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 amendment/remarks filed 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (R-1132(E)) (“Species A”) as the species of refrigerant in the reply filed on 05/26/206 is acknowledged. Applicant has identified claims 1-20 as reading on the elected species.
Claims 1-20 were searched and examined only to the extent that they read on the elected species, as the elected species was found not to be allowable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statement filed 03/31/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
It is noted that, for several of the foreign patent references, Applicant has merely provided translations of the abstracts of the foreign patent references. While the references have been considered to the best of the Examiner’s ability, the contents of the references/pages in foreign languages have not been considered. Applicant is reminded 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) requires a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each publication that is not in the English language. For the foreign references cited on the IDS where only a translation of the abstract was given with no corresponding English publication was cited (i.e., For Cite No. 1, 4, etc.), only the abstracts of those references have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Applicant is suggested to amend “A heat transfer composition comprising refrigerant, lubricant, and stabilizer,” to read as “A heat transfer composition comprising a refrigerant, a lubricant, and a stabilizer,” in order to improve grammar and clarity in the claim. Claim 15 is also objected to for the same reason.
Also in claim 1, “about 0.05 to% about 2.5%” on the second to last line of the claim appears to be a mistake for “about 0.05% to about 2.5%”. Applicant is suggested to amend/correct the claim accordingly in order to improve clarity in the claim.
In claim 13, Applicant is suggested to amend “The heat transfer composition of claim10 …” to read as “The heat transfer composition of claim10 …” (add a space between “claim” and “10”) in order to improve clarity in the claims.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Applicant is also advised that should claims 4, 6, and 7 be found allowable, claims 5, 8, and 9, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. Claim 5 is a duplicate of claim 4, claim 8 is a duplicate of claim 6, and claim 9 is a duplicate of claim 7. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation that the composition comprises “one or more compounds according to AMD1”. However, it is unknown and unclear what a compound according to “AMD1” is or means. While Applicant has defined several compounds in the specification as being represented by certain abbreviations (see, e.g., pages 23-28 of the spec.), there is no definition, meaning, nor standard for an “AMD1” or any “AMD” compound, which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 2-14 are also indefinite for their dependency on claim 1 and lack of specifically clarifying what the AMD1 compound(s) is/are specifically limited to (while it is noted some dependent claims state the AMD1 comprises ADM4, a clearly defined compound [see below], or another numbered ADM, the term “comprising” means there can be other compounds present as the one or more AMD1 and it remains unclear what those AMD1 compounds are).
For purposes of further examination and compact prosecution (or else the claims could not be fairly compared against prior art), the recited “AMD1” component is broadly interpreted as referring to any and all “acid depleting moiety” or “ADM” compound(s).
In claims 2 and 3, the limitation “said alkylated naphthalene” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of further examination (and Applicant is suggested to amend following this interpretation), “said alkylated naphthalene” is construed as referring to the parent claim’s “AN4” (i.e., interpreted as “wherein said AN4 is present in the composition in an amount of from … by weight based on the weight of the lubricant and the stabilizer”, narrowing the concentration of claim 1).
Claim 7 recites the AMD1 comprises “ADM6”. The specification does not have a clear definition, meaning, or standard for an “ADM6” compound, rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. A short discussion of “ADM6” is set forth on page 28 / [00149]-[00150] of the spec.:
PNG
media_image1.png
274
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The paragraph first describes ADM6 is glycidyl neodecanoate, i.e., a branched C10 glycidyl ester, but then depicts ADM6 as the structure of glycidyl 2-methyl-2-ethylpentanoate, i.e., a branched C8 glycidyl ester. These compounds described in words and then depicted in structure are not the same, rendering the meaning, scope, and metes and bounds of the “ADM6” unclear, vague, and indefinite. Is ADM6 one of these compounds, both of these compounds, any glycidyl ester, or any branched glycidyl ester?
Independent claim 15 and dependent claims 9, 10, 17, and 18 are also indefinite for reciting ADM6, and claims 11-14 and 16-20 are indefinite for their dependency on one of claims 10 or 15.
For purposes of further examination and compact prosecution (or else these claims could not be fairly compared against prior art), the recited “ADM6” is broadly construed as requiring a glycidyl ester compound.
In addition to all above, independent claim 15 also recites the limitation that an “ADM” (i.e., acid depleting moiety, a stabilizer in the heat transfer composition) comprises “ADM4, ADM5, ADM5A or ADM6.” The indefiniteness of the “ADM6” is explained above (Id.). As it is explained below that the ADM4 is are clear and definite, it is unknown and unclear what the remaining “ADM5” or “ADM5A” are or mean.
While Applicant has defined several compounds in the specification as being represented by certain abbreviations of various, numbered “ADM” (see, e.g., pages 23-28 of the spec.), Applicant indicates ADM5A is a certain group of epoxides but the referenced compounds are not epoxides at all. See [00145] at the top of p.27 of the spec where Formula II defines an alkyl ether:
PNG
media_image2.png
191
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is also unclear what is meant by the R1 – R4 of Formula II as Formula II only contains R5 and R6 and no R1, R2, R3, or R4 as implied. Thus, the scope of ADM5A is very unclear. This renders claim 15 and its dependent claims 19 and 20 (requiring the ADM5A) each indefinite.
Furthermore, while the specification has definitions (albeit unclear like ADM5A) for a ADM5B, ADM5C, and ADM5D among [00146]-[00148, there is no definition, meaning, nor standard for an “ADM5” compound, which also renders the claim indefinite.
For purposes of further examination, claim 15 and its dependent claims will only be considered for the particular ADM4 and broadly interpreted ADM6 acid depleting moieties as the ADM5A and ADM5 are unknown and/or very unclear.
In view of the foregoing, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of claims 19 and 20 due to the unclear/unknown scope of the “ADM5A” compound required in the stabilizer as recited, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention. Where 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.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Interpretation
Notwithstanding the above 112 issues, it is noted the claims otherwise recite some clear and definite abbreviations, e.g., the abbreviated and numbered alternative alkyl naphthalenes as AN4, AN5, and AN10 and the remaining abbreviated and numbered alternative acid depleting moiety ADM4.
Tables Alkylated Naphthalane Table 1 and Alkylated Naphthalane Table 2 among p.20-21 set forth a clear definition and standard for the abbreviated and numbered alkylated naphthalenes.
Pages 23 to 28 set forth a clear definition and standard for the abbreviated and numbered acid depleting moiety ADM4 as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether (see, e.g., [00145]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 8, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1) in view of Smith (US 2020/0131417 A1).
As to claims 1-3, Fukushima teaches a working medium for a heat cycle (i.e., a refrigerant) comprising 1,2-difluoroethylene (abstract). The working medium is further contained in a composition with components other than the working medium, referred to as a working medium-containing composition (para. 0027, 0051, etc.), which reads on a heat transfer composition. The working medium-containing composition may further comprise, in addition to the refrigerant/working medium, a lubricant (para. 0051+) and a stabilizer (para. 0076+). Regarding the isomer and total/relative content of the 1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132) as the refrigerant/working medium component, Fukushima teaches the HFO-1132 may be present as HFO-1123(E) (i.e., trans-1,2-difluoroethylene) “alone” (para. 0028) and the HFO-1132 may be preferably 100 mass% of the working medium (para. 0029), which reads on said refrigerant comprising about 100% by weight of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (R1132(E)) as claimed/elected. The lubricant may comprise polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether (para. 0053, 0061, etc.), as claimed. While Fukushima further teaches some broad relative concentrations of the lubricant component relative to the working medium component and stabilizer component relative to the total working medium-containing composition (para. 0075 & 0080), note that the reference is not particularly limited to these teachings as they are merely disclosed with “preferable” preceded by “not limited within” terminologies.
Despite the express presence of HFO-1132(E) with a polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant and a stabilizer, Fukushima alone fails to teach the presence of the particular stabilizer comprising AN4 and an acid depleting moiety (ADM) as claimed.
However, Smith is similarly drawn to stabilized heat transfer compositions comprising refrigerant, lubricant, and stabilizer and stabilized lubricants comprising a lubricant and stabilizer for provision with/to a refrigerant (abstract, para. 0040, 0054, & para. 0175+). Like Fukushima, Smith teaches the lubricant comprises polyol ester (POE) lubricant and/or polyvinyl ether (PVE) lubricant (abstract; see also para. 0175+). Smith further teaches the stabilizer comprises an alkylated naphthalene and optionally but preferably an acid depleting moiety (abstract). The alkylated naphthalene is generally provided in an amount of 1% to less than 10% by weight and subsets thereof, e.g., 1-8 wt.% or 1.5-6 wt.%, based on the weight of the lubricant and alkylated naphthalene (para. 0022, 0025, & 0184-0187). “AN4” (and other more particular/narrower alkylated naphthalenes) is a suitable alkylated naphthalene per Table 1 below para. 0072. See also Table 2 below para. 0076. Regarding the acid depleting moiety, see the discussion of providing various epoxides beginning at para. 0085. 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether is one preferred/narrower epoxide ADM (para. 0093). Smith further teach the stabilizer comprises about 40-99 wt.% of alkylated naphthalene and 0.05-50 wt.% of ADM based on the amount of the stabilizer (para. 0042). Smith alternatively teach the stabilizer comprises about 40-95 wt.% of the alkylated naphthalene, e.g., AN4, with 5-30 wt.% of the ADM, e.g., ADM4, along with 0.1-10 wt.% of a phenol based on the amounts of all stabilizer components (para. 0122). These relative amount(s) of stabilizer paired with the prior relative amount of alkylated naphthalene of the lubricant+alkylated naphthalene overlaps the claimed relative amount of about 0.05-2.5 wt.% of ADM based on the weight of the lubricant and stabilizer(s).
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 the alkylated naphthalene/AN4 and acid depleting moiety/ADM-based stabilizer taught by Smith in order to stabilize the polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant and heat transfer (working medium-containing) composition of Fukushima with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 4 and 5, the references teach the lubricant may be/is a polyvinyl ether lubricant (Id.).
As to claims 6 and 8, the combination of references meet the limitation the ADM comprises ADM4, i.e., 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether, (Id.).
As to claim 11, the combination of references meets the limitation the stabilizer further comprises a phenol (Id.; see also para. 0115-0120). In addition to the cited teachings of Smith meeting the additional provision of a phenol (Id.), Fukushima also teach and motivate the additional provision of a phenol compound as an oxidation resistance- and/or heat resistance-improving agent (para. 0078).
As to claims 12-14, the combination of references meet the claimed provision of various phosphates as Smith further teaches providing phosphorus-based compounds such as a trialkyl phosphate or a triaryl phosphate as an additional stabilizer in addition to the alkylated naphthalenes and ADM (para. 0115 and 0133-0135).
As to independent claim 15, as similarly cited for the limitations of independent claim 1, Fukushima teaches a working medium for a heat cycle (i.e., a refrigerant) comprising 1,2-difluoroethylene (abstract). The working medium is further contained in a composition with components other than the working medium, referred to as a working medium-containing composition (para. 0027, 0051, etc.), which reads on a heat transfer composition. The working medium-containing composition may further comprise, in addition to the refrigerant/working medium, a lubricant (para. 0051+) and a stabilizer (para. 0076+). Regarding the isomer and total/relative content of the 1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132) as the refrigerant/working medium component, Fukushima teaches the HFO-1132 may be present as HFO-1123(E) (i.e., trans-1,2-difluoroethylene) “alone” (para. 0028) and the HFO-1132 may be preferably 100 mass% of the working medium (para. 0029), which reads on said refrigerant comprising about 100% by weight of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (R1132(E)) as claimed/elected. The lubricant may comprise polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether (para. 0053, 0061, etc.), as claimed. While Fukushima further teaches some broad relative concentrations of the lubricant component relative to the working medium component and stabilizer component relative to the total working medium-containing composition (para. 0075 & 0080), note that the reference is not particularly limited to these teachings as they are merely disclosed with “preferable” preceded by “not limited within” terminologies.
Despite the express presence of HFO-1132(E) with a polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant and a stabilizer, Fukushima alone fails to teach the presence of the particular stabilizer comprising AN4, AN5, and/or AN10 and an acid depleting moiety (ADM) of ADM4 as claimed.
