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 .
The claims received 10/15/2025 are entered. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
The petition to suspend action received 10/15/2025 was dismissed in the decision dated 12/9/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/5/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al (US 2021/0198547) and evidenced by (“Study on Environmental and Health effects of HFO refrigerants” prepared for the Norwegian Environment Agency, 2017), hereinafter 2017NEA.
Regarding claims 1-8, Ohkubo discloses a method of providing heating and/or cooling comprising:
providing a vapor compression refrigeration system comprising a compressor, a condenser, an evaporator ([0086]) and a refrigerant comprising:
HFO-1234ze(E) ([0036]),
HFC-134a ([0036]); and
HFCO-1224yd(Z) (table 3, example 7)
evaporating said refrigerant in said evaporator, wherein the glide of said refrigerant in said evaporator is less than 4.5 °C ([0043]) and wherein said refrigerant has a capacity in said system that is greater than 65% ([0032], table 3 example 7 lists 79% of capacity of R-134a) of the capacity of R-134a in said system.
Ohkubo further discloses an evaporator glide of less than 4C ([0043]) and flammability class of A1 (table 3, example 7 is non-flammable. Ohkubo lacks a GWP of less than 150, the example at table 3, example 7 has a GWP of 389. Ohkubo does disclose the desirability of lowering GWP ([0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have lowered the GWP of the composition to be below 150, such as by increasing the relative weight of HFO-1234ze(E) and HFO-1224yd(Z), in order to reduce global warming risk.
As evidenced by 2017NEA HFO-1224yd is equivalent to HFCO-1224yd (page 11).
Ohkubo lacks the particular weight percentages as claimed. It has been held that the optimization of a result-effective variable is obvious. In this instance HFO-1234ze(E) provides a low GWP, HFC-134a is widely available and has excellent refrigeration capacity, HFO-1224yd(Z) is known for good oil compatibility, low GWP, low toxicity, and being non-flammable. Therefor because the property of the constituent refrigerants is recognized as effecting the result of refrigerant capacity and GWP among others; the claimed values are not a product of innovation but of ordinary skill and are obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the application as filed includes evidence of unexpected results (page 8 of remarks) but does not provide any specific evidence. Thus the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yana Motta et al (US 8,940,180) Low GWP heat transfer compositions.
Hughes et al (US 2024/0368446) tetrafluoropropene refrigerant and GWP of 150.
Zhili et al (US 2016/0024362) tetrafluoropropene refrigerant composition.
Minor et al (US 2015/0184048) tetrafluoropropene refrigerant composition.
Amolea 1224yd.
Solstice ze Refrigerant.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:00 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at 5712707740. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R ZERPHEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799