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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 11/25/2025.
Claims 2-13 are currently pending, of which claims 6-8 are withdrawn.
The objection of claims 11 and 13 is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The 103 rejection over Fukushima (US 2017/0058173 A1) as previously set forth in the Final Office action mailed 02/28/2025 is generally maintained and has been revised below to reflect the changes in claim scope made by Applicant’s present claim amendments. The current rejection also utilizes new secondary references optionally combined with Fukushima under new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims as amended. See 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.
Claims 2-5 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima ‘173 (US 2017/0058173 A1) optionally 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).
Note that there are three (3) independent claims presently under examination (claims 2, 11, and 13). However, those claims generally recite the same composition (comprising the same particular refrigerant with the same components in the same concentrations having the same burning velocity) where claim 2 is drawn to the composition itself and claims 11 and 13 are drawn to methods of using the composition involving circulating the composition as a working fluid in a refrigerating machine. The claims have been grouped into a single rationale in this rejection heading for brevity of the Office action (or else the rejection would be several times longer, spanning several additional pages, if every rationale were repeated for each independent claim).
Fukushima ‘173 teach working fluid compositions and refrigerating apparatus thereof ([0003], [0143]+, & [0175]). The working fluid is suitable as an alternative refrigerant ([0011], [0013]-[0014]). Operation of the refrigerating apparatus comprises repeating a cycle of compressing, condensing, expanding, and evaporating the working fluid (Id. & [0054]-[0058]), i.e., circulating the working fluid in the apparatus. Refrigerating oil is expressly taught as a preferred, well-known additive in the refrigerant art for provision in the reference’s working fluid ([0107]-[0132]).
The working fluid compositions comprise 1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132) (abstract & [0011]). The HFO-1132 may be trans-1,2-difluoroethylene/HFO-1132(E) ([0012], [0023], [0079], Examples in Tables 10 to 14). Fukushima ‘173 further teaches the composition, in addition to the HFO-1132, contains at least two members selected form a saturated hydrofluorocarbon and a carbon-carbon double bond-containing hydrofluorocarbon ([0018]), preferably two members selected from a HFC and a HFO ([0024]). Species of HFC are disclosed at [0074]-[0077], species of HFO are disclosed at [0082]-[0084], and [0078] discloses a blend of a single HFC alone with one of the HFOs other than HFO-1132. This amounts to a ternary composition of HFO-1132(E), a HFC, and an additional HFO. Especially preferred HFC are HFC-32, HFC-152a, HFC-134a, and HFC-125 [0077], and especially preferred HFO are HFO-1234yf, HFO-1234ze(E), or HFO-1234ze(Z) [0084]. One of the four preferred HFC is the claimed difluoromethane/R32, and two of the three preferred HFO are the claimed 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene/R1234ze. Thus, out of twelve (12) preferred HFO-1132(E)-based compositions (with a single additional HFC and a single additional HFO from these embodiments) disclosed/suggested here, two of them (e.g., HFO-1132(E)/HFC-32/HFO-1234ze(E) & HFO-1132(E)/HFC-32/HFO-1234ze(Z)) correspond to the claimed refrigerant. Furthermore, Fukushima ‘173 teach additional preferred compositions and selections of components: “In a case where HFO-1132(E) is mainly contained as HFO-1132, a combination of HFC-32 or HFC-125, one member selected from HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E), and the HFO-1132.” [0090]. Here, one of the two preferred first additional compounds is the claimed difluoromethane/R32, and one of the three preferred second additional compounds is the claimed 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprpene/R1234ze. Thus, out of six (6) preferred HFO-1132(E)-based compositions (from [0090]’s embodiments) disclosed/suggested here, one of them (e.g., HFO-1132(E)/HFC-32/HFO-1234ze(E)) corresponds to the claimed refrigerant.
Regarding the claimed refrigerant containing all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze at once, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at-once envisage a composition containing all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze from the teachings of Fukushima ‘173. As described above, twelve (12) expressly preferred ternary compositions are suggested by [0012], [0023], [0077]-[0079], & [0084], where the claimed composition is two of these twelve, which describes the claimed composition with sufficient specificity to at once envisage a composition comprising all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze from the teachings of Fukushima ‘173. Alternatively, six (6) express ternary compositions are suggested by [0090], where the claimed composition is one of these six, which describes the claimed composition with sufficient specificity to at once envisage a composition comprising all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze from the teachings of Fukushima ‘173.
In the event Fukushima ‘173 is deemed not sufficiently specific to at once envisage a composition comprising all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze, there is nevertheless a strong case of prima facie obvious of the claimed presence of all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze over the same cited teachings of the reference. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide and formulate such a composition with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a working fluid composition from the teachings of Fukushima ‘173 because the reference directly teaches/requires HFO-1132(E) as a base component and further teaches/suggests both R32 as a suitable HFC and R1234ze as a suitable HFO for provision in the composition, including in combination as separate components of a ternary composition (Id., e.g., first at [0077]-[0079] & [0084] and additionally/separately at [0090]).
Alternatively, there is additional rationale how Fukushima ‘173 renders obvious the claimed presence of all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze in a composition. Building off all that is disclosed above, Fukushima ‘173 effectively teach HFC-32 and HFC-125 as obvious/alternative equivalent HFC species (or first additional components) in HFO-1132(E)-based compositions (“HFC-32 or HFC-125”, [0090]). Fukushima ‘173 teach exemplary compositions containing solely HFO-1132(E), HFC-125, and HFO-1234ze(E) in Table 12 on p.15:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide and substitute HFC-32/difluoromethane in place of the HFC-125 in Table 12’s working examples in order to obtain an alternative working fluid composition within the express/preferred teachings of the reference with a reasonable expectation of success because Fukushima ‘173 teach HFC-32 and HFC-125 as obvious/alternative equivalent HFC species via at least [0090]. This substitution amounts to compositions containing solely HFO-1132(E), HFC-32, and HFO-1234ze(E) as claimed. Note that there is also additional strong motivation to make this substitution – Fukushima ‘173 teach HFC-125 has a global warming potential (GWP) of 3,500 while HFC-32 has a GWP of 675 (Table 4 on p.12). The resultant GWP of a composition is the weighted average of the GWPs of the respective compounds in the composition (well-known in the art, but also disclosed at [0174]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the HFC-32 in place of the HFC-125 in in Table 12’s working examples in order to obtain a working fluid composition within the express/preferred teachings of the reference (HFC-32 and HFC-125 are obvious/alternative equivalent HFC species, Id.) having a significantly reduced GWP and environmental impact with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the recited concentrations of the claimed refrigerant containing all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze, the obviousness rationale set forth above substitutes HFC-32 in place the HFC-125 in Table 12’s working examples in order to obtain an alternative working fluid composition containing solely HFO-1132(E), HFC-32, and HFO-1234ze(E) (Id.). The result of such substitution falls within, overlaps, and/or otherwise encompasses the claimed concentrations of claims 2 to 5, 11, and 13 for any one of a variety of reasons.
For example, substituting the HFC-125 for HFC-32 in Example 104 (40 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10 wt.% HFC-125, 50 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E)) obtains a composition of 40 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10 wt.% HFC-32, & 50 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E), which falls within a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points I, J, K, F, and E as in each of claims 2, 11, and 13 and a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points I, J, K, D, and C as in claim 3. Similarly, substituting the HFC-125 for HFC-32 in Example 99 (20 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10 wt.% HFC-125, 70 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E)) obtains a composition of 20 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10 wt.% HFC-32, & 70 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E), which falls within a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points I, J, K, F, and E as in each of claims 2, 11, and 13 and a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points L, M, N, F, and E as in claim 4. Additional, similar rationale exists for at least one other example in Table 12, too, (Example 105).
Additionally, note that the totality of Table 12 is essentially compositions including and between points of (20 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10 wt.% HFC-125, 70 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E)), (20 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 70 wt.% HFC-125, 10 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E)), and (80 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10 wt.% HFC-125, 10 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E)). Accordingly, substituting the HFC-125 for HFC-32 in the totality of the Table’s examples as set forth above amounts to a preferred disclosure of 20-80 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10-70 wt.% HFC-32, and 10-70 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E) (where the sum of the three components is 100 wt.%), which overlaps and encompasses a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points I, J, K, F, and E as in each of claims 2, 11, and 13, a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points I, J, K, D, and C as in claim 3, and a ternary diagram figure connecting the five points L, M, N, F, and E as in claim 4.
Further regarding the recited concentrations of the claimed refrigerant containing all three of HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze, note that the reference is not specifically limited to just examples. Fukushima ‘173 further teaches providing the HFO-1132(E) and HFC-32 in a composition range of 99:1 to 1:99 relative to each other in order to obtain pseudoazeotropic properties ([0081]) while also providing the HFO component, preferably HFO-1234ze(E), to improve cycle performance of the working fluid while also adjusting temperature glide, critical temperature, and coefficient of performance properties ([0082] & [0084]). Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further vary, adjust, and optimize the relative concentrations outside the 20-80 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 10-70 wt.% HFC-32, and 10-70 wt.% HFO-1234ze(E) concentrations suggested by the initial substitution of HFC-32 in place of the HFC-125 in Table 12’s working examples in order to obtain alternative pseudoazeotropic blends with improved cycle performance and tailored temperature glide, critical temperature, and coefficient of performance properties containing HFO-1132(E), HFC-32, and HFO-1234ze(E) with a reasonable expectation of success. The totality of this rationale amounts to a suggestion to provide the HFO-1132(E) in concentrations beneath 20 wt.% that arrive within, overlap, or otherwise encompass a ternary diagram figure connecting the three points O, N, and D as in claim 5 as well as alternatively meet the other three recited C-, D-, E-, F-, I-, J-, K-, L-, M-, and N-containing five-pointed ternary diagram figures of claims 2, 3, 4, 11, and 13 for the same reason.
See MPEP 2144.05.
In the event Applicant disputes presence of a refrigerant oil with the above-cited compositions is not anticipated or at-once envisaged by the reference, while the Office would disagree with such a position, at the time of the effective filing date the inclusion of a refrigerant oil in Fukushima’s compositions would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the already-cited express teachings of the reference strongly motivating and suggesting its inclusion (“usually as mixed with a refrigerant oil” and expanded discussion of many types of refrigerant oils, Id. at [0107]-[0132]).
Note that some of the claimed limitations (e.g., “for use as a working fluid for a refrigerating machine,” “for use as an alternative refrigerant for R404A”, “as a working fluid”, etc. ) are merely intended use limitations that are extended little patentable weight because they do not impart additional patentable structure of the claimed invention and are therefore met by the cited teachings of the reference.
Regarding the claimed limitation that water is present in a content ratio of 0.1 mass% or less based on the composition, Fukushima ‘173 further teaches 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 [0151]-[0152]. This is a direct teaching to suppress/minimize the inclusion of moisture, i.e., water, in the working fluid composition and apparatus thereof.
As a means of controlling moisture/water concentration, Fukushima ‘173 further preferably teaches contacting the working fluid composition with a desiccating agent to absorb moisture/water from the working fluid composition without adsorbing the working fluid. See [0153]-[0161]. Adsorbing all the moisture/water from the working fluid composition as taught/suggested here reads on a composition free of water, which meets the claimed limitation that the composition comprises water present in a content ratio (i.e., amount) of 0.1 mass% or less based on the entire refrigerant. A recitation of a range as maximum amount “or less” with no specified minimum (precisely the same scenario as that instantly claimed) includes zero as a lower limit. Thus, a composition free of water/moisture as taught/suggested by the reference meets the claimed limitation. See In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974) where the term "up to" was regarded as including zero as a lower limit. See also Ex parte Khusid, 174 USPQ 59 (Bd. App. 1971) where the recitation "a moisture content of not more than 70% by weight" reads on dry material (i.e., a material with a moisture content of 0% by weight). See also MPEP 2173.05(c), II.
Alternatively regarding the water content ratio limitation, it is acknowledged Fukushima ‘173 fails to teach the composition comprises water in an amount greater than 0 mass% and 0.1 mass% or less based on the entire refrigerant (i.e., a non-zero amount of water but 0.1 mass% or less).
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, in the event the teaching/suggestion to suppress/minimize moisture in the composition as taught by [0153]-[0161] of Fukushima ‘173 is insufficient to meet or render obvious the claimed water concentration (i.e., zero wt.% water within the claimed range including zero as its lower boundary) alone, 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 ‘173’s composition in order to improve the stability of the composition and/or long term reliability of an apparatus comprising the apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s) that the composition has a burning velocity (WCF, i.e., worse case formulation per [0014] of the specification) of 10 cm/s or less, while Fukushima ‘173 (with or without the optional secondary references) fails to quantify or teach their composition has a particular flammability property the claimed burning velocity range of the composition would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art reference because the cited and combined teachings of the reference(s) amount to a composition (and methods of use thereof in refrigeration apparatus) containing the same three refrigerant components (HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234ze) and water in amounts overlapping, if not precisely within, the same concentrations as those claimed (see above). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection over Fukushima ‘173 (US 2017/0058173 A1) Applicant argues Fukushima ‘173 fails to teach or suggest water present in a content ratio (i.e., amount) of 0.1 mass% or less based on the composition because of a discussion at para. 0151-0153 preferring to suppress the inclusion of moisture.
In response, please note the claimed limitation that the composition comprises water in an amount of 0.1 mass% or less based on the entire refrigerant is a recitation of a range with merely a maximum amount (“0.1 mass% or less”) with no specified minimum, which includes zero as a lower limit. See In re Mochel, 470 F.2d 638, 176 USPQ 194 (CCPA 1974) where the term "up to" was regarded as including zero as a lower limit. See also Ex parte Khusid, 174 USPQ 59 (Bd. App. 1971) where the recitation "a moisture content of not more than 70% by weight" reads on dry material (i.e., a material with a moisture content of 0% by weight). See also MPEP 2173.05(c), II.
As Applicant cites that water (moisture) is preferably not contained in Fukushima ‘173’s composition, Fukushima ‘173 meets the claimed water concentration limitation. A composition free of water/moisture as taught/suggested by the reference meets the claimed limitation.
Nevertheless, as similarly set forth in the revised ground(s) of rejection, Fukushima ‘173 further teaches 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 [0151]-[0152]. This is a direct teaching to suppress/minimize the inclusion of moisture, i.e., water, in the working fluid composition and apparatus thereof.
As a means of controlling moisture/water concentration, Fukushima ‘173 further preferably teaches contacting the working fluid composition with a desiccating agent to absorb moisture/water from the working fluid composition without adsorbing the working fluid. See [0153]-[0161]. Adsorbing all the moisture/water from the working fluid composition as taught/suggested here reads on a composition free of water, which meets the claimed limitation that the composition comprises water in an amount of 0.1 mass% or less based on the entire refrigerant.
Furthermore, despite Applicant’s argument that the presence of a specific amount of water achieves an effect of increasing the stability of the refrigerant composition, Fukushima ‘173 directly states the presence of water (disclosed as moisture) causes, among other issues/problems, hydrolysis of the working fluid (which is/comprises the refrigerant) that forms an acid component and/or contaminants [0152], which is a teaching that suppressing/minimizes the concentration in the composition indeed increases stability of the composition.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Fukushima ‘173 not teaching a precise non-zero to 0.1 mass% or less (i.e., small) concentration of water are also moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current grounds of rejection optionally utilizes 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 secondary references in combination with Fukushima ‘173 to alternatively meet the claimed water concentration in the event the teachings of Fukushima ‘173 are insufficient on their own.
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.
Thus, as set forth in the revised 103 rejection, above, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also 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 ‘173’s composition in order to improve the stability of the composition and/or long term reliability of an apparatus comprising the apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any of Applicant’s remaining arguments set forth in the present remarks pertain to or are based on the disclosure of the recently filed 132 Declaration and are addressed separately in the next section, below.
Third Declaration of Mitsushi Itano
Data is provided in the declaration filed 11/25/2025 of various refrigerant mixtures of 17 mass% trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), 20 mass% difluoromethane (R32), and 63 mass% 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze) by first completely dehydrating refrigerant mixtures and then mixing the refrigerant mixtures with various small amounts of water (0, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 ppm) and/or oxygen (0, 0.01, 0.15, or 0.35 mol%) (see pages 2 to 4). The obtained refrigerant mixtures were then evaluated by a stability test that tested the appearance and acid content in the refrigerant mixtures after maintaining each refrigerant mixture at 150°C for one week (see pages 5 & 6). The specific refrigerant mixtures of the experiment and their evaluation results of the experiment(s) are shown in Table A on page 4 of the declaration; a lower acid content and/or lack/absence of solids appearing means the refrigerant composition has a higher stability. Based on the results of the experiments in the declaration, the declarant’s position is that the stability of the refrigerant 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 11/25/2025 is insufficient to overcome (or obviate) the 103 current grounds of rejection over Fukushima ‘173 (US 2017/0058173 A1) optionally 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).
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 applied prior art of record, the resultant increase in relative stability when oxygen is added in an amount of less than 0.1 mass% (i.e., 0 ppm oxygen to 1,000 ppm oxygen, both inclusive) is merely an expected beneficial result.
As cited in the 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.
Additionally, as cited in the prior section above, Fukushima ‘173 directly states the presence of water (disclosed as moisture) causes, among other issues/problems, hydrolysis of the working fluid (which is/comprises the refrigerant) that forms an acid component and/or contaminants [0152], which is a teaching that suppressing/minimizing the water/moisture concentration in the composition indeed increases stability of the composition.
"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 (17.0 mass% HFO-1132(E), 20.0 mass% R32, & 63.0 mass% R1234ze) with varying small amounts of water and/or oxygen whereas the claims are generally drawn to much broader refrigerant compositions of approximately 2.8 to 70.3 mass% HFO-1132(E), 1.0 to 21.8 mass% R32, and 28.7 to 75.6 mass% R1234ze.
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).
Additionally, note examples in the declaration like No. 3 and No. 18 that both contain the same amount of water within the claimed range (100 ppm or 0.01 wt.% water) but have vastly different acid contents (<1 ppm and 80 ppm, respectively), which Applicant indicates is indicative of less stability. It is unclear how such a degradation in stability with the amount of water within the claimed range as in declaration example No. 18 constitutes an unexpected result. A similar rationale could be made comparing many other pairs of the declaration examples.
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
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 withdraw/obviate the 103 rejection(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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./
February 3, 2026