However, Smith is similarly drawn to stabilized heat transfer compositions comprising refrigerant, lubricant, and stabilizer and stabilized lubricants comprising a lubricant and stabilizer for provision with/to a refrigerant (abstract, para. 0040, 0054, & para. 0175+). Like Fukushima, Smith teaches the lubricant comprises polyol ester (POE) lubricant and/or polyvinyl ether (PVE) lubricant (abstract; see also para. 0175+). Smith further teaches the stabilizer comprises an alkylated naphthalene and optionally but preferably an acid depleting moiety (abstract). The alkylated naphthalene is generally provided in an amount of 1% to less than 10% by weight and subsets thereof, e.g., 1-8 wt.% or 1.5-6 wt.%, based on the weight of the lubricant and alkylated naphthalene (para. 0022, 0025, & 0184-0187). “AN4”, “AN5”, and “AN10” are suitable alkylated naphthalenes per Table 1 below para. 0072 and Table 2 below para. 0076. Regarding the acid depleting moiety, see the discussion of providing various epoxides beginning at para. 0085. 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether is one preferred/narrower epoxide ADM (para. 0093), which meets the claimed ADM4. Smith further teach the stabilizer comprises about 40-99 wt.% of alkylated naphthalene and 0.05-50 wt.% of ADM based on the amount of the stabilizer (para. 0042). Smith alternatively teach the stabilizer comprises about 40-95 wt.% of the alkylated naphthalene, e.g., AN4, with 5-30 wt.% of the ADM, e.g., ADM4, along with 0.1-10 wt.% of a phenol based on the amounts of all stabilizer components (para. 0122). These relative amount(s) of stabilizer paired with the prior relative amount(s) of alkylated naphthalene of the lubricant+alkylated naphthalene overlaps the claimed relative amount of the AN(s) and ADM(s) together comprise(s) from 1% to less than 10% by weight based on the weight of the AN(s), ADM(s), and the lubricant.
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 the alkylated naphthalene/AN4 and acid depleting moiety/ADM-based stabilizer taught by Smith in order to stabilize the polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant and heat transfer (working medium-containing) composition of Fukushima with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 16, the combination of references meet the limitation the stabilizer comprises AN10 and ADM4, i.e., 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether, (Id.).
Claims 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2014/0077123 A1) in view of Smith (US 2020/0131417 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 11-16 above, and further in view of any one of Matsumoto (US 2013/0012419 A1), Takahashi et al. (US 2016/0244692 A1), or Nagai et al. (WO 2021/005986 A1, utilizing US 2022/0325159 A1 as an English language equivalent).
The disclosure of Fukushima in view of Smith is relied upon as set forth above.
As to claims 7, 9, and 10, Fukushima in view of Smith teach/meet, inter alia, a heat transfer composition comprising HFO-1132(E) as a refrigerant, a polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant, and a stabilizer comprising AN4 and an epoxide-based acid depleting moiety (ADM) in/overlapping the recited amounts (Id.). As cited above, it is both taught and even claimed in Smith that the ADM is present in the stabilizer at 0.05-50 wt.% with the alkylated naphthalene at about 40-99.9 wt% in the stabilizer (Id.), which meets the ranges of claim 10. While ADM4 (i.e., 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether) is certainly the preferred ADM of Smith (Id. & para. 0093), Smith more broadly teaches epoxides, especially epoxide ethers, of various formulae are preferred ADMs where the groups on either side of the ether are “independently a C1-C14 straight or branched chain, preferably unsubstituted, alkyl group” (para. 0088-0092) which opens the ADMs up to alternative compounds under the broad formula(e).
Fukushima and Fukushima in view of Smith fails to teach the ADM is “ADM6” (i.e., a glycidyl ester).
However, Matsumoto teaches a lubricating oil composition having excellent compatibility with a refrigerant (abstract), which may be an unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbon refrigerant with at least one carbon-carbon unsaturated bond (para. 0152+, e.g., para. 0161-0165), comprising addition of an acid scavenger (in other words, an acid depleting moiety) to the base oil/lubricant where the acid scavenger includes an epoxy compound of glycidyl ethers or glycidyl esters (para. 0015 & 0199-0203). Therein, 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether is a preferred glycidyl ether) and glycidyl 2-ethylhexanoate, glycidyl 3,5,5-trimethylhexanoate, glycidyl caprate, glycidyl laurate, glycidyl versatate (aka glycidyl neodecanoate), and glycidyl myristate are preferred glycidyl esters. In other words, Matsumoto teaches, recognize, and establish glycidyl esters (meeting the claimed ADM6) are equivalent ADMs to glycidyl ethers such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether/ADM4.
Alternatively, Takahashi et al. teach a refrigerating machine oil composition suitable for use with unsaturated fluorinated hydrocarbon-based refrigerants (abstract and para. 0053-0055) comprising addition of an epoxy compound in order to suppress an increase in the acid value of the composition (in other words, an acid depleting moiety) including a glycidyl ether or a glycidyl ester (abstract, and para. 0026-0041). Therein, 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether is a preferred glycidyl ether) and glycidyl neodecanoate and glycidyl-2,2-dimethyloctanoate (another glycidyl neodecanoate isomer) are preferred glycidyl esters. See also para. 0068. In other words, Takahashi et al. teach, recognize, and establish glycidyl esters (meeting the claimed ADM6) are equivalent ADMs to glycidyl ethers such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether/ADM4.
Alternatively, Nagai et al. teach a refrigerating machine oil, i.e., lubricant, for provision with a working fluid composition (abstract, para. 0012-0013, etc.), where the lubricant preferably comprises an acid scavenger (in other words, an acid depleting moiety) (para. 0054), implied to affect/improve the stability of the lubricant, where the acid scavenger includes an epoxy compound of glycidyl ethers or glycidyl esters (para. 0056-0064). Therein, 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether is a preferred glycidyl ether) and glycidyl neodecanoate and glycidyl-2,2-dimethyloctanoate (another glycidyl neodecanoate isomer) are preferred glycidyl esters. A broad glycidyl ester compound formula is even disclosed (para. 0061). In other words, Nagai et al. teach, recognize, and establish glycidyl esters are equivalent ADMs to glycidyl ethers such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether/ADM4.
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 substitute a glycidyl ester, meeting the claimed “ADM6”, as taught by any one of Matsumoto, Takahashi et al., or Nagai et al. as the ADM and in place of the preferred ADM4/glycidyl ether of Fukushima in view of Smith in order to sufficiently stabilize the polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant and heat transfer (working medium-containing) composition of Fukushima in view of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success. Each of Matsumoto, Takahashi et al., and Nagai et al. teach, recognize, and establish glycidyl esters are equivalent ADMs to glycidyl ethers such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether/ADM4. Note that the cited glycidyl esters of the Matsumoto, Takahashi et al., and Nagai et al. references fall under/within Smith’s epoxide/ADM formula(e) where the alkyl group is merely a substituted alkyl group and is still within their formula(e), albeit a nonpreferred embodiment thereof.
As to claim 15, alternative to the combination of Fukushima in view of Smith meeting the claimed “ADM comprising ADM4” embodiment of claim 15, the present combination of the above references (Fukushima in view of Smith and further in view of Matsumoto, Takahashi et al., or Nagai et al.) alternatively meets and renders obvious the claimed “ADM comprising … ADM6” embodiment of the claim. Note, as has been thoroughly described above, Fukushima in view of Smith teach/meet, inter alia, a heat transfer composition comprising HFO-1132(E) as a refrigerant, a polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant, and a stabilizer comprising AN4, AN5, and/or AN10 and an epoxide-based acid depleting moiety (ADM) in/overlapping the recited amounts, and the combination of Fukushima in view of Smith with any one of Matsumoto, Takahashi et al., or Nagai et al. provides and substitutes a glycidyl ester, meeting the claimed “ADM6”, as the ADM and in place of the preferred ADM4/glycidyl ether in order to sufficiently stabilize the polyol ester and/or polyvinyl ether lubricant and heat transfer (working medium-containing) composition of Fukushima in view of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success. For purposes of brevity (or else this correspondence would span many additional pages and merely repeat rationale already set forth above), the precise rationale/citations to each and every limitation will not be repeated here. See the rationale/citations of the references, above.
As to claim 17, the combination of references meet the limitation the stabilizer comprises AN5 and ADM6, i.e., a glycidyl ester, (Id.).
As to claim 18, the combination of references meet the limitation the stabilizer comprises AN10 and ADM6, i.e., a glycidyl ester, (Id.).
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Correspondence
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 9:00a-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 https://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 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights