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 response to election/restriction filed 10/16/2025 . Claims 11-25 are currently pending. The Drawings filed 10/20/2022 are approved by the examiner. The IDS statements filed 12/20/2022, 02/03/2023, 03/03/3023, 07/09/2024, & 12/27/2024 have been considered . Initialed copies accompany this action. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 11-24, in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged . Because A pplicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claims 11, 12 , and 14-24 are objected to because of the following informalities . The se claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain various informalities. In claim 11, Applicant is suggested to amend “distilling composition 1” and “to obtain composition 2” to “distilling a composition 1” and “to obtain a composition 2”, respectively, in order to improve clarity/antecedent basis of the claim. Also in claim 11, Applicant is suggested to amend “composition 2 being an azeotropic composition …” to read as “wherein composition 2 is an azeotropic composition …” in order to improve clarity in the claim. Claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 all depend on claim 11 and recite "The production method according to claim 11,". However, note that claim 11 is drawn to "A method" rather than "A production method" as implied by the dependent claim preambles and the dependent claims' preambles do no match the antecedent basis of the parent claim. Applicant is suggested to amend claims 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 to each recite "The method according to claim 11" in order to improve clarity in the claims. Claims 14-17 recite the various methods (which comprise at least one step in their respective independent claims) "comprising a rectification step" or "comprising an extraction solvent recovery step". Applicant is suggested to amend these claims to recite "further" (i.e., "further comprising a rectification step" and "further comprising an extraction solvent recovery step") in order to improve clarity in the claims. Similar to the dependent claims of independent claim 11, claims 15, 17 , and 19 all depend on claim 13 and recite "The production method according to claim 13,". However, note that claim 13 is drawn to "A method" rather than "A production method" as implied by the dependent claim preambles and the dependent claims' preambles do no match the antecedent basis of the parent claim. Applicant is suggested to amend claims 15, 17 , and 19 to each recite "The method according to claim 13" in order to improve clarity in the claims. Similar to the dependent claims of independent claim 11, claims 21 and 24 depend on claim 12 (which depends on claim 11, Id.) and also recite "The production method ..." in their preambles that do not match the independent claim's antecedent basis. Applicant is suggested to amend claims 21 and 24 to recite "The method according to claim 12" in order to improve clarity in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for an extractive distillation step of bringing an azeotropic or azeotrope-like composition 2 (comprising difluoromethane (HFC-32) and trans-1,2-difluoromethane (HFO-1132(E)) and/or 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123)) into contact with at least one extraction solvent selected from the group consisting of cyclohexane, carbon tetrachloride, acetonitrile, di-n-propyl ether, and ethyl acetate to obtain a composition comprising HFO-1132(E) and/or HFO-1123 with a reduced amount of HFC-32, does not reasonably provide enablement for extractive distillation of the recited azeotropic/azeotrope-like composition with 1) any extraction solvent as recited in claim 11, 2) any saturated hydrocarbon, halogenated hydrocarbon, nitrile, ether, ketone, alcohol, and/or ester extraction solvent(s) as recited in claims 20 and 21, and/or 3) any extraction solvent having a standard boiling point of 30 to 135°C as recited in claim 22 . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. To be enabling, the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir., 1993). Explaining what is meant by "undue experimentation," the Federal Circuit has stated that: The test is not merely quantitative, since a considerable amount of experimentation is permissible, if it is merely routine, or if the specification in question provides a reasonable amount of guidance with respect to the direction in which experimentation should proceed to enable the determination of how to practice a desired embodiment of the claimed invention. PPG v. Guardian, 75 F.3d 1558,1564 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The factors that may be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation are set forth by In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (CAFC 1988) at 1404 wherein, citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Apls. 1986) at 547, the court recited eight factors to consider when assessing whether or not a disclosure would require undue experimentation. These factors include, but are not limited to: 1) the breadth of the claims, 2) the nature of the invention, 3) the state of the prior art, 4) the level of one of ordinary skill, 5) the level of predictability in the art, 6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, 7) the existence of working examples, and 8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Following a Wands factors analysis, there is sufficient evidence to support the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims for the following reasons: State of the prior art & level of predictability in the art Azeotropes are constant boiling point mixtures that exhibit either a maximum boiling point that is higher than, or a minimum boiling point that is lower than, each of the individual components. They are a deviation from Raoult’s law and ideal vapor-liquid equilibrium theory. In the organic halocarbon arts and the arts pertaining to their use (e.g., heat transfer, cleaning, etc.) such as in the instant case, the state of the prior art is an azeotrope is well-established and recognized as an unpredictable property . See, for example, col. 3 lines 62-63 of US 5,182,040 A, col. 2 lines 56-65 of US 6,337,033 B1 , para. 0016 of US 2016/0244653 A1 , and In re Broadley , 404 F.2d 616, 56 C.C.P.A. 779, 160 U.S.P.Q. 38 (C.C.P.A. 1968). Luyben (“Comparison of extractive distillation and pressure-swing distillation for acetone-methanol separation”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2008, 47, 2696-2707) teaches that, while extractive distillation is one of the most common methods for separating a homogenous azeotrope, extractive distillation is only effective if a suitable solvent can be found (abstract). Speight (“The chemistry and technology of petroleum”, fifth edition, 2014, 475-478) teaches azeotropic distillation generally encompasses the use of a third/additional component to separate two close-boiling components by various means (p.475), and extractive distillation is one of five methods for separating azeotropic mixtures (p.475). Extractive distillation is the use of a third component to separate two close-boiling components in which one of the original components in the mixture is extracted by the third component and retained in the liquid phase to facility separation by distillation (p.476). “Extractive distillation is successful because the solvent is specially chosen to interact different with the components of the original mixture, thereby altering their relative volatilities” (p.477). “No single solvent or solvent mixture satisfies all of the criteria for use in extractive distillation” (p.477), and then a solvent selection criteria method is disclosed in choosing a solvent by first screening by a functional group or chemical family with a variety of substeps and then by identifying the individual candidate solvents with a variety of substeps to determine the best possible solvent (p.477). Luyben and/or Speight effectively have t he implication that the state of the art is that not merely any solvent can serve as an extraction solvent in extractive distillation and a suitable solvent must be discovered, determined, and/or selected in order for the extractive distillation to proceed. In other words, the state of the art is that, not only are azeotropes unpredictable (Id.) , solvents suitable for performing extractive distillation of an azeotrope are unpredictable as well. Accordingly, the level of predictability in the present art(s) is very low. Breadth of claims & Nature of the Invention Independent claim 11 recites a method comprising, inter alia, an extractive distillation step of bringing an azeotropic and/or azeotrope-like composition (composition 2) comprising difluoromethane (HFC-32) and trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) and/or 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123) into contact with an extraction solvent to obtain a composition comprising HFO-1132(E) and/or HFO-1123 with a relatively reduced amount of HFC-32. This has the implication the claim scope (and the nature of the invention ) includes the extraction solvent must be capable of changing the relative volatility and/or solubility of at least one of the components of the azeotropic/azeotrope-like composition or else a separation would not proceed due to the azeotropic nature of the initial composition. However, the extraction solvent of this claim is open-ended. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of known solvents, but it is unknown how many compounds could be suitable as the claimed extraction solvent (a solvent capable of changing the relative volatility and/or solubility of at least one of the components of the azeotropic/azeotrope-like composition for the distillation/separation to proceed) . Dependent claims 20 and 21 limit the extraction solvent to at least one compound selected from the group consisting of saturated hydrocarbon compounds, halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, nitrile compounds, ether compounds, ketone compounds, alcohol compounds, and ester compounds, but, like the independent claim, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of known solvents that are saturated hydrocarbon compounds, halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, nitrile compounds, ether compounds, ketone compounds, alcohol compounds, and ester compounds . I t is unknown how many saturated hydrocarbon compounds, halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, nitrile compounds, ether compounds, ketone compounds, alcohol compounds, and /or ester compounds could be suitable as the claimed extraction solvent (a solvent capable of changing the relative volatility and/or solubility of at least one of the components of the azeotropic/azeotrope-like composition for the distillation/separation to proceed). Dependent claim 22 limits the extraction solvent to one with standard boiling point ( i.e., the boiling point at a standard atmospheric pressure of 1013.25 hPa per [0015] of the present application's original specification ) of 30 to 135°C, but similarly, again, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of known solvents with a boiling point in this range. Level of one of ordinary skill The level or relative skill of those in the art is high, with at least a n undergraduate level of education but preferably a graduate school level of education , and a strong background in multiple areas of chemistry and engineering (e.g., organic chemistry with a strong foundation in halocarbon chemistry/synthesis , process and/or chemical engineering, etc.). More than one person, e.g., a collaborative team of multiple persons, of ordinary skill in a variety of arts would likely be needed. W orking examples & a mount of direction provided by the inventors There are three working examples in the specification. Examples 1 and 3 perform extractive distillation on compositions containing HFO-1123, HFO-1132(E), and HFC-32 utilizing cyclohexane as the extraction solvent, and Example 2 performs extractive distillation on a composition containing HFO-1123, HFO-1132(E), and HFC-32 utilizing acetonitrile as the extraction solvent. Outside of the particular five (5) exemplary extraction solvents (e.g., cyclohexane, carbon tetrachloride, acetonitrile, di-n-propyl ether, and ethyl acetate ), the specification provides limited guidance and direction for determining what other solvents would be capable of performing the claimed extractive distillation step that reduces HFC-32 from the recited azeotropic/azeotrope-like composition s (1. HFC-32+HFO-1132(E) (with no HFO-1123), 2. HFC-32+HFO-1123 (with no HFO-1132(E)), or 3. HFC-32+HFO-1132(E)+HFO-1123) . Beyond the five exemplary extraction solvents, the inventors provide direction to look to the enormous genera of saturated hydrocarbon compounds, halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, nitrile compounds, ether compounds, ketone compounds, alcohol compounds, ester compounds, and compounds with a boiling point within 30 to 135°C but do not provide any particular direction, criteria, and/or hints to narrow down these thousands of possible compounds to those that would predictably reduce HFC-32 in azeotropic/azeotrope-like compositions of HFC-32+HFO-1132(E) (with no HFO-1123), HFC-32+HFO-1123 (with no HFO-1132(E)), or HFC-32+HFO-1132(E)+HFO-1123 . The quantity of experimentation needed Other than the five (5) specific extraction solvent compounds disclosed (Id.) , t he specification is essentially an outline for other possible extraction solvents that might lie in the enormous genera of saturated hydrocarbon compounds, halogenated hydrocarbon compounds, nitrile compounds, ether compounds, ketone compounds, alcohol compounds, ester compounds , and compounds with a boiling point with in 30 to 135°C, but has no disclosure how to actually narrow down these thousands of possible compounds to those that would predictably reduce HFC-32 in azeotropic/azeotrope-like compositions of HFC-32+HFO-1132(E) (with no HFO-1123), HFC-32+HFO-1123 (with no HFO-1132(E)), or HFC-32+HFO-1132(E)+HFO-1123. The state of the art, e.g., Speight as described/cited above, discloses no single solvent or solvent mixture satisfies all of the criteria for use in extractive distillation and solvents are carefully selected by following a list of criteria ( an excerpt copied directly from p.477 of Speight): While the inventors provide direction to certain functional groups and chemical families (Id.), Speight’s remaining substeps a. to d. of the step 1 screening and all the steps/substeps of the step 2 identifying individual candidate solvents still requires an immense amount of experimentation. In fact, even after performing such a selection criteria, one would need to empirically test /perform the extractive distillation to verify the candidate solvent indeed performs as an extraction solvent, requiring even more experimentation than appreciated by Speight’s criteria. Even in view of Speight’s detailed criteria for determining a suitable extraction solvent for extractive distillation, the process is still very much one of trial-and-error. A mere outline or roadmap for discovering additional functional species amounting to little more than a trial-and-error process of discovery does not enable any person skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi , 598 U.S. 594, 143 S. Ct. 1243 (2023). “[R]andom trial-and-error discovery, without more, constitutes unreasonable experimentation that falls outside the bounds required by § 112(a).” Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. , 81 F.4th 1362, 2023 USPQ2d 1103 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi , Id.). The factors outlined in In Re Wands mentioned above apply here, and in particular as per the MPEP 2164.01(a): “A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).” It is clear that persons, even persons highly skilled in the art, could not make /use this very broad invention in this unpredictable art without undue experimentation. Genetech Inc vs Nova Nordisk, 42 USPQ 2d 1001 “A patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search but compensation for its successful conclusion and patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable.” For all of the above reasons, the claims are properly rejected as lacking enablement for the scope of solvents encompassed by the claims. Claims 12, 14, 16, and 18 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 11. A ppropriate correction/clarification is required. Note that claims 23 and 24, while dependent on claims 11 and 12, respectively, are not rejected under this rejection as they limit their scope to enabled subject matter. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites the method also comprises a rectification step that rectifies/separates the composition obtained in the parent claim’s extractive distillation step to separate it into a/one composition comprising HFO-1132(E) as a main component and a/another composition comprising HFO-1123 as a main component. However, it is unclear under an indefiniteness rationale (rather than a clear-cut 112(d) rationale) whether this limitation further limits and/or includes all the limitations of the parent claim because the parent claim does not necessarily require the presence of both HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1123 as implied by the instant claim’s limitations. Rather, parent claim 11 recites HFO-1123(E) and HFO-1123 in alternative from one another (“A method for producing purified trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) and/or 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123), …”, “… distilling composition 1 comprising difluoromethane (HFC-32) and HFO-1132(E) and/or HFO-1123 to obtain composition 2 …”, and “… an extractive distillation step … to obtain a composition comprising HFO-1132(E) and/or HFO-1123 …”) such that the independent claim does not necessarily comprise the presence of both HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1123 . The independent claim has three possible general compositions for the finally obtained composition after the extractive distillation step: 1) a composition generally comprising HFO-1132(E) (with no HFO-1123), 2) a composition generally comprising HFO-1123 (with no HFO-1132(E)), and 3) a composition generally comprising HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1123. How does claim 14 requiring both HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1123 be rectified from the composition obtained during the extractive distillation step further limit and/or include all the limitations of parent claim 11 when the composition obtained during the extractive distillation step , per the independent claim, may be a composition generally comprising HFO-1132(E) (with no HFO-1123) or a composition generally comprising HFO-1123 (with no HFO-1132(E)) by the numerous recitations of “and/or”? Claim 15 is also indefinite for substantially the same reason as claim 14 but with respect to its independent claim 13 that, for the same reason(s), d oes not necessarily require the presence of both HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1123 as implied by the instant claim’s limitations. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of claims 14 and 15 due to the limitations described above , and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. W here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiist (US 3,101,304 A) . As to claim 13, Wiist teaches an extractive distillation process for separation azeotropic and/or close-boiling fluorocarbons (col. 1 lines 1-11 & col. 4 lines 34-67). Example III at col. 8 lines 8-30 discloses subjecting a composition comprising, in mol percent, 95 part s tetrafluoroethylene, 1 part trifluoroethylene , and 4 parts difluoromethane to an extractive distillation step feeding the composition to a distillation column at its base while feeding methylene chloride as an extraction solvent at the top of the column to obtain a 99.99% pure tetrafluoroethylene product. Since the initial composition comprises 1 mol% trifluoroethylene (i.e., 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene or HFO-1123 as there is only one possible isomer for this compound ) and 4 mol% difluoromethane (i.e., HFC-32) , one of the obtained compositions after the extractive distillation is 99.99% tetrafluoroethylene, and the initial composition is described as having an azeotrope(s) (Id., col. 4), the extractive distillation reduces the difluoromethane content from an azeotropic composition, as claimed. Wiist does not meet the claimed method under the meaning of anticipat ion be cause the cited example's extraction solvent is methylene chloride rather than one of the five (5) particular solvent species claimed. However, Wiist teaches carbon tetrachloride as another, alternative useful species of halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon extraction solvent alongside the exemplary methylene chloride species (col. 3 lines 29-39; see also col. 3, generally for context). In other words, Wiist teaches carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride as suitable alternative extraction solvents for their extractive distillation process. Thus, 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/or substitute carbon tetrachloride with or in place of the methylene chloride in Wiist's Example III in order to sufficiently perform an extractive distillation of an azeotropic composition comprising difluoromethane and trifluoroethylene in order to reduce the amount of difluoromethane therein with a reasonable expectation of success as Wiist teach both carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride as suitable alternative extraction solvents for their extractive distillation process. Any remaining claim limitations are recited as optional. As to claim 17, Wiist teaches , after performing extractive distillation in column 18 by charging the initial composition and the extraction solvent F, the process further comprises separating the extraction solvent F from the residue K of the extraction distillation column 18 in column 20 and recycling it back to the extraction distillation column 18 (col. 6 lines 9-20 and Fig. 1), which reads on the claimed extraction solvent recovery step of recovering the extraction solvent used in the extractive distillation step and recirculating the recovered extraction solvent to the extractive distillation step, as claimed. As to claim 19, Wiist teaches their extractive distillation column is maintained at a pressure of 0 to 200 psig (i.e., pressure per square inch gauge pressure) (col. 5 lines 69-75). 0 to 200 psig corresponds to 0 to 1.379 MPaG (gauge pressure) and overlaps the claimed range. Claims 11 -13 , 18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Voigt et al. (US 4,898,645 A) As to independent claim 11, Voigt et al. teach a process for the production of tetrafluoroethylene from a pyrolysis reaction (abstract). An example is described among col. 4 line 65 to col. 6 line 26 that first forms a condensed pyrolysis gas comprising 0.47 g/h difluoroethylene , 4.19 g/h trifluoromethane, 1.025.21 g/h tetrafluoroethylene, 0.3 g/h difluoromethane (i.e., HFC-32) 0.83 g/h trifluoroethylene (i.e., 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene or HFO-1123 as there is only one possible isomer for this compound) , 1095.81 difluoromonochloromethane, and 578.16 g/h remainder of hexafluoropropylene, tetrafluoromonochloroethane, perfluorocyclobutane, and hexafl u oromonochloropropane (see the first Table in col. 5) which is subject to distillation at a pressure of 0.5 MPa in a first column to obtain a top product comprising 0.47 g/h difluoroethylene, 4.19 g/h trifluoromethane, 76.7 g/h tetrafluoroethylene, and 0.07 g/h difluoromethane (see the second Table in col. 5). The bottom product of the first column is subject to an additional distillation at a pressure of 0.5 MPa in a second column, where 600 g/h of difluoromonochloromethane is introduced halfway up in the column (col. 5 lines 43-44) to obtain a top product comprising 948.4 g/h tetrafluoroethylene, 0.0047 g/h difluoromethane , and < 0.0005 g/h trifluoroethylene (see the third Table in col. 5) and a bottom product comprising 0.15 g/h tetrafluoroethylene, 0.23 g/h difluoromethane , 0.83 g/h trifluoroethylene , 1695.81 g/h difluoromonochloromethane, and 578.16 g/h remainder of hexafluoropropylene, tetrafluoromonochloroethane, perfluorocyclobutane, and hexafluoromonochloropropane (see the Table spanning the bottom of col. 5 to the top of col. 6). The initial composition (the condensed pyrolysis gas of the first Table, Id.) comprises difluoromethane (i.e., HFC-32), difluoroethylene, and trifluoroethylene (i.e., 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene or HFO-1123 ) and reads on the claimed composition 1. The bottoms of the first distillate, while not explicitly disclosed, must comprise difluoromethane /HFC-32 and 1,1,2- trifluoroethylene /HFO-1123 per a materials balance as both the condensate and bottoms of the second distillation fed from the bottoms of the first distillate each comprise difluoromethane and trifluoroethylene; accordingly, the bottoms of the first distillate reads on the claimed composition 2. The first distillation in the first column cited above directly reads on the claimed distillation step of distilling composition 1 comprising difluoromethane/HFC-32 and 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene/HFO-1123 to obtain composition 2 in which HFC-32 is reduced from composition. The additional distillation in the second column cited above directly reads on the claimed extractive distillation step of bringing composition 2 into contact with an extraction solvent (the additionally added difluoromonochloromethane ) to obtain a composition comprising HFO-1123 in which HFC-32 is reduced from composition 2. While Voigt et al. fail to specify the bottoms of the first distillate reading on the claimed composition 2 is an azeotropic or azeotrope-like composition, this limitation/property is presumed inherent and thus anticipated by the disclosed, exemplary bottoms of the first distillate as this composition/stream is made by substantially the same step/process as that claimed (distilling a composition comprising HFC-32 and HFO-1123 to obtain an azeotropic/azeotrope-like composition comprising HFC-32 and HFO-1123 with a reduced amount of HFC-32 relative to the initial composition). Applicant has the burden of showing the exemplary the bottoms of the first distillate reading on the claimed composition 2 (that comprises HFO-1123 and HFC-32 with a reduced amount of HFC-32 relative to the composition introduced to the distillation column, all as claimed) is not azeotropic or azeotrope-like in any aspect. Where the claimed and prior art products 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). T he claiming of a n unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . Alternatively regarding independent claim 11 , in addition to all that is disclosed above, Voigt et al. fu r ther teach the bottom product of the second column (i.e., the composition of the above -cited example’s Table spanning the bottom of col. 5 to the top of col. 6 ) is worked up by extractive distillation to separate an azeotropic mixture from the bottom product using methanol, acetone, diethyl ether, or ethyl acetate (col. 4 lines 29-35). In other words, Voight et al. expressly teaches expanding the example ’s process to include an additional extractive distillation process after the second distillation comprising its own extractive distillation via adding difluoromonochloromethane. Here, the bottoms of the example’s first distillat ion (which comprise s difluoromethane/HFC-32 and 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene/HFO-1123 per a materials balance , Id.) reads on the claimed composition 1, and the bottoms of the example’s second distillation ( the composition of the above-cited example’s Table spanning the bottom of col. 5 to the top of col. 6 ) reads on azeotropic composition 2. The additional distillation in the second column cited in the example above directly reads on the claimed distillation step of distilling composition 1 comprising difluoromethane/HFC-32 and 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene/HFO-1123 to obtain composition 2 in which HFC-32 is reduced from composition. The further extractive distillation after the second distillation directly reads on the claimed extractive distillation step of bringing azeotropic composition 2 into contact with an extraction solvent (the additionally added difluoromonochloromethane) to obtain a composition comprising HFO-1123 in which HFC-32 is reduced from composition 2. In the event the above expansion of the reference’s example to include the additional extractive distillation described at col. 4 lines 29-35 is somehow not anticipated (i.e., at once envisaged by a person of ordinary skill in the art), the claim is nevertheless obvious over the same teachings of the reference under a prima facie case of obviousness. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additional extractive distillation described at col. 4 lines 29-35 in order to further work up and separate the bottom product of the second distillation column with a reasonable expectation of success. Even if this portion/rationale of the reference is somehow not anticipatory, the reference strongly teaches and thus motivates providing the additional extractive distillation to the bottom product of the second distillation column (that comprises both trifluoroethylene and difluoromethane per the examples) to separate an azeotropic mixture as claimed. Any remaining claim limitations are recited as optional. As to claim 12, Voigt et al. t he first distillation in the first column is performed at a pressure of 0.5 MPa in the first column (Id.), which falls within the claimed 0.05 to 5 MPaG (gauge pressure) range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and reasonably interpret the disclosed column pressure(s) in the reference is/are in gauge pressure as claimed rather than an absolute pressure (gauge pressure plus atmospheric pressure). Alternatively regarding claim 12, Voigt et al. teach the first distillation column is operated at a pressure range of 0.3 to 1.8 MPa (col. 3 lines 31-36), which overlap s the claimed distillation step pressure . As to independent claim 13, as similarly disclosed above regarding independent claim 11, Voigt et al. teach the bottom product of the second column (i.e., the composition of the above-cited example’s Table spanning the bottom of col. 5 to the top of col. 6) is worked up by extractive distillation to separate an azeotropic mixture from the bottom product using methanol, acetone, diethyl ether, or ethyl acetate (col. 4 lines 29-35). In other words, Voight et al. expressly teaches expanding the example’s process to include an additional extractive distillation process after the second distillation comprising its own extractive distillation via adding difluoromonochloromethane. Here, the bottoms of the example’s first distillation (which comprises difluoromethane/HFC-32 and 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene/HFO-1123 per a materials balance, Id.) reads on the claimed composition 1, and the bottoms of the example’s second distillation (the composition of the above-cited example’s Table spanning the bottom of col. 5 to the top of col. 6) reads on azeotropic composition 2. The additional distillation in the second column cited in the example above directly reads on the claimed distillation step of distilling composition 1 comprising difluoromethane/HFC-32 and 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene/HFO-1123 to obtain composition 2 in which HFC-32 is reduced from composition. The further extractive distillation after the second distillation directly reads on the claimed extractive distillation step of bringing azeotropic composition 2 into contact with an extraction solvent (the additionally added difluoromonochloromethane) to obtain a composition comprising HFO-1123 in which HFC-32 is reduced from composition 2. Regarding the claimed extraction solvent species, V oigt et al. teach ethyl acetate as a suitable, exemplary extraction solvent (Id.). The reference merely teaches four (4) extraction solvent species for the additional extractive distillation process (Id.). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at-once envisage ethyl acetate from the very short list of possible extraction solvents under an anticipation rationale. In the event the above expansion of the reference’s example to include the additional extractive distillation described at col. 4 lines 29-35 is somehow not anticipated (i.e., at once envisaged by a person of ordinary skill in the art), the claim is nevertheless obvious over the same teachings of the reference under a prima facie case of obviousness. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the additional extractive distillation described at col. 4 lines 29-35 in order to further work up and separate the bottom product of the second distillation column with a reasonable expectation of success. Even if this portion/rationale of the reference is somehow not anticipatory, the reference strongly teaches and thus motivates providing the additional extractive distillation to the bottom product of the second distillation column (that comprises both trifluoroethylene and difluoromethane per the examples) to separate an azeotropic mixture as claimed. In the event ethyl acetate is somehow not anticipated in the reference , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select ethyl acetate from the very short list of possible extraction solvents with a reasonable expectation of success. Any remaining claim limitations are recited as optional. As to claim 18, Voight et al. teach the second distillation in the second column (i.e., the extractive distillation) is performed at a pressure of 0.5 MPa in the second column (Id.), which falls within the claimed 0.05 to 5 MPaG (gauge pressure) range. Alternatively regarding claim 18, Voigt et al. teach the second distillation column is operated at a pressure range of 0.3 to 1.2 MPa (col. 3 lines 43-49), which overlap s the claimed extractive distillation step pressure. As to claims 20 and 21, Voigt et al. teach the extraction solvent is a halogenated hydrocarbon compound (difluoromonochloromethane, Id.). Voigt et al. also teach other extraction solvents are an ether, ketone, alcohol, or ester ( methanol, acetone, diethyl ether, or ethyl acetate , Id.). As to claim 22, Voigt et al. teach the extraction solvent has a standard boiling point ( i.e., the boiling point at a standard atmospheric pressure of 1013.25 hPa per [0015] of the present application's original specification, aka 760 Torr ) within the claimed range of 30 to 135°C. Voight et al. list methanol, acetone, diethyl ether, or ethyl acetate as suitable, exemplary extraction solvents (col. 4 lines 29-35) , which have approximate standard boiling points of 65°C, 56°C, 35°C, and 77°C, respectively. As to claims 23 and 24, Voigt et al. teach ethyl acetate as a suitable, exemplary extraction solvent (Id.). The reference merely teaches four (4) extraction solvent species for the additional extractive distillation process (Id.). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would at-once envisage ethyl acetate from the very short list of possible extraction solvents under an anticipation rationale. In any event, it would have been equally obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select ethyl acetate from the very short list of possible extraction solven ts with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voigt et al. (US 4,898,645 A). The disclosure of Voigt et al. is relied upon as set forth above. Alternatively regarding claims 12 and 18, Voigt et al. teach the first distillation column is operated at a pressure range of 0.3 to 1.8 MPa (col. 3 lines 31-36) and the second distillation column is operated at a pressure range of 0.3 to 1.2 MPa (col. 3 lines 43-49), which overlap the claimed distillation step and extractive distillation step pressures, respectively. As to claim 16, Voigt et al. further teach, after the second distillation in the second column, t he bottom product can be subjected to further distillation to recover the difluoromonochloromethane and/or to produce difluoromonochloromethane, hexafluoropropylene, and other products (col. 6 lines 5-11 ; see also claim 7 ). Voigt et al. further teach the recovered components are purified and recycled (col. 1 lines 40-45). While Voigt et al. fail to teach the recovered, purified difluoromonochloromethane is specifically recycled/recirculated back to the second column (i.e., the extractive distillation step), such an arrangement would have been intuitively obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date as a cost-savings measure with a reasonable expectation of success. The cited example provides 600 g/h of difluoromonochloromethane to the second distillation solvent and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand it would be economical to provide as much recovered, purified difluoromonochloromethane as possible obtained downline back to the second distillation column rather than need to purchase/provide new, additional difluoromonochloromethane to feed to the second distillation column. Prior Art Cited But Not Applied The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure : Wiist (US 3,101,304 A) meets the limitations of independent claim 13 for the reasons described above. However, regarding the limitations of independent claim 11, whi le Wiist teaches their process entails a substantial workup prior to the extractive distillation step that encompasses initial distillation steps (see, e.g., Fig. 1 where column 18 is the extractive distillation column and the preceding columns 15 and 17 are prior distillation columns and Example 1 at col. 7 lines 1-18 described to entail removing as much tetrafluoroethylene and starting material as possible from the pyrolysate prior to the extractive distillation step/column), Wiist fail s to fairly teach or suggest that the prior/initial distillation step(s) necessarily comprise reduction of difluoromethane (HFC-32) in the respective composition(s) prior to the extractive distillation step (that also/further reduces difluoromethane), as claimed. The Office notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason or motivation to combine the Wiist (US 3,101,304 A) and Voigt et al. (US 4,898,645 A) references as Voigt et al. expressly teaches away from and discourages the process(es) of the Wiist patent (col. 1 line 60 to col. 2 line 8). Takahashi et al. (JP 07-291878 A) teach a method of purifying difluoromethane comprising subjecting one or more compounds selected from a group consisting of 1,1,1-trifluoroethane, pentafluoroethane and methyl chloride contained in difluoromethane to extractive distillation using one or more compounds selected from a group consisting of 1,1dichloro-1-fluoroethane, dichloropentafluoropropane, trichlorotrifluoroethane and 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane as extracting agents (abstract). However, Takahashi et al. fail to teach or suggest the composition to be purified comprises trans-1,2-difluoroethylene and/or 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene, as claimed. Fukushima (US 2017/0002245 A1, the PGPub of the WO 2015/141768 A1 PCT search report X reference) teaches a working fluid composition for a heat cycle comprising trifluoroethylene and 1,2-difluoroethylene (abstract & para. 0021). The 1,2-difluoroethylene may be present as trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) (para. 0022). The composition may further comprise difluoromethane (HFC-32) (para. 0023). The composition is made by generally mixing the desired components in desired proportions (e.g., para. 0151). Fukushima wholly fails to teach, suggest, or even hint at subjecting their composition to an extractive distillation step by bringing it into contact with an extraction solvent to reduce the amount of difluoromethane therein, as claimed. Taniguchi et al. ( US 10,081,749 B2) teach compositions comprising 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (HFO-1123) and methods of making thereof (abstract). Taniguchi et al. teach HFO-1123 is produced by hydrogen reduction of chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE) or heat decomposition of chlorodifluoromethane (R22) and chlorofluoromethane (R31) (col. 5 line 43+). An example (Example 2 among col. 15 to 20 in the reference) of synthesizing HFO-1123 by the decomposition of R22 and R31 obtains a crude reaction product comprising, among many other components, HFO-1123, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene ((E)-HFO-1132), and difluoromethane (HFC-32) (see Tables 6 & 7) and subjects this crude HFO-1123 product to two successive distillation columns, i.e., two distillation steps, to obtain a purified HFO-1123, a slightly more concentrated (E)-HFO-1132, and outflow(s) at each column containing a reduced amount of HFC-32 (see the distillate 1 and bottom liquid 1 supplied to distillation column 2 of the first distillation column in Table 7 and distillates 2 & 3 and bottom liquid 2 of the second distillation column in Table 8) . While Taniguchi et al. teach performing two successive distillation steps, Taniguchi et al. fail to teach or suggest the second distillation step, let alone any distillation step, is an extractive distillation step that contacts the composition with an extraction solvent, as claimed. The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above. C orrespondence 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 9:00 a-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 http s ://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 application