Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (US 2003/0224956 Al) as evidenced by Fitzgerald (US 2003/0220218 Al).
Regarding claims 1 and 10: Miller et al. teaches an aerosol cleaning composition comprising: a fluorinated saturated or unsaturated ether having the formula CaHbOcFd (ie. a hydrofluoroether)
(abstract, [0009]-[0010], [0019]-[0020]); trans 1,2-dichloroethylene ([0013]); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane ([0013]); and propellants including carbon dioxide ([0024]) and HCF-134a (ie. 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) ([0025], claims 10 and 13).
Miller et al. also teaches that propellants are generally in the amount of 3-8% of the composition. Miller et al. further notes that liquefied gases such as HFC-134a may have an undesirable effect on cleaning compositions by causing a chilling effect ([0025]), yet also directly teaches they may be used (claims 10 and 13). Additionally, Fitzgerald provides evidence that it is known in that art that a freezing/chilling effect may be reduced by a low amount of HFC-134a, such as less than about 5%, and can be assisted by carbon dioxide ([0026]). As such, at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the amounts and ratio of HFC-143a and carbon dioxide propellants in order to mitigate a chilling/freezing effect to the degree necessary to provide an acceptable cleaning performance (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
It is noted that Miller et al. teaches a combination of liquefied gas and compressed gas, specifically carbon dioxide, as a propellant (claims 9-10 and 12). Miller et al. teaches that the liquefied gas in the combination may be HFC-134 (claims 9-10 and 13). Furthermore, the total propellant amount is taught at 3-8 weight percent (claim 9). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that a mixture of HFC-134 and carbon dioxide would not exceed the range of the taught total propellent and thus, the amount of carbon dioxide would reasonably fall within the instantly claimed 3-7% by weight when optimized to mitigate a chilling/freezing effect.
Regarding claims 2, 6 and 7: Miller et al. further teaches: a fluorinated saturated or unsaturated ether in the amount of greater than Oto about 20% ([0019]); halogenated saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbons, preferably trans 1,2-dichloroethylene, in the amount of 40-70% ([0017]); and preferred fluorinated hydrocarbons including 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane in the amount of about 20-55% ([0018]).
Regarding claim 3: Miller et al. further teaches a preferred composition comprising methyl nonafluorobutyl ether ([0020]).
Regarding claims 4-5: Miller et al. teaches a fluorinated saturated or unsaturated ether having the formula CaHbOcFd where 3 ≤ a ≤ 6, 0 ≤ b ≤ 9, c is ≥ 1 and d is at least 5 ([0020]) wherein monoethers preferred. It is submitted that fluorinated monoethers such as 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-methoxypropane (HFE-356mmz) and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoro-2-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)ethane (HFE347pcf2) would be readily envisioned and therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8: Miller et al. further teaches preferred fluorinated hydrocarbons including 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane in the amount of about 20% ([0018]). While the exact range disclosed does not overlap, the amounts are merely close and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists because one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected such amount would have a substantially similar cleaning effect (see MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding claims 11-12: Miller et al. teaches the amounts of the ingredients as set forth above in the discussion of claims 1-8.
Regarding claims 13, 15, and 16: Miller et al. teaches the claimed composition as set forth regarding claim 1. Claims 13, 15, and 16 recite a limitation of "is configured for" without setting forth any meaningful structural difference in the composition other than that recited by the limitations of claim 1. As such, the composition as taught by Miller et al. would obviously be capable of being "configured for" as recited by instant claims 13, 15, and 16.
Regarding claim 14: Miller et al. further teaches that their cleaning compositions do no exhibit a flash point ([0049]).
Double Patenting
The prior nonstatutory double patenting rejections over US Pat. 10,920,181 and US Pat.
11,560,536 are maintained. The details of these prior rejections are set forth in the Office action mailed 20-MAR-2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19-SEP-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The following remarks apply:
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 and the Objection to the Specification are noted and are withdrawn.
Applicant alleges that Miller et al. does not disclose blending HFC-134a with carbon dioxide. The Office respectfully disagrees and notes Miller directly teaches the combination of a teaches a combination of liquefied gas and compressed gas, specifically carbon dioxide, as a propellant (claims 9-10 and 12). The Office acknowledges that the specific combination or species of HFC-134a with carbon dioxide is not directly recited in Miller et al. Nonetheless, Miller et al. teaches that the liquefied gas in the combination (ie. species) may be HFC-134 (claims 9-10 and 13) which is one of only two specific choices for a liquefied gas. Therefore, it is submitted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized such combination of propellants from Miller et al.’s overall disclosed teachings. See MPEP 2144.08, II.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EASHOO whose telephone number is (571)272-1197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am - 4pm.
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, Patricia Mallari, can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights