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 25 February 2026. 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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 15 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.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 1-15 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 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "natural oil ethoxylate" in line 2 and depends upon Claim 1, which recites a "fatty acid ethoxylate." Although these two components may exhibit similar functional properties, they represent chemically distinct structures. Applicant is advised to amend Claim 14 with appropriate claim language to ensure proper claim scope. The limitation "natural oil ethoxylate" is interpreted as corresponding to the "fatty acid ethoxylate" recited in Claim 1.
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, 4-10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alamri (US-20240110096-A1) in view of Sasaki (JP-2001316858-A).
With regard to claim 1, Alamri teaches a corrosion inhibitor composition comprising a polymer, a thioamide, a surfactant (e.g. fatty acid ethoxylate, para [0064]), an aliphatic alcohol, and a solvent (Abstract). Furthermore, Alamri teaches that this corrosion inhibitor composition may be utilized in conjunction with other conventional corrosion inhibitors known to one of ordinary skill in the art, including thioureas, thiazoles, amines, amides, derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof (para [0072]). Alamri further discloses the inclusion of a co-solvent that is explicitly added to enhance the water/oil solubility of the composition (para [0073]). Accordingly, these combined disclosures teach or render obvious the claimed corrosion inhibitor composition, which comprises a fatty acid ethoxylate, thioureas, thiazoles, and two or more solvents.
However, Alamri does not explicitly teach the utilization of arylthiourea.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses a corrosion inhibitor composition comprising thiazoles, an organic amine, a surfactant, an alcohol-water solvent, a coloring agent, and thiourea or its derivatives (Abstract). Yu teaches that thiourea-based corrosion inhibitors, such as thiourea and diphenyl thiourea, readily adsorb onto copper surfaces to form a dark brown film; this film tends to entrap scale, which effects the rate and efficiency of dissolution (page 3, para 3; page 5, para 2). Additionally, Yu notes the utilization of thiazole such as 2-mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) (i.e., benzo[d]thiazole-2-thiol) exhibits excellent corrosion inhibition on copper alloys, however its limited solubility in pickling solutions restricts its effective dosage (page 4, para 3).
Furthermore, Yu exemplifies with working examples that utilize various combinations and concentrations of thiourea, diphenyl thiourea, di-o-tolyl-thiourea, thiocarbamide, and MBT (Examples 1–3, pages 5–6).
With regard to the combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the known anti-corrosion compounds taught by Alamri in combination. Specifically, Alamri discloses the utilize of a fatty acid ethoxylate, a thiourea, a thiazole, nitriles, aromatic and alkyl amines, and an acetylenic alcohol. Alamri would guide one of ordinary skill in the art to employ commonly known anti-corrosion agents (para [0072]). Yu would guide one of ordinary skill in the art to employ corrosion inhibitors such as thiazole such as diethyl thiourea, an arylthiourea such as diphenyl thiourea, and a thiazole such as 2-mercaptobenzothiazole specifically in combination to improve corrosion performance (page 5, para 4). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Alamri’s formulation to incorporate these specific anti-corrosive components together to optimize corrosion performance to arrive at the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 4, Alamri teaches the surfactant is present in the composition in an amount of 1 to 15wt.% (para [0064]), which reads on the claimed range.
With regard to claims 5-10, Alamri does not explicitly teach the thiourea, arylthiourea, and thiazole of the claimed formulas (II, III, and IV) and their respective concentrations. However, Alamri does teach secondary corrosion inhibitors may be a thiourea and thiazole (para [0072]).
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses a total weight concentration of 0 to 5 wt.% for thiourea and its derivatives, and 5 to 16 wt.% for thiazoles (page 4, para. 6), which reads on the claimed ranges. To further substantiate this, Yu provides specific working examples that intersect with the claimed ranges: thiocarbamide at 0.1 wt.%, diphenyl thiourea and di-o-tolyl-thiourea at 1 wt.%, and 2-mercapto benzothiazole (MBT) at 5 to 16 wt.% (page 5, paras. 6–8, Examples 1–3).
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 formulation of Alamri. Specifically, to incorporate thiourea, arylthiourea, and thiazole within the presently claimed concentration parameters demonstrated by Yu. Alamri would guide one of ordinary skill in the art to employ commonly known anti-corrosion agents (para [0072]). Yu would guide one of ordinary skill in the art to employ corrosion inhibitors such as thiazole such as diethyl thiourea, an arylthiourea such as diphenyl thiourea, and a thiazole such as 2-mercaptobenzothiazole specifically in combination to improve corrosion performance (page 5, para 4). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Alamri’s composition to comprise known corrosion inhibitors like thiourea, arylthiourea, and thiazoles within the concentration ranges disclosed by Yu to achieve together to optimize corrosion performance to arrive at the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 11, Alamri teaches solvents such as dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), alkanes, aromatic (para [0070]), glycols, water (para [0073]), thioethers, amines, amides, acetylenic alcohols, ketones (para [0081]). These components inherently teach or disclose the claimed solvents, specifically reading on the limitations for aromatics, ethers, amines, nitriles, alcohols, polar protic solvents, polar aprotic solvents, and water.
With regard to claim 15 , Alamri defines the corrosion rate as the velocity at which metal degrades within a specific environment, noting that this rate depends on environmental conditions and the type or state of the metal. The reference states that the corrosion rate can be measured using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard weight loss (immersion) test, specifically citing ASTM G3 and G59. Finally, Alamri discloses that the method achieves a corrosion rate of 1 to 25 mils penetration per year (mpy) (para [0093]), a range that overlaps the claimed range.
With regard to the corrosion rate, Alamri offers the motivation to optimize the corrosion rate due to its ability to differentiate depending on environmental conditions and type of metal (para [0093]). As such, the environment or metal type will affect the corrosion rate and its performance. Alamri would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the environmental settings, metal selection, and underlying calculation factors when evaluating corrosion (para [0093]). Given that the cited references collectively disclose analogous components utilized for the same operational application, modifying the corrosion rate to achieve a desired mil-per-year (mpy) target represents nothing more than routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to adjust the environmental and metal parameters disclosed by Alamri within the corrosion inhibitor composition of Meng to arrive at the claimed invention.
With regard to the ASTM G111 test, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that a composition comprising substantially identical components would yield consistent measurement results. The ASTM G3, G59, and G111 standards serve complementary and overlapping roles; specifically, ASTM G111 establishes environmental protocols that are directly applicable to electrochemical testing under ASTM G3 and G59, and vice versa. Therefore, a person who has ordinary skill in the art would expect such test would render the same results.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alamri (US-20240110096-A1) and Yu (CN-1166538-A) as applied to claims 1, 4-10, 11, and 15 above, and further in view of Kubo (JP-2011042719-A).
The teachings of Alamri and Yu are disclosed above.
With regard to claims 2-3, Alamari teaches a surfactant such as castor oil with 2 to 40 moles of ethylene oxide (para [0065]), which a castor oil with 40 moles of ethylene oxide reads on the claimed formula. However, Alamari does not explicitly teach the selection of 40 moles of ethylene oxide to a specificity of obviousness.
In the same field of endeavor, Kubo discloses a biodegradable lubricant composition—intended for chainsaw applications—comprising castor oil, water, and a surfactant selected from an ethylene oxide adduct of castor oil (Abstract). Kubo demonstrates that combining water and a surfactant achieves low friction and effective rust prevention, particularly where water alone is immiscible with the base oils. Kubo further teaches that the surfactant reduces the cleaning action on metal components to improve overall workability, and notes that the surfactant may alternatively be utilized in the absence of water (paras. [0021–0022] and [0028]).
Furthermore, Kubo teaches an ethylene oxide adduct of castor oil of the following structure (iii, para [0026]):
PNG
media_image1.png
360
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the total amount of n1,n2,n3,m1,m2 and m3 in the formula (7) is 20 and 40 (para [0047]), which falls within the claimed integer range. Kubo further exemplifies the sole use of hydrogenated castor-oil ethylene oxide adduct alone in Example 1013 of Table 3. Kubo teaches that the test results from sample No. 1001-1020 demonstrated both rust prevention and low frictional properties (para [0048]).
With regard to the fatty acid ethoxylate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the surfactant such as fatty acid ethoxylate disclosed by Alamri in view of Kubo. Specifically, to an ethylene oxide adduct of castor oil surfactant demonstrated by Kubo. Alamri would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a surfactant that is non-ionic such as the fatty acid ethoxylate (para [0064]). Kubo would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a surfactant such as one with fatty acid of higher ethoxylate to achieve excellent rust prevention and low frictional properties on metal surfaces (para [0048]). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve the rust prevention and frictional properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of modifying the fatty acid to 40 moles of ethylene oxide because Alamri can be provided with such. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alamri (US-20210253938-A1) in view Yu (CN-1166538-A) as applied to claims 1, 4-10, 11, and 15 above, and further in view of Tanabe (US-5792274-A).
The teachings of Alamri, Yu, and Kubo are disclosed above.
With regard to claims 12-13, Alamri teaches a solvent comprising dimethyl sulfoxide within the range 30 to 80 wt.% (para [0070]), and co-solvent such as water, glycols such as ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol for the purposes of enhancing the water/oil solubility of the corrosion inhibitor (paras. [0073]), which reads on the claimed glycol and its claimed range. However, Alamri does not teach the selection of the solvents to the specificity of obviousness nor the concentration of the co-solvent.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanabe discloses a remover solution composition comprising (a) a salt of hydrofluoric acid with a metal-free base, (b) a water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., claimed solvent), and (c) water and optionally (d) an anticorrosive (Abstract). Tanabe notes that incorporating component (d) effectively inhibits the corrosion of vulnerable substrates—such as Al, Al–Si, and Al–Si–Cu (i.e., metals)—without compromising the removal efficiency of modified films (col. 4, lines 62–67; col. 5, lines 1–5). Suitable examples of this anticorrosive include aromatic hydroxyl compounds, acetylene alcohols, carboxyl group-containing organic compounds and their anhydrides, and triazole compounds (col 4, lines 62-67 and col 5, lines 1-5). This overlaps with the known anti-corrosion compounds of the Meng and the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Tanabe identifies dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and ethylene glycol as preferred embodiments for component (b) (col. 4, lines 8–43). Specifically, Tanabe highlights that using a water-soluble organic solvent containing at least 10% by weight (wt.%) of ethylene glycol suppresses the corrosion of metal deposition substrates during the removal of holed resist patterns. Because higher concentrations of ethylene glycol enhance this anticorrosive effect, ethylene glycol may be used alone. Alternatively, Tanabe discloses a preferred mixture of 40 to 60 wt.% ethylene glycol and 60 to 40 wt.% DMSO. This disclosure directly reads on the claimed combination and concentration of the two solvents.
With regard to solvents, 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 solvent and co-solvent of Alamri. Specifically, to incorporate specific solvents, such as dimethyl sulfoxide and ethylene glycol as established in Tanabe. Tanabe would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize ethylene glycol for its known corrosion-inhibiting properties and to pair it with DMSO to synergistically enhance these anticorrosive effects (see Tanabe at col. 4, lines 8–43). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Alamri’s formulation to combine dimethyl sulfoxide and ethylene glycol within the parameters of Tanabe to achieve these recognized properties.
With regard to claim 14, The prior art collectively renders the claimed concentrations obvious.
Regarding the fatty acid ethoxylate concentration, Alamri teaches the surfactant is present in the composition in an amount of 1 to 15wt.% (para [0064]). Kubo teaches an optimal range of 2 to 10 wt. % when added alone, noting that excessive amounts cause turbidity and adversely affect lubricating performance(para [0027]–[0028]).
Regarding the thiourea, arylthiourea, and benzo[d]thiazole-2-thiol, Yu teaches the total weight ratio of thiourea and derivatives at a concentration of 0 to 5 wt.%, and thiazoles at a concentration range of 5 to 16 wt.% (page 4, para 6), which reads on the claimed range. Yu further provides working examples of thiocarbamide at a concentration of 0.1 wt.%, diphenyl thiourea and di-o-tolyl-thiourea at a concentration of 1 wt. %, as well as 2-mercapto benzothiazole (MBT) at 5 to 16 wt. % (Examples 1-3, page 5, paragraphs 6–8), which read on the claimed ranges.
Regarding the DMSO and glycol, Tanabe discloses an advantageous mixture of 40 to 60 wt. % ethylene glycol and 60 to 40 wt. % dimethyl sulfoxide, which reads on the claimed solvents and concentration ranges.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Alamri, Yu, Kubo, and Tanabe render the claimed concentrations obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights