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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/25/205 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s request for continued examination and amendment/remarks filed 07/25/2025 and supplemental response (remarks and 132 declaration) filed 03/18/2026. The supplemental response is entered.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The 103 rejections over Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) and Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) further in view of Mahler et al. (US 5,830,325 A) or Cottrell et al. (US 7,608,574 B2) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The 103 rejections over Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) and Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) further in view of Mahler et al. (US 5,830,325 A) or Cottrell et al. (US 7,608,574 B2) are withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The prior cited references fail to teach or suggest the presence of water in the concentration as claimed/amended.
However, the current rejections utilize a new, additional secondary references, Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1), combined with the Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) and Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) references of record under new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejections, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant’s discussion/standard of “drop-in alternative” at [0011] of the original specification is noted.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) in view of any one of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1).
Minor et al. teach compositions, optionally suitable as an R410A replacement, comprising E-1,2-difluoroethylene, i.e., trans-1,2-difluoroethylene, for use in refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump systems (abstract and para. 0011 & 0126-0128). The refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump systems contain a vapor-compression cycle comprising an evaporator, a compressor, a condenser and an expansion device where the composition circulates therein (para. 0134-0136).
Regarding the composition, Minor et al. teach the refrigerant composition is azeotropic or azeotrope-like comprising trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (E-HFC-1132a) and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) (para. 0018, 0044, & 0045). Table 1 teach this blend is azeotrope-like among relative weight percent ranges of 1-99/99-1 trans-1,2-difluoroethylene/1,1,1-trifluoroethane. Table 3 also teach exemplary blends of trans-
1,2-difluoroethylene and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane:
PNG
media_image1.png
247
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The exemplary amounts of 80/20, 90/10, and 99/1 E-HFO-1132a/HFC-143a each fall within and thus directly meet the claimed proportion of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene is 80 mass% or more and the proportion of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane is 20 mass% or less based on the total amount of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane in the refrigerant.
In the event the precise blends of Table 3 do not directly meet the claimed refrigerant composition and proportions, the claimed refrigerant composition and proportions is nevertheless obvious further in view of the claims of the reference.
Claim 3 of Minor et al. precisely recites a limitation where the composition comprises “about 1 weight percent to about 99 weight percent E-1,2-difluoroethylene and about 99 weight percent to about 1 weight percent 1,1,1-trifluoroethane”. “E” is the IUPAC approved nomenclature to name a “trans” alkene stereoisomer. Thus, this claimed composition in Minor et al. overlaps the claimed azeotrope(like) refrigerant and proportions. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and to use a refrigerant composition as claimed in a vapor-compression cycle for refrigeration, air-conditioning, or heat pump systems (i.e., refrigerating machine and method of use/operating thereof), as a R410A replacement, with a reasonable expectation of success because Minor et al. teach and claims such a binary mixture of both ingredients recited in the instant claims (trans-1,2-difluoroethylene and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane) are suitable for inclusion in a R410A replacement refrigerant composition which may be used in vapor-compression style heat transfer (refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump) apparatus. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed Cir. 1990).
However, it is noted the claims are not simply to the recited composition but a method for operating a refrigerating machine comprising a step of circulating the recited composition as a drop-in alternative for R410A in the refrigerating machine. While not directly anticipated, the teachings of Minor et al. render obvious the recited method’s step of circulating the recited composition as a drop-in alternative for R410A in the refrigerating machine.
Note, repeating the cycle of circulating the composition per para. 0134 of the reference reads on a method for operating a refrigerating machine comprising a step of circulating a composition in the refrigerating machine. Also note, prior art devices meet a claimed process if the device carries out the process during normal operation. Here, Minor et al.’s refrigerating cycle apparatus carries out a method for operating a refrigerating machine comprising a step of circulating a composition in the refrigerating machine during normal operation. See MPEP 2112.02, I.
Minor et al. generally teach their composition as an R410A replacement (Id.; note para. 0128 where Minor et al. teach the replacement refrigerants are most useful when used in the original refrigeration equipment designed for a different refrigerant, where the replacement refrigerant composition is useful and intended to replace R410A), which in view of the above-cited teachings to their refrigerating cycle system(s), indeed meet a refrigerating machine suitable for and capable of circulating R410A (and method of operating thereof) comprising a vapor-compression cycle comprising a compressor, a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator where a working fluid/refrigerant circulates therein as R410A replacement. See also para. 0011 & 0126 and claim 8 teaching/claiming a method for replacing a refrigerant selected from, among others, R410A by adding the composition to a system that uses, used, or was designed to use said [R410A] refrigerant, which also meets a refrigerating machine suitable for and capable of circulating R410A (and method of operating thereof) comprising a vapor-compression cycle comprising a compressor, a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator where a working fluid/refrigerant circulates therein as drop-in R410A replacement. Replacing R410A in a system that uses R410A or was designed to use R410A by adding the (above-described) composition per para. 0011, para. 0126, or claim 8 and then operating the system per. 0134-0136 reads on and encompasses a method for operating a refrigeration machine that is suitable for R410A comprising a step of circulating a composition as a drop-in replacement for R410A in the refrigerating machine.
If any of the above teachings/rationale fall short of meeting the composition is provided or used a “drop-in alternative” or drop-in replacement for R410A in the refrigerating machine, i.e., that the refrigerating machine requires little to no modification to circulate the composition instead of R410A, the drop-in alternative/replacement of the composition in place of R410A would nevertheless been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Note that para. 0128 teach the compositions disclosed in the reference “may be useful as replacements for R22, R407C, among others in original equipment.” The use of the refrigerants as direct replacements are not limited to R22 and R407C but are open to the other previously listed refrigerants of para. 0126 and 0127 which list R410A. Discovery that certain compositions within the teachings of Minor et al. function as direct/drop-in replacements for additional refrigerants of the “among others” refrigerants, i.e., R410A, in original equipment would flow naturally from the teachings of the reference.
Minor et al. further teach the composition may comprise optional components such as a stabilizer (para. 0053-0054) but fail to teach or suggest the presence of water in an amount greater than 0 mass% and 0.1 mass% or less based on the composition.
However, Boussand et al. similarly teach refrigerant compositions where it is disclosed the stability of refrigerant and lubricant mixtures can be affected by the content of water, and heat transfer fluid should preferably have a low moisture/water content, preferably where the water content is less than about 1,000 ppm and subsets thereof. See [0009]. Less than about 1,000 ppm corresponds to a concentration of about 0.1 mass% or less, substantially identical to that instantly claimed.
Additionally, Fukushima similarly teaches refrigerant/working fluid compositions where the inclusion of moisture/water in such compositions and apparatus thereof raises problems such as hydrolysis of the working fluid itself or lubricating oil which can from acid components and contaminants and impair the long term reliability of a compressor in the apparatus, and the moisture/water should be suppressed to a concentration of at most 100 ppm and more preferably at most 20 ppm. See [0104]. At most 100 ppm corresponds to a concentration of 0.01 mass% or less, within the concentration instantly claimed.
Furthermore, Itano et al. similarly teach refrigerant compositions where it is preferable to control the amount of water to 0.1 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the composition so that double bonds in any molecules of unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbons that may be contained therein can be stably present, and oxidation of unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbons is less likely to occur, resulting in improved stability of the composition. See [0114]. Water in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the composition is identical to that instantly claimed.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water content of 0.1 mass% or less (or a subset thereof) as taught by any one of Boussand et al., Fukushima, or Itano et al. to Minor et al.’s refrigerant composition in order to improve the stability of the composition and/or long term reliability of an apparatus comprising the composition (and/or method of operation thereof) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) in view of any one of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mahler et al. (US 5,830,325 A) or Cottrell et al. (US 7,608,574 B2).
The disclosure of Minor et al. in view of Boussand et al., Fukushima, or Itano et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Minor et al. (in view of Boussand et al., Fukushima, or Itano et al.) teach and meet the method for operating a refrigerating machine suitable for R410A comprising a step of circulating a certain trans-1,2-difluoroethylene- and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane-based refrigerant composition with a small concentration of water for stability purposes as a drop-in alternative for R410A in the refrigerating machine, as described above.
Minor et al. (and Boussand et al., Fukushima, or Itano et al.) fail to teach the refrigerant composition further comprises at least one additional refrigerant component such as 1,1,2-trifuoroethane (HFC-143) or 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (CFC/HCFC-133a) in a proportion of more than 0 mass% and 1 mass% or less based on the total amount of the HFO-1132(E), HFC-143a, and the total amount of the additional refrigerant component(s).
However, Mahler et al. teach and is drawn to the purification of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) from fluorocarbon impurities (abstract). Both 1,1,2-trifuoroethane (HFC-143) and 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-133a) are listed as potential impurities present in 1,1,1-trifluoroethane/HFC-143a stock (col. 1 lines 26-42 and col. 2 lines 21-30). Mahler et al. first teach a typical impurity content of a HFC-143a stock contains 5,000 ppm of 1,1,2-trifuoroethane (“HFC-143”) and 5,000 ppm of 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (“HCFC-133a”) (Example 6 at col. 25 lines 2-7). Mahler et al. also teach performing an extractive distillation process for purifying the same HFC-143a stock (containing the 5,000 ppm of HFC-143 and the 5,000 ppm of HCFC-133a) which results in a purified HFC-143a distillate having 100 ppm total of HFC-143, HCFC-133a, and the other initial impurities.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to envisage, if not expect, the presence of a minor amount of any one of 1,1,2-trifuoroethane and/or 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane present in an amount of more than 0 mass% and 1 mass% or less (e.g., 1 ppm to 5,000 ppm and/or 1 ppm to 10,000 ppm, relative to the amount of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane) as an impurity in a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane stock/component as taught by Mahler et al. in the trans-1,2-difluoroethylene- and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane-based composition of Minor et al. because there is a reasonable expectation and teaching in the prior art these compounds form in small, minor amounts within/overlapping the claimed range(s) as impurities that originate during the manufacture a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock and persist through the purification of the 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock.
Alternatively, Cottrell et al. teach and is drawn to forming a purified 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) stock composition by removing impurities/by-products therefrom (abstract and col. 1 lines 8-21). The primary impurity/by-product in Cottrell et al. is 1-chloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (“R-133a”) when produced from a certain vinylidene chloride+HF reaction (Id. and col. 1 line 59 to col. 2 line 25). Cottrell et al.’s purification process comprises distilling an HFC-143a+R-133a composition to from an azeotropic composition comprising mainly HFC-143a and a small amount of the R-133a. Many embodiments thereof are disclosed at col. 3 and 4. A preferred azeotropic composition formed by the distillation process consists essentially of about 75-99.9 wt.% HFC-143a and 0.1-25 wt.% R-133a. However, an exemplary azeotropic composition is formed and distilled from a distillation apparatus comprising 99.04 wt.% HFC-143a and 0.96 wt.% R-133a. See col. 4 line 53 through Table 1 at the top of col. 5.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to envisage, if not expect, the presence of a minor amount of 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane present in an amount of more than 0 mass% and 1 mass% or less (e.g., 0.1 to 25 wt.%, such as 0.96 wt.%, relative to the amount of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane) as an impurity in a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane stock/component as taught by Cottrell et al. in the trans-1,2-difluoroethylene- and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane-based composition of Minor et al. because there is a reasonable expectation and teaching in the prior art these compounds form in small, minor amounts within/overlapping the claimed range(s) as impurities that originate during the manufacture a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock and persist through the purification of the 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) in view of any one of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima ‘123 (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1).
Fukushima et al. teach a composition for a heat cycle system comprising a working fluid having a low GWP, suitable as an R410A replacement, comprising 1,2-difluoroethylene (abstract & para. 0013). The heat cycle system is preferably a refrigerator or an air-conditioning apparatus, i.e., refrigerating cycle systems, containing a vapor-compression cycle comprising a compressor, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evaporator where the composition circulates therein (para. 0003, 0019, 0124, & 0131-0133).
Regarding the composition, Fukushima et al. further teach the 1,2-difluoroethylene may specifically be the trans-1,2-difluoroethylene isomer alone (para. 0012 & 0023), i.e., HFO-1132(E); the reference is sufficiently specific to the provision of solely the trans/E-isomer of HFO-1132. Fukushima et al. further teach the working fluid may contain an additional compound in addition to the HFO-1132, specifically an HFC or an additional HFO, to improve the relative coefficient of performance and the relative refrigerating capacity (para. 0025-0026). Azeotropic and pseudoazeotropic mixtures of the HFO-1132 and the optional component avoid problems and are preferred (para. 0027-0029). Regarding the selection of the HFC, the reference lists merely six (6) exemplary HFC species, including “1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)” in this short list (para. 0034); the reference is sufficiently specific to the provision of HFC-143a as the additional/optional HFC compound in addition to the primary HFO-1132 component.
The totality of the above cited teachings of the reference amount to the reference being sufficiently specific for a person of ordinary skill in the art to at-once envisage a binary mixture of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) from the two short lists of exemplary HFO-1132 isomers/species and additional HFC species (three (3) and six (6) species, respectively), and prefers, if not expects, azeotrope(like) mixtures of the components.
In the event the reference is found/argued to not be sufficiently specific for a person of ordinary skill in the art to at-once envisage a binary mixture of HFO-1132(E) and HFC-143a, Fukushima et al. still teaches a heat cycle system (and method of using/operating thereof) comprising a circulating azeotropic/pseudoazeotropic working fluid having a low GWP with HFO-1132, preferably/exemplarily HFO-1132(E) and an additional HFC including HFC-143a among few other listed exemplary species (Id.). At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art for a heat cycle system working fluid, as taught by Fukushima et al., to have (or provide/formulate) HFO-1132(E) and HFC-143a, as taught by Fukushima et al., because the reference is directed to a heat cycle system and working fluid therein having such components.
As to relative amounts/percentages of components, Fukushima et al. merely teaches preferred/exemplary contents/ranges but also implies if not directly teaches the additional component improves the relative coefficient of performance, relative refrigerating capacity, and/or GWP compared to the HFO-1132 alone. Para. 0022: “The content of HFO-1132 is preferably at least 20 mass %, more preferably from 20 to 80 mass %, … per 100 mass % of the working fluid.”. In other words, it appears the HFO-1132 is present in an amount of at least 20 mass% and up to about 100 mass%. Para. 0036: “The content of the HFC in the working fluid (100 mass %) can be optionally selected depending upon the properties required for the working fluid. For example, in the case of a working fluid comprising HFO-1132 and HFC-32, the coefficient of performance and the refrigerating capacity will improve with a HFC-32 content within a range from 1 to 99 mass%...” along with a similar sentence to HFC-134a. In other words, the additional HFC component is not merely the difference between the most broad preferred range(s) of HFO-1132 (i.e., not merely 100%-20%=80% or 100-80%=20%), and the amount of additional component clearly approaches, touches, and overlaps the claimed proportion of HFO-1132(E) is 80 mass% or more and the proportion of HFC-143a is 20 mass% or less based on the total amount of these two components in the composition as recited in the independent claim. See also para. 0026 & 0031.
While the reference does not explicitly teach an anticipatory example of HFO-1132(E) and HFC-143a where the proportion of HFO-1132(E) is 80 mass% or more and the proportion of HFC-143a is 20 mass% or less based on the total amount of these two components in the composition as claimed, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive within the claimed ranges from the teachings of the reference by varying/optimizing the relative amount of HFO-1132(E) to HFC-143a in order to tailor/balance the relative coefficient of performance, relative refrigerating capacity, and/or GWP of the binary mixture compared to HFO-1132 alone with a reasonable expectation of success. The ranges taught by Fukushima et al. are all merely preferred/exemplary which do not preclude nor constitute a teaching away from broader/non-preferred ranges slightly outside those explicitly stated/implied in order to tailor/balance the relative coefficient of performance, relative refrigerating capacity, and/or GWP as set forth above. See MPEP 2123 & 2144.05.
However, it is noted the claims are not simply to the recited composition but a method for operating a refrigerating machine comprising a step of circulating the recited composition as a drop-in alternative for R410A in the refrigerating machine. While not directly anticipated, the teachings of Fukushima et al. render obvious the recited method’s step of circulating the recited composition as a drop-in alternative for R410A in the refrigerating machine.
Note, repeating the cycle of circulating the composition per para. 0131-0133 of the reference reads on a method for operating a refrigerating machine comprising a step of circulating a composition in the refrigerating machine. Also note, prior art devices meet a claimed process if the device carries out the process during normal operation. Here, Fukushima et al.’s refrigerating cycle apparatus carries out a method for operating a refrigerating machine comprising a step of circulating a composition in the refrigerating machine during normal operation. See MPEP 2112.02, I.
Fukushima et al. directly teach their compositions as a R410A replacement (Id. at the abstract, as well as the working examples of para. 0164-0165 and Table 1 where the same, single apparatus of Fig. 1 was utilized and operated to test Fukushima et al.’s compositions and R410A – no modifications to the apparatus are disclosed in these examples and the Fukushima et al.’s refrigerants are clearly used interchangeably with R410A, which directly meets the compositions being drop-in R410A replacements; also note that the background section of the reference at para. 0005 frames the entire reference that sufficient compositions for replacing R410A should be able to simply replace the R410A and use existing R410A apparatus as they are), which in view of the above-cited teachings to their refrigerating cycle system(s), indeed meet a refrigerating machine suitable for and capable of circulating R410A (and method of operating thereof) comprising a vapor-compression cycle comprising a compressor, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evaporator where a working fluid/refrigerant circulates therein as a drop-in R410A replacement.
Fukushima et al. further teach it is preferred to suppress the inclusion of moisture in the working fluid composition and the apparatus containing the working fluid composition because inclusion of moisture decreases properties of the refrigerant oil/lubricant and can impair the long term reliability of a compressor in the apparatus. See [0148]-[0150]. While this is a direct teaching to suppress/minimize the inclusion of moisture, i.e., water, in the working fluid composition and apparatus thereof, Fukushima et al. fail to teach or suggest the presence of water in an amount greater than 0 mass% and 0.1 mass% or less based on the composition.
However, Boussand et al. similarly teach refrigerant compositions where it is disclosed the stability of refrigerant and lubricant mixtures can be affected by the content of water, and heat transfer fluid should preferably have a low moisture/water content, preferably where the water content is less than about 1,000 ppm and subsets thereof. See [0009]. Less than about 1,000 ppm corresponds to a concentration of about 0.1 mass% or less, substantially identical to that instantly claimed.
Additionally, Fukushima ‘123 similarly teaches refrigerant/working fluid compositions where the inclusion of moisture/water in such compositions and apparatus thereof raises problems such as hydrolysis of the working fluid itself or lubricating oil which can from acid components and contaminants and impair the long term reliability of a compressor in the apparatus, and the moisture/water should be suppressed to a concentration of at most 100 ppm and more preferably at most 20 ppm. See [0104]. At most 100 ppm corresponds to a concentration of 0.01 mass% or less, within the concentration instantly claimed.
Furthermore, Itano et al. similarly teach refrigerant compositions where it is preferable to control the amount of water to 0.1 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the composition so that double bonds in any molecules of unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbons that may be contained therein can be stably present, and oxidation of unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbons is less likely to occur, resulting in improved stability of the composition. See [0114]. Water in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the composition is identical to that instantly claimed.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a water content of 0.1 mass% or less (or a subset thereof) as taught by any one of Boussand et al., Fukushima ‘123, or Itano et al. to Fukushima et al.’s composition in order to improve the stability of the composition and/or long term reliability of an apparatus comprising the composition (and/or method of operation thereof) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) in view of any one of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima ‘123 (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mahler et al. (US 5,830,325 A) or Cottrell et al. (US 7,608,574 B2).
The disclosure of Fukushima et al. in view of Boussand et al., Fukushima, or Itano et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Fukushima et al. (in view of Boussand et al., Fukushima, or Itano et al.) teach and meet the method for operating a refrigerating machine suitable for R410A comprising a step of circulating a certain trans-1,2-difluoroethylene- and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane-based refrigerant composition with a small concentration of water for stability purposes as a drop-in alternative for R410A in the refrigerating machine, as described above.
Fukushima et al. fail to teach the refrigerant composition further comprises at least one additional refrigerant component such as 1,1,2-trifuoroethane (HFC-143) or 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (CFC/HCFC-133a) in a proportion of more than 0 mass% and 1 mass% or less based on the total amount of the HFO-1132(E), HFC-143a, and the total amount of the additional refrigerant component(s).
However, Mahler et al. teach and is drawn to the purification of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) from fluorocarbon impurities (abstract). Both 1,1,2-trifuoroethane (HFC-143) and 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-133a) are listed as potential impurities present in 1,1,1-trifluoroethane/HFC-143a stock (col. 1 lines 26-42 and col. 2 lines 21-30). Mahler et al. first teach a typical impurity content of a HFC-143a stock contains 5,000 ppm of 1,1,2-trifuoroethane (“HFC-143”) and 5,000 ppm of 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (“HCFC-133a”) (Example 6 at col. 25 lines 2-7). Mahler et al. also teach performing an extractive distillation process for purifying the same HFC-143a stock (containing the 5,000 ppm of HFC-143 and the 5,000 ppm of HCFC-133a) which results in a purified HFC-143a distillate having 100 ppm total of HFC-143, HCFC-133a, and the other initial impurities.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to envisage, if not expect, the presence of a minor amount of any one of 1,1,2-trifuoroethane and/or 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane present in an amount of more than 0 mass% and 1 mass% or less (e.g., 1 ppm to 5,000 ppm and/or 1 ppm to 10,000 ppm, relative to the amount of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane) as an impurity in a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane stock/component as taught by Mahler et al. in the trans-1,2-difluoroethylene- and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane-based composition of Fukushima et al. because there is a reasonable expectation and teaching in the prior art these compounds form in small, minor amounts within/overlapping the claimed range(s) as impurities that originate during the manufacture a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock and persist through the purification of the 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock.
Alternatively, Cottrell et al. teach and is drawn to forming a purified 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) stock composition by removing impurities/by-products therefrom (abstract and col. 1 lines 8-21). The primary impurity/by-product in Cottrell et al. is 1-chloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (“R-133a”) when produced from a certain vinylidene chloride+HF reaction (Id. and col. 1 line 59 to col. 2 line 25). Cottrell et al.’s purification process comprises distilling an HFC-143a+R-133a composition to from an azeotropic composition comprising mainly HFC-143a and a small amount of the R-133a. Many embodiments thereof are disclosed at col. 3 and 4. A preferred azeotropic composition formed by the distillation process consists essentially of about 75-99.9 wt.% HFC-143a and 0.1-25 wt.% R-133a. However, an exemplary azeotropic composition is formed and distilled from a distillation apparatus comprising 99.04 wt.% HFC-143a and 0.96 wt.% R-133a. See col. 4 line 53 through Table 1 at the top of col. 5.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to envisage, if not expect, the presence of a minor amount of 2-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane present in an amount of more than 0 mass% and 1 mass% or less (e.g., 0.1 to 25 wt.%, such as 0.96 wt.%, relative to the amount of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane) as an impurity in a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane stock/component as taught by Cottrell et al. in the trans-1,2-difluoroethylene- and 1,1,1-trifluoroethane-based composition of Fukushima et al. because there is a reasonable expectation and teaching in the prior art these compounds form in small, minor amounts within/overlapping the claimed range(s) as impurities that originate during the manufacture a 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock and persist through the purification of the 1,1,1-trifluoroethane compound stock.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/25/2025 and 03/18/2025 regarding the 103 rejections of the most recent Office action (the Final Rejection mailed 02/26/2025) have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
The prior cited references (e.g., the Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) and Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) primary references and Mahler et al. (US 5,830,325 A) and Cottrell et al. (US 7,608,574 B2) secondary references) fail to teach or suggest the presence of water in the concentration as claimed/amended. However, the current rejections utilize a new, additional secondary references, Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1), combined with the primary references of record to meet the instant claims as amended. See the new 103 rejections, above.
Despite there being new grounds of rejection, it is noted Applicant individually challenged the Minor et al. and Fukushima et al. primary references in the remarks filed 07/25/2025 alleging the references effectively teach away from the newly claimed concentration of water.
Applicant argues Minor et al. requires a large amount of water by an alleged disclosure of an additive including mixtures of water with polyalkylene glycols or polyol esters in para. 0064 and an elaboration that the preferred water concentration thereof is 30 wt.% or more in para. 0074 (p.3-4 of the response filed 07/25/2025).
In response, this argument is not persuasive to obviate the new grounds of rejection because Minor et al. does not necessarily require this embodiment.
While Minor et al. does disclose embodiments where the composition may further comprise components comprising a mixture of water, preferably 30 wt.% or more water, with polyalkylene glycol (PAG) or polyol ester (POE) as a flammability reducing agent that may also function as a lubricant (para. 0064 & 0074), these embodiments are not necessarily required by the reference. The flammability reducing agents are disclosed as optional by the language “may include” ("the disclosed compositions may include flammability reducing additives", para. 0064). Even if a flammability reducing agent was provided, the water/PAG and water/POE mixtures are not necessarily required by the reference as about a dozen of alternative genera of flammability reducing agents are disclosed (Id. in para. 0064). Dozens, if not hundreds, of species of the alternative flammability reducing agent genera are also disclosed among para. 0065-0079 further demonstrating water/PAG and water/POE mixtures are not required by the reference. Regarding para. 0074's disclosure that the water/PAG and water/POE mixtures may function as a lubricant, the mixtures are not necessarily the lubricant present in compositions as, similar to the flammability reducing agent genera/species, many other alternate lubricants are disclosed (see, e.g., para. 0056-0061). Even if a lubricant was provided, the water/PAG and water/POE mixtures are not necessarily required by the reference as many other lubricant genera/species as disclosed (Id.). The teachings of Minor et al. cited by Applicant to allege a teaching away of the claimed water concentration do not rise to truly teaching away from the claimed invention because the cited teachings are entirely optional, alternative embodiments of the reference.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). A reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component. Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues a skilled artisan would not include water in a content ratio of 0.1 mass$ or less based on the composition in Fukushima et al. because Fukushima et al. clearly suppresses the inclusion of moisture in the composition for a heat cycle system.
In response, while Fukushima et al. teach it is preferred to suppress the inclusion of moisture in the working fluid composition and the apparatus containing the working fluid composition because inclusion of moisture decreases properties of the refrigerant oil/lubricant and can impair the long term reliability of a compressor in the apparatus (para. 0148-0150), this is a teaching to suppress/minimize the inclusion of moisture, i.e., water, in the working fluid composition and apparatus thereof increases stability of the composition. However, minimizing, suppressing, or controlling moisture does not necessarily mean zero moisture as alleged. As Fukushima et al. does not necessarily require there be zero moisture as alleged (but rather merely requires a controlled or minimized moisture content for stability and reliability purposes) there is no teaching away precluding a person of ordinary skill in the art from applying the teachings of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima ‘123 (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1), each teaching providing small amounts of water (overlapping, equivalent to, or within that claimed) to refrigerant compositions in view of various, similar stability-related reasons as secondary references in combination with Fukushima et al. to meet the claimed small water concentration.
Any of Applicant’s remaining arguments set forth in the remarks filed 03/18/2026 pertain to or are based on the disclosure of the recently filed 132 Declaration and are addressed separately in the next section, below.
Declaration of Kazuhiro Takahashi
A 132 declaration was filed on 03/18/2026 to support an allegation of unexpected results regarding the newly claimed water concentration. Page 1 of the declaration provides a summary of the declarant’s background. Pages 2 & 3 of the declaration describe how comparative compositions were prepared and evaluated. Page 4 of the declaration is a conclusion section with the declarant’s signature.
Data is provided in the declaration of various refrigerant mixtures of 80 mass% trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) and 20 mass% 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a) by first completely dehydrating refrigerant mixtures and then mixing the refrigerant mixtures with either no water or 100 ppm water. Oxygen was then blown into each refrigerant mixture to a content of 0.35 mol%. The obtained refrigerant mixtures were then evaluated by a stability test that tested the acid content in the refrigerant mixtures after maintaining each refrigerant mixture at 150°C for one week. The specific refrigerant mixtures of the experiment and their evaluation results of the experiment(s) are shown in Table A on page 3 of the declaration; a lower acid content means the refrigerant composition has a higher stability. Based on the results of the experiments in the declaration, the declarant’s position (elaborated in the remarks filed 03/18/2026) is that the stability of a refrigerant composition is unexpectedly improved by containing 0.1 mass% or less (1000 mass ppm or less) of water based on the entire refrigerant.
After careful and full consideration of its contents, the declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/18/2026 is insufficient to obviate the new obviousness grounds of rejection over 1) Minor et al. (US 2011/0253927 A1) in view of any one of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1) and 2) Fukushima et al. (US 2017/0058172 A1) in view of any one of Boussand et al. (US 2013/0099154 A1), Fukushima ‘123 (US 2014/0077123 A1), or Itano et al. (US 2017/0174967 A1) set forth in this Office action, above.
The Office’s position is the declaration’s comparative showing does not rise to a level of establishing unexpected results because, based upon the teachings of the newly applied prior art of record, the resultant increase in relative stability when water is added in an amount of less than 0.1 mass% (i.e., 0 ppm water exclusive to 1,000 ppm water inclusive) is merely an expected beneficial result.
As cited in the new rejection of record, Boussand et al. similarly teach refrigerant compositions where it is disclosed the stability of refrigerant and lubricant mixtures can be affected by the content of water, and heat transfer fluid should preferably have a low moisture/water content, preferably where the water content is less than about 1,000 ppm and subsets thereof. See [0009]. Less than about 1,000 ppm corresponds to a concentration of about 0.1 mass% or less, substantially identical to that instantly claimed. Fukushima ‘123 similarly teaches refrigerant/working fluid compositions where the inclusion of moisture/water in such compositions and apparatus thereof raises problems such as hydrolysis of the working fluid itself or lubricating oil which can from acid components and contaminants and impair the long term reliability of a compressor in the apparatus, and the moisture/water should be suppressed to a concentration of at most 100 ppm and more preferably at most 20 ppm. See [0104]. At most 100 ppm corresponds to a concentration of 0.01 mass% or less, within the concentration instantly claimed. Itano et al. similarly teach refrigerant compositions where it is preferable to control the amount of water to 0.1 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the composition so that double bonds in any molecules of unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbons that may be contained therein can be stably present, and oxidation of unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbons is less likely to occur, resulting in improved stability of the composition. See [0114]. Water in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight or less per 100 parts by weight of the composition is identical to that instantly claimed.
"Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
The claims are also not deemed patentable over the references of record since they are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of data in the declaration’s comparative showing. The comparative showing only compares performance of one single base refrigerant (80.0 mass% HFO-1132(E) & 20.0 mass% HFC-143a) with 0 ppm water or 100 ppm water whereas the claims are generally drawn to much broader refrigerant compositions comprising 80.0 to about 100.0 mass% HFO-1132(E), above 0.0 and up to 20.0 mass% HFC-143a, and greater than 0 ppm and up to 1,000 ppm water. In fact, some dependent claims (claims 2 and 5) further require additional refrigerant components (HFC-143, CFC-133a, and/or HCFC-133b) in broad amounts (claim 2) or narrow amount (claim 5) that are not reflected in the comparative showing at all.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Any of Applicant’s arguments set forth in the present remarks that are based on the declaration are also not persuasive for the reasons that the declaration is insufficient to obviate the new 103 rejections.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights