DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2025 and 03/19/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 20130152626 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Feng discloses refrigerant comprising at least about 98.5% by weight of the following three compounds, with each compound being present in the following relative percentages:
1-80% by weight difluoromethane (HFC-32);
1-98% by weight of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf); and
1-25% by weight fluoroethane (HFC-161) ([0017-0030]).
As per MPEP 2131.03-I; because the claimed range falls within the prior art range; the claim is considered anticipated.
To the extent that applicant still maintains the position that Feng does not teach the specific relative percentages as claimed in applicant’s claim; Feng further teaches that the relative amount of the aforementioned composition is a result effective variable based on the application desired ([0025-0027]). This is strong evidence that modifying the percentages of the composition of Feng would produce a predictable result (i.e. providing low GWP based on specific applications as discussed by Feng; [0025-0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the composition of Feng with the aforementioned claimed percentage.
One of ordinary skills would have recognized that doing so would have provided low GWP based on specific applications as suggested by Feng ([0025-0027]).
Regarding claim 2:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Alone or as modified, the refrigerant is a Class 2L refrigerant, has a GWP of less than 300 and has an evaporator glide of 4° C. or less; at least by virtue of all the required limitations being met. Also see Feng, para [0027].
Regarding claims 3-7:
See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 8-10:
See rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further discloses a heat transfer composition comprising the refrigerant according to claim 4 ([0012]).
Regarding claim 16:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further discloses a heat transfer system comprising a compressor, and evaporator and a condenser (Fig. 1; [0028]) and containing the refrigerant according to claim 4.
Regarding claims 11-14:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further disclose wherein the heat transfer composition further comprises at least one lubricant selected from POE and PVE ([0031-0032]).
Regarding claim 17:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further discloses a compressor, and evaporator and a condenser and containing the heat transfer composition according to claim 12 (Fig. 1; [0012] & [0028]).
Regarding claim 18:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further discloses wherein said heat transfer system comprises one or more of residential air conditioning, commercial air conditioning, chillers, residential air-to-water heat pump hydronic systems, medium temperature refrigeration and low temperature refrigeration (Fig. 1, [0028]).
Regarding claim 19:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further discloses wherein said heat transfer system is an air conditioning system (Fig. 1, [0028]).
Regarding claim 20:
Feng either alone or as modified discloses all the limitations.
Feng further discloses wherein said heat transfer system is a heat pump (Fig. 1, [0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered.
In page 6 of the remarks, applicant acknowledged that in Feng, 1234yf is disclosed as one of many possible formula I compounds, and that R32 is disclosed as one of many possible formula II compounds, and that R161 is disclosed as one of many possible third compounds. Percentage ranges of the cited elements are also discussed by Feng. Furthermore, Feng teaches that the relative amount of the elements of the composition is a result effective variable based on the application desired ([0025-0027]).
The examiner maintains the position that these are strong evidences that modifying the percentages of the composition of Feng would produce a predictable result (i.e. providing low GWP based on specific applications as discussed by Feng; [0025-0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the composition of Feng with the aforementioned claimed percentage; with the benefit of providing a low GWP based on specific applications as suggested by Feng ([0025-0027]).
Under MPEP § 2144.05, finding the exact optimal value for a known "result-effective variable" (a variable that achieves a recognized result) is deemed routine.
Note: To successfully rebut an obviousness rejection, an applicant must demonstrate the claimed range yields a significant, unexpected result relative to the prior art range. This has not yet been demonstrated by the applicant. In fact, applicant specification along with the compositions discussed therein are geared towards refrigerant with low global warming potential (see at least applicant para [0010]); which is the substance as that discussed by the compositions of Feng (see at least Feng [0027]).
Applicant assertion that “[they are]” in the process of evaluating and subsequently generating additional data and/or analysis supportive of the unexpected results produced in accordance with the present invention cannot be relied upon to rebut the obviousness rejection given that no there is no proof that the claimed range is (i) critical and (ii) achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Low (US 20110260095 A1) teaches a refrigerant comprising the following three compounds, with each compound being present in the following relative percentages: 1 to about 25% by weight difluoromethane (HFC-32); 48.5% to 67.0% by weight of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf); and 1.0% to 6.0% by weight fluoroethane (HFC-161).
Peterson (US 20180030325 A1) and Minor (US 20060243945 A1) each teaches pertinent heat transfer composition.
Applicant's submission of information disclosure statements under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIONEL W NOUKETCHA whose telephone number is (571)272-8438. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri: 08:00 AM - 04:00 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, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIONEL NOUKETCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights