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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 04/28/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 24, and 25 are currently pending, of with claims 10, 11, and 17 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s election without traverse of HFO-1234yf as the fluoroolefin species and HFC-125 as the optional refrigerant species in the reply filed on 01/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 recites a nonelected fluoroolefin species (i.e. HFO-1234ze), therefore claim 7 is withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 1, 5, 8, 18, 21, 24, and 25 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 2010/0288965 A1) is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claims 4 and 9.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 18, 21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 2010/0288965 A1) is maintained in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
1. Claims 1, 5, 8, 18, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 2010/0288965 A1, hereinafter Howell).
Regarding claim 1, Howell teaches a composition comprising at least one fluoroolefin, and an effective amount of a stabilizer (para [0007]-[0008]), wherein the fluoroolefin can be HFC-1234yf (claim 7).
Howell teaches that the composition further comprises at least one additional compound, wherein the additional compound can be a hydrofluorocarbon (para [0176], claim 3), and the hydrofluorocarbon can be difluoromethane (HFC-32) (para [0177], [0183]). Howell specifically teaches that the composition comprises HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 (para [0183]).
Howell teaches that the stabilizer can comprise d-limonene (para [0061], Table 4, claim 5). Howell also teaches that the effective amount of the stabilizer is from about 0.001 weight percent to about 10 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (para [0190]), equaling to 10 ppm to 100,000 ppm by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of “50 to 1,000 ppm by weight”.
Howell also teaches that fluoroolefins exhibits degradation ([0006]), an effective amount of a stabilizer is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin ([0011]).
Howell does not teach that the composition contains less than 0.03 wt.% of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products derived from the HFO-1234yf.
However, "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed amount (i.e. less than 0.03 wt.%) of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products derived from the HFO-1234yf, would flow naturally from the teaching of Howell, because the teaching of Howell provides substantially the same composition comprising at least one fluoroolefin comprising HFO-1234yf, HFC-32, and the same amount of the same inhibitor comprising d-limonene as claimed, and also because the stabilizer (the claimed inhibitor) in Howell is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin (e.g. HFO-1234yf) as recognized by Howell. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the instant invention discloses that POE stands for polyol esters, PAG stands for polyalkylene glycols, and PVE stands for polyvinyl ethers (instant p. 33, ll. 13-15).
Howell teaches that the composition further comprises at least one lubricant (para [0185]), and examples of the lubricant include polyol esters (POEs), polyalkylene glycols (PAGs), and polyvinyl ethers (PVEs) (para [0186]).
Regarding claim 8, Howell teaches that the composition further comprises at least one additional compound (para [0176], claim 3), wherein the additional compound can be a hydrofluorocarbon (para [0176], claim 3), and the hydrofluorocarbon can comprise pentafluoroethane (HFC-125) (para [0177], [0183]).
Regarding claim 18, Howell teaches a composition comprising at least one fluoroolefin, and an effective amount of a stabilizer (the claimed inhibitor) (para [0007]-[0008]), wherein the fluoroolefin can be HFC-1234yf (claim 7). Howell teaches that the composition further comprises at least one additional compound (para [0176]), wherein the additional compound can be a hydrofluorocarbon (para [0176]), and the hydrofluorocarbon can be difluoromethane (HFC-32) (para [0177]). Howell specifically teaches that the composition comprises HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 (para [0183]).
While Howell teaches that both ammonia and CF3I may be provided as additional compounds in the composition (para [0176]), note that Howell teaches that the compositions “may further comprise” these compounds and lists these compounds in the alterative disclosing their optionality rather than being out-right required, implying to a person of ordinary skill in the art these compounds may be provided as well as excluded from the disclosed compositions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, the terms “for reducing formation of oligomers and homopolymers” and “which reduces conversion of the HFO-1234yf into oligomeric, homopolymer or other polymer products” are an intended result/use, and do not add structural difference, thus the intended result/use is extended little patentable weight. See MPEP § 2112.02.
Howell teaches a method for reducing degradation of a composition comprising at least one fluoroolefin, wherein said degradation is caused by the presence of inadvertent air in a refrigeration, air-conditioning or heat pump system, said method comprising adding an effective amount of a stabilizer to the composition (para [0011]), wherein the fluoroolefin can be HFC-1234yf (claim 7).
Howell teaches that the composition further comprises at least one additional compound, wherein the additional compound can be a hydrofluorocarbon (para [0176], claim 3), and the hydrofluorocarbon can be difluoromethane (HFC-32) (para [0177], [0183]). Howell specifically teaches that the composition comprises HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 (para [0183]).
Howell teaches that the stabilizer can be d-limonene (para [0061], claim 5, Table 4). Howell also teaches that the effective amount of the stabilizer is from about 0.001 weight percent to about 10 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (para [0190]), equaling to 10 ppm to 100,000 ppm by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of “50 to 1,000 ppm by weight”.
Howell teaches that the composition of Howell works as a heat transfer fluid in a refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump system (para [0014]), and the degradation of fluoroolefin is caused by the presence of inadvertent air in a refrigeration, air-conditioning or heat pump system (para [0011]). Thus, the composition of Howell exposes to air.
Howell does not teach that the composition contains less than 0.03 wt.% of oligomeric, homopolymer or other polymeric products derived from the HFO-1234yf.
However, "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed amount (i.e. less than 0.03 wt.%) of oligomeric, homopolymer or other polymeric products derived from the HFO-1234yf, would flow naturally from the teaching of Howell, because the teaching of Howell provides substantially the same method for reducing the degradation of fluoroolefin, comprising the steps of exposing the same composition comprising HFO-1234yf and HFC-32, to air, and contacting the exposed composition with the same amount of the same inhibitor (i.e. d-limonene) as claimed, and also because the stabilizer (the claimed inhibitor) of Howell is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin (e.g. HFO-1234yf) as recognized by Howell. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Howell teaches that the composition works as a heat transfer fluid in a refrigeration system (para [0014]), wherein the refrigeration system can be an intermodal system which can be a container (para [0193]), thereby reading on the claimed container with a refrigerant comprising the composition.
2. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (US 2010/0288965 A1, hereinafter Howell) as applied to claims 1, 5, 8, 18, 21, and 24 above, and further as evidenced by Elsheikh (US 2010/0181524 A1, hereinafter Elsheikh).
The disclosure of Howell is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 25, Howell teaches that the composition works as a heat transfer fluid in a refrigeration, air-conditioning, or heat pump system (para [0014]).
Elsheikh as an evidentiary reference shows that a refrigeration, air-conditioning, or heat pump system includes an evaporator, a compressor, a condenser, and an expansion device (para [0013]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8, 18, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 10-14, 17-19, 28, and 32 of copending Application No. 18/843,093 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a composition comprising HFO-1234yf, HFC-32, an effective amount of at least one inhibitor, wherein the at least one inhibitor comprises d-limomene, wherein the composition is substantially free of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products derived from the fluoroolefin. The claims of the reference application teaches that the inhibitor is present in an amount of about 30 to about 5,000 ppm.
Claims 1, 8, 18, 21, and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 18-20, 23-27, 29, and 30 of copending Application No. 18/724,490 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a composition comprising HFO-1234yf, HFC-32, an effective amount of at least one inhibitor, wherein the at least one inhibitor comprises α-terpinene, wherein the composition is substantially free of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products derived from the fluoroolefin, the composition comprises less than about 0.03 wt.% of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products. The claims of the reference application teaches that the inhibitor is present in an amount of about 10 to about 3,000 ppm.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1. Applicant argues that the narrowest concentration range disclosed by Howell is 3,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm; further, in each of the examples of Howell, the stabilizer is present in the HFO-1225ye composition at a very high amount of 2 wt.% (i.e., 20,000 ppm); thus, the inhibitor amount disclosed in Howell is far above the amount for the inhibitor specified for the compositions of the present application, namely 50 to 1,000 ppm (p. 6, last para; p. 7, 1st para).
Applicant also argues that even a low amount of d-limonene of 50 to 1,000 ppm is effective to inhibit polymerization of HFO-1234yf; as established in the Peng Declaration, even at relatively low concentrations of 200 ppm, 500 ppm and 1000 ppm, no polymer product was detected after the heat testing, meaning that these low amounts of d-limonene were found to be effective to inhibit polymerization of the HFO-1234yf; in contrast, as shown in the examples of the present application, where a sample of HFO-1234yf is treated under these same conditions, but no inhibitor is present, a large amount of polymerization product is formed from HFO-1234yf (see, for example, Control-2 of Table 4, 3rd Control of Table 5, where 2.8 wt. % of polymer product was detected); these results are unexpected because a skilled artisan reading Howell would have had no basis to predict that limonene would function effectively as a 1234yf polymerization inhibitor at concentrations as low as 50 to 1000 ppm (p. 7; Declaration, Table 1).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Firstly, "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). 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). 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). See MPEP 2123.
Howell teaches that the effective amount of the stabilizer is from about 0.001 weight percent to about 10 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (para [0190]), equaling to 10 ppm to 100,000 ppm by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of “50 to 1,000 ppm by weight”.
Secondly, unexpected results must, in actuality, be unexpected. Unexpected results must be compared with the closest prior art. See In re De Blawe, 222 USPQ 191 (FED. Cir. 1984), and In re Fenn, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 716.02(e).
Examples in Table 1 of the Declaration filed 04/28/2026, and Control-2 of Table 4 and 3rd Control of Table 5 of the instant specification, are no probative value in the determining patentability of claims since they do not involve a comparison of Applicant's invention with the closest applied prior art. Examples in Table 1 of the Declaration, and Control-2 of Table 4 and 3rd Control of Table 5 of the instant specification, are limited to compositions with d-limonene (Examples containing d-limonene in an amount of 200 ppm, 500 ppm and 1000 ppm in Table 1 of the Declaration) compared to comparative examples lacking d-limonene (Control-2 of Table 4 and 3rd Control of Table 5 of the instant specification). However, Howell constitutes closer prior art than Applicant' s comparative examples, because d-limonene is an expressly taught stabilizer in Howell (Howell’s [0061], claim 5, Table 4), and d-limonene as a stabilizer has an effective amount of about 10 ppm to 100,000 ppm by weight as recognized by Howell (Howell’s [0190]).
Even if, arguendo, the comparison was done between the Applicant' s invention and the closest prior art, the claims are not deemed patentable over the reference of record since the claims are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of data in the examples. The claims are not commensurate in scope with the comparative showing because the examples are limited to the compositions containing HFO-1234yf but lacking HFC-32, whereas the claims recite compositions comprising HFO-1234yf and HFC-32. See In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980).
Thirdly, 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). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02 (d).
Therefore, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show an unexpected result over a claimed range.
In view of the foregoing, the declaration filed 04/28/2026 is insufficient to overcome the 103 rejection of record over Howell.
2. Applicant argues that Howell broadly discloses a genus of fluoroolefins and a genus of terpenes and terpenoids as stabilizers; Howell also broadly discloses a genus of hydrofluorocarbons as possible additional compounds of the composition; Howell does not exemplify pairing of any specific HFO compound (other than HFO-1225ye), HFC compound and specific stabilizer; the rejection as presented requires the Examiner to selectively pick limonene from a large genus of disclosed terpene stabilizers, pick HFO-1234yf from a broad list of fluoroolefins, and combine these with HFC-32 as a further component- none of which are specifically brought together in any single teaching or example of Howell (p. 8).
Applicant also argues that to arrive at the claimed invention from the teachings of Howell, one must: (1) select d-limonene or a-terpinene specifically from a large genus of terpene and terpenoid stabilizers; (2) pair that inhibitor specifically with HFO-1234yf among a broad list of disclosed fluoroolefins; (3) add HFC-32 as an additional compound among a broad list of disclosed hydrofluorocarbons; and (4) select a range of 50 to 1,000 ppm for the inhibitor content; each of these selection steps requires culling from Howell's broad disclosure, and each is precisely the kind of hindsight-driven picking and choosing that the courts have prohibited (p. 10, 2nd para).
Applicant further argues that nothing in Howell would lead one skilled in the art to utilize HFO-1234yf as the fluoroolefin component; indeed, the working fluid tested in each worked example of Howell is HFO-1225ye; thus, Applicant respectfully submits that without the benefit of hindsight bias, one skilled in the art would not have arrived at the claimed combination of HFO-1234yf, HFC-32 and d-limonene or a-terpinene, based on the teachings of Howell (p. 11).
In response, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). 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). 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). See MPEP 2123.
Howell specifically teaches that the composition comprises HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 (para [0183]). See below (Howell [0183]):
PNG
media_image1.png
178
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Among seven compositions in Howell’s [0183], there are two compositions comprising HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 as taught by Howell. Therefore, the Office does not pick and choose HFO-1234yf from a broad list of fluoroolefins, and combine it with HFC-32 from a broad list of hydrofluorocarbons.
Furthermore, Howell teaches that the stabilizer can be limonene in Howell’s claim 5, and the limonene is particularly d-limonene in Howell’s [0061]. Howell specifically teaches that d-limonene is used as a stabilizer in working examples in Howell’s Table 4. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would choose d-limonene as a stabilizer, because d-limonene is used as a stabilizer to stabilize the compositions in working examples of Howell.
Howell also teaches that the effective amount of the stabilizer is from about 0.001 weight percent to about 10 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (para [0190]), equaling to 10 ppm to 100,000 ppm by weight, which overlaps with the claimed range of “50 to 1,000 ppm by weight”.
Howell further teaches that fluoroolefins exhibits degradation ([0006]), an effective amount of a stabilizer is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin ([0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add d-limonene as a stabilizer in an amount of about 0.001 wt.% to about 10 wt.% to the composition comprising HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 as taught by Howell, in order to reduce the degradation of HFC-1234yf with a reasonable expectation of success, because an effective amount of a stabilizer is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin, and d-limonene is used as a stabilizer as recognized by Howell. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971 ).
3. Applicant argues that Howell is completely silent as to the composition containing less than 0.03 wt.% of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products derived from the HFO-1234yf; indeed, that HFO-1234yf could degrade to form polymeric products is not even recognized in Howell (p. 11, 3rd para).
In response, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
As discussed in claim 1 above, Howell specifically teaches that the composition comprises HFC-1234yf and HFC-32 (para [0183]). Howell also teaches that fluoroolefins exhibits degradation ([0006]), an effective amount of a stabilizer is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin ([0011]).
"Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed amount (i.e. less than 0.03 wt.%) of oligomeric, homopolymers or other polymeric products derived from the HFO-1234yf, would flow naturally from the teaching of Howell, because the teaching of Howell provides substantially the same composition comprising at least one fluoroolefin comprising HFO-1234yf, HFC-32, and the same amount of the same inhibitor comprising d-limonene as claimed, and also because the stabilizer (the claimed inhibitor) in Howell is added to reduce the degradation of fluoroolefin as recognized by Howell. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights