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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended and claim 5 has been newly added. Thus claims 1-5 are currently pending and are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejection
In view of the amendment of the copending claim 1 of Application no. 18/031,514, the instant claims are not obvious and thus the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over claims of 18/03,514 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Air Liquide, Safety Data Sheet “(E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-Hexafluoro-2-Butene” Jun. 13, 2014, pages 1-9 (Liquide hereinafter; cited in PTO-892 09/15/2025). See underlined that addresses the amended limitation/s.
Regarding claims 1-2, Liquide teaches a method for storing (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene (page 3) in a container (throughout the document), wherein the composition of (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene is 100 mol% (page 2), i.e. the fluoro-2-butene does not contain the claimed hydrogen chloride as the impurity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Liquide fails to disclose the presence of hydrogen chloride in a gas phase leads to isomerization of (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene. Furthermore, it has been argued that neither teaches or suggests evaluation about the isomerization when HCl is more than 100 ppm as discussed in the instant specification.
The examiner disagrees.
Firstly, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In this instance, nowhere in the claim describes about the isomerization of (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene.
Furthermore, instant claim 1 recites “the fluoro-2-butene contains or does not contain hydrogen chloride” and thus the presence of hydrogen chloride is optional. Liquide teaches storing (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene that has a composition of 100 mol%. A 100 mol% in the composition means that there is no other component, including HCl, other than (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and thus the reference reads on the claimed “does not contain hydrogen chloride”.
In view of the foregoing, instant claims 1-2 remains anticipated by Liquide.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Climalife “Novexpans HFO 1336mz” Jan. 1, 2020, pages 1-3 (Climalife hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Climalife teaches a method for packaging and storing HFO-1336mzz (equivalent to 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene) in a container (page 2), wherein HFO-1336mzz contains ≤ 1ppm by weight of HCl (page 1) (about 0.85 ppm by volume based HCl density of 1.18 g/mL).
The reference is silent that the concentration of HCl being in a gas phase portion as instantly claimed. However, since Climalife teaches all the limitations of the claimed method, there is a prima facie case of anticipation in the reference for the concentration of HCl to be in a gas phase. See MPEP § 2112.01.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Air Liquide, Safety Data Sheet “(E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-Hexafluoro-2-Butene” Jun. 13, 2014, pages 1-9 (Liquide hereinafter; cited in PTO-892 09/15/2025).
The teachings of Liquide have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-7, the reference further teaches that the cylinders containing (E)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene should be stored in areas not exceeding 52°C (page 3). The claimed storage temperature of -20°C or more and 50°C or less lies inside that of Liquide, and is rendered obvious in view of MPEP § 2144.05 “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct a method for storing a fluoro-2-butene, wherein the fluoro-2-butene is stored at a temperature of -20°C or more and 50°C or less in view of the teachings of Liquide.
Claims 3-4 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Climalife “Novexpans HFO 1336mz” Jan. 1, 2020, pages 1-3 (Climalife hereinafter).
The teachings of Climalife have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 3-4, Climalife further teaches that the packaging will be stored in a dry, well-ventilated, easily accessible place, sheltered from sunlight and bad weather, away from any ignition source. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to store the packaging at room temperature, which is normally between 18°C and 25°C.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct a method for storing a fluoro-2-butene, wherein the fluoro-2-butene is stored at a temperature of -20°C or more and 50°C or less in view of the teachings of Climalife.
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 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/031,412 (reference application), over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/031,460 (reference application), and over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/031,542 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to a method for storing a fluoro-2-butene represented by general formula C4HxFy where x is 0 or more and 7 or less, y is 1 or more and 8 or less, and x + y is 8.
The copending claims recite that the fluoro-2-butene contains or does not contain impurities, and the instant claim recites that the fluoro-2-butene contains or does not contain hydrogen chloride as an impurity. A skilled artisan would have had a reason to try the copending claims’ limited number of fluoro-2-butene composition, including the fluoro-2-butene which does not contain any additional impurity and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed method in which fluoro-2-butene does not contain hydrogen chloride impurity.
MPEP § 2143 states that the Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp and that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, is likely to be obvious when it does no more than predictable results and with a reasonable expectation of success.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct a method for storing a fluoro-2-butene as instantly claimed in view of the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4 are rejected and no claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHANIT W BAHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/MEDHANIT W BAHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692