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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 12-14, 16 and 18 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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected because the claims do not define “PAGs”.
Claim 14 is rejected because the term “characterized” is not conventional U.S. claim language.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected because there is no antecedent support in claim 1 for “the emissions of total volatile organic compounds”.
Claim 18 is rejected because it is not clear if there exist more than one glycerol compound. Perhaps the claim should read –wherein the polyol is glycerol--?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laemmle (US 4,452,711-appears on the PTO 1449).
Laemmle teaches a lubricating composition for use as a metalworking fluid comprising water, 10% by weight of a triblock copolymer mixture polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene (commercial polyalkylene glycol product Pluronic 17R4 with a molar mass Mn of about 2700), 1% by weight of polyoxyethylene (12) lauryl ether (corresponds to an alkoxylated fatty alcohol), 3% by weight of isostearic acid and 1% by weight of diethanolamine (corresponds to 4% by weight of an anti-corrosion system comprising an acid and a base)(see Example 8; col. 3, lines 20-46; claims 1,14 and 15). Laemmle provides an aqueous metalworking lubricant composition having acceptable load bearing and friction-modifying properties, corrosion-inhibition ability and chemical stability under ordinary operating conditions, and avoidance of deposits on tools and workpieces following metalworking operations ( rolling, drawing, ironing, machining and others) in which the composition is used (see col. 2, lines 20-27; col. 3, lines 1-6). Carboxylic acids of C11-C36 mono- or dicarboxylic may be used in amounts from about 0.5-10 wt% (see col. 2, lines 54-59). Alkanolamines such as triethanolamine, diethanolamine and ethyldiisopropanolamine, etc. may be used in amounts from about 0.5-10 wt % (see col. 2, lines 60-63; col. 4, lines 20-29). The lubricant may also include 0.5-10 wt % of a water-soluble polyoxyethylene or polyoxypropylene alcohol (polyalkylene glycol) (see col. 4, lines 54-59).
Accordingly, Laemmle teaching all the limitations of the claims anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5, 9, 12-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711-appears on the PTO 1449).
Laemmle teaches a lubricating composition for use as a metalworking fluid comprising water, 10% by weight of a triblock copolymer mixture polyoxypropylene-polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene (commercial polyalkylene glycol product Pluronic 17R4 with a molar mass Mn of about 2700), 1% by weight of polyoxyethylene (12) lauryl ether (corresponds to an alkoxylated fatty alcohol), 3% by weight of isostearic acid and 1% by weight of diethanolamine (corresponds to 4% by weight of an anti-corrosion system comprising an acid and a base (see Example 8; col. 3, lines 20-46; claims 1,14 and 15).
Laemmle provides an aqueous metalworking lubricant composition having acceptable load bearing and friction-modifying properties, corrosion-inhibition ability and chemical stability under ordinary operating conditions, and avoidance of deposits on tools and workpieces following metalworking operations ( rolling, drawing, ironing, machining and others) in which the composition is used (see col. 2, lines 20-27; col. 3, lines 1-6). Carboxylic acids of C11-C36 mono- or dicarboxylic may be used in amounts from about 0.5-10 wt% (see col. 2, lines 54-59). Alkanolamines such as triethanolamine, diethanolamine and ethyldiisopropanolamine, etc. may be used in amounts from about 0.5-10 wt % (see col. 2, lines 60-63; col. 4, lines 20-29). The lubricant may also include 0.5-10 wt % of a water-soluble polyoxyethylene or polyoxypropylene alcohol (polyalkylene glycol) (see col. 4, lines 54-59). Laemmle meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Laemmle does not specifically teach that the composition comprises 30% of polyalkylene glycol. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because Laemmle teaches that the composition contains up to 20 % polyoxyalkylene block copolymers as well as up to 10 % polyalkylene alcohol. The combination of these compounds would amount to the claimed 30%.
With respect to claim 9, Laemmle does not specifically teach the viscosity of the polyalkylene glycol (PAG). However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because it would be reasonable to expect that the PAG would meet this limitation because the compounds are used in an aqueous composition and are used in the same desired environment as Applicant uses his composition.
With respect to the limitation regarding the composition being a concentrate or a ready to use composition, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because the skilled artisan would recognize that concentrates may be diluted to the desired concentration and the skilled artisan would also recognize that for ease of use a ready to use composition may be more convenient.
With respect to emissions of total volatile organic compounds at 80 C being lower than 200 ppm, it would be reasonable to expect that Laemmle would meet this limitation because Laemmle teaches using the same composition in a metalworking process.
With respect to claim 17, Laemmle teaches that the composition has acceptable load bearing and friction modifying properties which would reduce the energy used during the process and increase the productivity of the process.
Claims 3, 8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laemmle (US 4,452,711) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Knecht (US 3,536,622-appears on PTO-892).
Laemmle has been discussed above. Laemmle does not specifically teach that the composition contains a polyol (glycerol). However, Knecht teaches this difference.
Knecht teaches aqueous metalworking compositions comprising bases and acids (see abstract; col. 1, lines 57-60). Knecht teaches that the composition contains 2 to 8 wt% of an alcohol, such as a polyol (see co. 2, lines 49-66; abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a polyol to an aqueous metalworking composition because Knecht teaches that such a compound acts as a coupling agent and prevent freezing.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references teach the general state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18875993/20260625
Prosecution Insights