads to less flow resistance and less load of the thermostat's pump (Diluted Substance).
Furthermore, Anton Paar et al. provides working examples at 20° C, including a Diluted 60:40 Antifreeze: Water of 5.8 mm2/s, Diluted 50:50 Antifreeze: Water of 3.72 mm2/s, and Diluted Antifreeze: Water of 3.13 mm2/s (pages 4-7), which each of these values falls within the claimed range.
In the same field of endeavor, Kodama teaches a coolant composition comprising a surfactant, antifoaming agent such as mineral oil, and a base of alcohol and/or water that exhibits a kinematic viscosity is 8.5 mm2/s or more at 25° C. (Abstract).
Furthermore, Kodama teaches that when glycols—such as ethylene glycol—are utilized, the coolant composition exhibits a propensity for significantly increased viscosity, particularly at low temperatures. To mitigate this effect and properly regulate viscosity, Kodama teaches incorporating a surfactant as a viscosity index modifier (para [0004]). Komada further teaches that including the viscosity index modifier effectively suppresses high-temperature foaming, thereby enhancing the fuel efficiency while maintaining structural durability (para [0021]).
Polyvinylpyrrolidone is recognized in the art as a viscosity index improver, a hardwater stabilizing agent, and a film-forming agent.
With regard to the kinematic viscosity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention that Yong’s composition could be formulated to exhibit a kinematic viscosity within the parameters of Anton Paar et al and Kodama. Anton Paar et al. would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to tailor the base mixture for a desired flow resistance and load to application (Diluted Substance). Kodama would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a viscosity index improver to regulate viscosity and suppress foaming properties and durability (para [0004 and 0021]). Thus, Yang’s heat transfer fluid would achieve the targeted low kinematic viscosity values when formulated with the low-viscosity components disclosed above. The references collectively teach the optimization of the base fluid utilizing similar additives and components. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Yang’s fluid to arrive at the claimed kinematic viscosity at 20° C within the parameter of 0.1 to 100 mm2/s. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to the specific instruments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the composition containing substantially the same components would logically follow the same measurement. Therefore, a person who has ordinary skill in the art would expect such instrument would render the same results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights