Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/105,869

LUBRICATING OIL COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 24, 2025
Examiner
OLADAPO, TAIWO
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
605 granted / 1144 resolved
-12.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
89 currently pending
Career history
1233
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1144 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agiral et al. (WO 2022/040372A1) In regards to claim 1, Agiral teaches organic heat transfer system, method and fluid, wherein the fluid is a colloidal dispersion that comprises a non-aqueous and non-water oleaginous fluid (base oil) a), at least one nanoparticle b) and a surfactant c), and wherein the composition is useful for cooling a battery pack or a power system of an electric vehicle (title, abstract). The base oil a) can be any Group I to III mineral oil, or Groups IV or V synthetic oil [0009 – 0012]. The nanoparticles can be aluminum oxide, boron oxide, cerium oxide, tungsten oxide, titanium carbine etc. and have average (D50) particle sizes of less than 1000 nm such as less than 250 nm, such as from 0.1 nm to 100 nm [0041 – 0045]. The nanoparticles are present at from 0.5 to 40% in a colloidal dispersion [0048]. The colloidal dispersion includes a surfactant such as dispersants, and which are present at ratios of the amounts of the surfactant to the amount of the nanoparticles of from about 0.08 to about 2 [0050, 0052 and 0090]. The dispersion has a kinematic viscosity at 100℃ (Kv100) of from 0.7 to 6 cSt [0098]. In the examples, the composition has a Kv25 of from 2 cSt to about 17 cSt [0128, Table 3]. Thus, Agiral teaches the lubricating oil composition having components A, B, C and their amounts of the claim. In regards to claim 2, Agiral teaches the composition having the ratios of B/C of the claims as discussed above. In regards to claims 3, 4, Agiral teaches the composition having the claimed particles and particle sizes as previously stated. In regards to claim 5, Agiral teaches the composition having the mineral base oil of the claim. In regards to claims 6, 9, Agiral teaches the composition having Kv100 and Kv25 within the claimed range and thus would comprise Kv40 of the claims. In regards to claim 7, Agiral teaches the composition having base oil such as mineral oil similar to the claimed oils and which would have similar volume resistivity of the claims. In regards to claims 8, 10, Agiral teaches the composition which is non-aqueous (water-free) as previously stated. In regards to claims 11 – 13, Agiral teaches heat transfer system and coolant composition for electrical apparatuses such as electric vehicles components, battery etc. as previously stated. In regards to claim 14, Agiral teaches electrical apparatus, method and coolant fluid for the electric apparatus and thus when the fluid is used in the apparatus, the claimed method would be provided. In regards to claim 15, Agiral teaches the method of preparing the composition which comprises blending the components and mixing the composition [0280 – 0283]. While the speed of the mixer is not particularly discussed, routine process parameters such as mixing speed are within general working conditions or workable ranges that are optimized by routine experimentation. Such a routine parameter would be considered obvious unless there is evidence that it is critical. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm. 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 571-272-6381. 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. /TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 24, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590262
ANTI-FRICTION COMPOSITE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590263
LUBRICANT ADDITIVE, LUBRICANT COMPOSITION, AND WORKING FLUID COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584078
Method for Producing Lubricating Greases of Lithium Complex Soaps and Lithium-Calcium-Complex Soaps
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570911
A MARINE FUEL BLEND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571073
ALUMINUM BRONZE ALLOY AND SLIDING MEMBER USING SAID ALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+11.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1144 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month