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 07/22/2026.
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
The IDS statement filed 07/23/2026 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
The information disclosure statement filed 07/23/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Copies of foreign cite no. 2, 4, and 5 were not provided. The struck-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Amendment
The objection of claims 3 and 22 is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claims 18, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2008/0069177 A1) in view of Howell et al. (US 2010/0288965 A1) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The 103 rejections over or based on Yana Motta et al. as previously set forth on pages 7 to of the Non-Final Office action mailed 03/24/2026 are all generally maintained in their entirety. However, upon review the Office realized that the 103 rejection of claims 18, 19, 21, and 22 accidentally miscited the secondary reference in the rejection heading. Thus, the correction is made below and the Office action is made Non-Final.
The rejection on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,051 is withdrawn in view of the approved Terminal Disclaimer filed 07/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana Motta et al. (US 2009/0267019 A1).
As to claim 1, Yana Motta et al. teach refrigerant compositions comprising one or more hydrofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons, and lubricants (abstract). The hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant may preferably be a hydrofluoroolefin, with tetrafluoropropenes preferred, such as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (para. 0023). The hydrocarbon component may be selected from, among few others, ethane or propane (para. 0030). The hydrocarbon component may be present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% of the entire composition (para. 0032). The composition may further optionally comprise a stabilizer (para. 0033).
While the teachings of Yana Motta et al. fail to meet the claimed limitations (e.g., a refrigerant consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane in the recited ranges) under the meaning of anticipation, the cited teachings of the reference nevertheless meet the claimed limitations 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 a refrigerant composition comprising a refrigerant (consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane), lubricant, and optionally a stabilizer because the reference directly teaches and motivates provision of HFO-1234yf as the sole hydrofluorocarbon component (the abstract states “one or more”) along with 0.1-10 wt.% of either ethane or propane, which overlaps the claimed limitations.
While Yana Motta et al. does not teach such a resultant composition is near-azeotropic over a temperature range between -30 to 40°C, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients overlapping if not within the claimed amounts such that any resultant properties or features (e.g., a certain near-azeotropicity) as claimed would flow naturally from the teachings of the reference. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or 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). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to claim 3, Yana Motta et al. further teach the lubricant comprises a polyol ester (para. 0015 and 0031). Regarding the claimed solubility, this would also flow naturally if not be intrinsically present from the cited teachings of the reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would know and recognize lubricants must be soluble with the refrigerants for the composition to be operable in refrigerating apparatus. Thus, the lubricant must be soluble in the composition at some temperature(s) within or overlapping the range claimed or else the composition would be inoperable. Nevertheless, Yana Motta et al. further teach the hydrocarbon component and even other additional components improve the solubility of the lubricant with the hydrofluorocarbon component (para. 0031), further reading on and encompassing the claimed solubility flowing naturally or being intrinsically present in the cited teachings of the reference. Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
As to claim 4, Yana Motta et al. teach propane may be present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% (Id.) which is within the broad range claimed. Any remaining (narrower) claim limitations are optional.
As to claims 5-7 and 9-12, similar the near-azeotropicity limitation of claim 1, while Yana Motta et al. does not explicitly teach such a resultant composition has certain relative heat capacities, GWP(s), ODP, temperature glide(s), the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients overlapping if not within the claimed amounts such that any resultant properties or features as claimed would flow naturally from the teachings of the reference. See In re Best, In re Spada, & Ex parte Obiaya (Id.). The Office also notes that a composition’s GWP is the weighted average of the GWP of each component. As HFO-1234yf and ethane/propane each inherently have GWPs of less than 10 and ODPs of zero, the claimed limitations are certainly met and encompassed by the teachings of the reference.
As to claim 8, Yana Motta et al. teach ethane may be present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% (Id.) which is within the broad range claimed. Any remaining (narrower) claim limitations are optional.
As to claim 13, Yana Motta et al. teach refrigerant compositions comprising one or more hydrofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons, and lubricants (abstract). The hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant may preferably be a hydrofluoroolefin, with tetrafluoropropenes preferred, such as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (para. 0023). The hydrocarbon component may be selected from, among few others, propane (para. 0030). The hydrocarbon component may be present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% of the entire composition (para. 0032). The composition may further optionally comprise a terpene stabilizer in an amount of 0.01-5 wt.% (para. 0033).
While the teachings of Yana Motta et al. fail to meet the claimed limitations (e.g., a refrigerant consisting of HFO-1234yf, 0.1-15 wt.% propane, and 0.1-1 wt.% of a terpene stabilizer) under the meaning of anticipation, the cited teachings of the reference nevertheless meet the claimed limitations 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 a refrigerant composition comprising a refrigerant (consisting of HFO-1234yf and propane) and a terpene stabilizer because the reference directly teaches and motivates provision of HFO-1234yf as the sole hydrofluorocarbon component (the abstract states “one or more”) along with 0.1-10 wt.% of propane and up to 5 wt.% of a terpene stabilizer, which overlaps the claimed limitations.
As claims 15 and 16, similar to that described above relative to independent claim 1 and its dependent claims, while Yana Motta et al. does not explicitly teach such a resultant composition has certain relative heat capacities, GWP(s), or ODP, the reference teaches all the claimed ingredients overlapping if not within the claimed amounts such that any resultant properties or features as claimed would flow naturally from the teachings of the reference. See In re Best, In re Spada, & Ex parte Obiaya (Id.). The Office also notes that a composition’s GWP is the weighted average of the GWP of each component. As HFO-1234yf and ethane/propane each inherently have GWPs of less than 10 and ODPs of zero, the claimed limitations are certainly met and encompassed by the teachings of the reference.
As to claim 17, Yana Motta et al. teach compression-type refrigeration/heat pump systems comprising a circulating loop connected to one another (circulating a refrigerant fluid therein) serially comprising a condenser, an evaporator, and a compressor. See para. 0035 and Fig. 1 & 2. Yana Motta et al. teach refrigerant composition comprises one or more hydrofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons, and lubricants (abstract). The hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant may preferably be a hydrofluoroolefin, with tetrafluoropropenes preferred, such as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (para. 0023). The hydrocarbon component may be selected from, among few others, ethane or propane (para. 0030). The hydrocarbon component may be present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% of the entire composition (para. 0032).
While the teachings of Yana Motta et al. fail to meet the claimed limitations (e.g., a refrigerant consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane in the recited ranges) under the meaning of anticipation, the cited teachings of the reference nevertheless meet the claimed limitations 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 a refrigerant composition comprising a refrigerant (consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane) to the heat transfer apparatus because the reference directly teaches and motivates provision of HFO-1234yf as the sole hydrofluorocarbon component (the abstract states “one or more”) along with 0.1-10 wt.% of either ethane or propane, which overlaps the claimed limitations.
As to claim 20, Yana Motta et al. teach circulating the refrigerant composition in a heat pump system (para. 0035 and Fig. 1 & 2).
As to claims 23 and 24, Yana Motta et al. teach circulating the refrigerant composition in an automotive air conditioner, refrigerant system, and/or heat pump (para. 0035 and Fig. 1 & 2). Given that the reference meet the application of, inter alia, a 1234yf+ethane refrigerant composition in a vehicle (an automotive air conditioning, refrigeration or heat pump application, Id.), the further methods and limitations of a method of charging a refrigerant composition to an automotive system comprising providing the composition to an automotive heating or cooling system and a method for servicing an existing refrigerant composition at on-site automotive recovery, recycle, recharge, equipment comprising providing the composition to the equipment are conventional and/or intuitively flow naturally therefrom.
For example, regarding claim 23, refrigerant systems and hybrid vehicles are man-made (meaning they do not naturally occur and do not naturally contain a refrigerant/components without actionably doing so). For a refrigerant system in a vehicle to contain a certain refrigerant (as posed in the rationale of record), the refrigerant would obviously need to be charged to the refrigerant system in the vehicle. This meets the limitations of claim 23.
For example, regarding claim 24, automotive vehicles require maintenance. Vehicle manufacturers provide vehicle maintenance plans, which are structured recommended schedules to ensure vehicle longevity, safety, and reliability through regular, preventative services. Maintenance is also required when parts on the vehicle break or fail. Part of a vehicle's maintenance plan includes servicing/maintaining proper refrigerant levels. For a refrigerant system in a vehicle to contain a certain refrigerant (as posed in the rationale of record) and for this vehicle to be maintained, the refrigerant would need to be provided to recharge equipment in the event the refrigerant level was below the vehicle's specification, which meets the limitations of claim 24. Alternatively, work on a vehicle's refrigeration system (e.g., replacing of critical parts such as the compressor or heat exchangers) that result in the circuit being temporarily open or broken require a refrigerant first be recovered prior to the replacement/repair taking place or else the refrigerant will leak/vent into the atmosphere. For a refrigerant system in a vehicle to contain a certain refrigerant (as posed in the rationale of record) and for the refrigeration system to be serviced/repaired by replacing of critical parts, the refrigerant would need to recovered, recycled, and recharged, which meets the limitations of claim 24.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana Motta et al. (US 2009/0267019 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, 20, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Howell et al. (US 2010/0288965 A1).
The disclosure of Yana Motta et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding dependent claim 2, as cited regarding claim 1 above, Yana Motta et al. teach a composition comprising a refrigerant consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.%, a lubricant, and an optional stabilizer component. The stabilizer component may comprise a terpene stabilizer (para. 0033).
Yana Motta et al. fail to teach their terpene stabilizer comprises one of d-limonene, alpha-pinene, or beta-pinene.
However, Howell et al. is similarly drawn to refrigerant compositions comprising a fluoroolefin and an effective amount of a terpene stabilizer (abstract). Howell et al.’s fluoroolefin may be/comprise HFO-1234yf (para. 0041 and Table 3). Howell et al. teach the terpene stabilizer may be d-limonene or pinene (para. 0061). Note that pinene is a genus of only two species, alpha-pinene and beta-pinene. As there are only two isomers/species of pinene (alpha-pinene and beta-pinene), Howell et al.'s disclosure certainly meets and encompasses the claimed alpha-pinene and beta-pinene compounds and/or would be recognized to a person of ordinary skill in the art as at once envisaged from the reference. A generic disclosure meets claimed species covered by that disclosure when the species can be at once envisaged from the disclosure, which is certainly the case, here.
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 d-limonene, alpha-pinene, or beta-pinene as taught by Howell et al. as the terpene stabilizer of Yana Motta et al. in order to stabilize the hydrofluoroolefin/HFO-1234yf component with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to independent claim 14, Yana Motta et al. teach refrigerant compositions comprising one or more hydrofluorocarbons, hydrocarbons, and lubricants (abstract). The hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant may preferably be a hydrofluoroolefin, with tetrafluoropropenes preferred, such as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (para. 0023). The hydrocarbon component may be selected from, among few others, propane (para. 0030). The hydrocarbon component may be present in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% of the entire composition (para. 0032). The composition may further comprise a terpene stabilizer (para. 0033).
Yana Motta et al. fail to teach their terpene stabilizer comprises one of d-limonene, alpha-pinene, or beta-pinene.
However, Howell et al. is similarly drawn to refrigerant compositions comprising a fluoroolefin and an effective amount of a terpene stabilizer (abstract). Howell et al.’s fluoroolefin may be/comprise HFO-1234yf (para. 0041 and Table 3). Howell et al. teach the terpene stabilizer may be d-limonene or pinene (para. 0061). Note that pinene is a genus of only two species, alpha-pinene and beta-pinene. As there are only two isomers/species of pinene (alpha-pinene and beta-pinene), Howell et al.'s disclosure certainly meets and encompasses the claimed alpha-pinene and beta-pinene compounds and/or would be recognized to a person of ordinary skill in the art as at once envisaged from the reference. A generic disclosure meets claimed species covered by that disclosure when the species can be at once envisaged from the disclosure, which is certainly the case, here.
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 d-limonene, alpha-pinene, or beta-pinene as taught by Howell et al. as the terpene stabilizer of Yana Motta et al. in order to stabilize the hydrofluoroolefin/HFO-1234yf component in a refrigerant composition comprising HFO-1234yf and 0.1-10 wt.% propane with a reasonable expectation of success.
While the references do not explicitly teach or suggest the refrigerant composition has a 2L flammability rating, the references teach all the claimed ingredients overlapping if not within the claimed amounts such that any resultant properties or features as claimed (e.g., ASHRAE 34 class 2L flammability) would flow naturally from the teachings of the reference. See In re Best, In re Spada, & Ex parte Obiaya (Id.).
Claims 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana Motta et al. (US 2009/0267019 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-13, 15-17, 20, 23, and 24 above, and further in view of Rached (US 2011/0219792 A1).
The disclosure of Yana Motta et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
As to claims 18 and 19, Yana Motta et al. teach a composition comprising a refrigerant consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% (Id.). The composition is suitable for use in air conditioning, refrigeration, and heat pump apparatus, including in automotive and stationary applications (Id., e.g., para. 0035).
Yana Motta et al. fail to teach the system comprises a 4-way valve.
However, Rached is drawn to heating and/or air conditioning of automobiles containing a reversible cooling loop (abstract). The system is rendered reversible by provision of a four-way valve to the refrigeration loop (see, e.g., 12 in Fig 1, 22 in Fig. 2, and para. 0012 and 0018). Accordingly, Rached teaches affixing a refrigeration system (or heat transfer apparatus) with a four way valve between the compressor and heat exchangers (evaporator and condenser) enables the refrigerant flow direction to be reversed which reverses the operating cycle of the system, i.e., switching between refrigeration mode or heat pump mode. See also para. 0020.
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 a four-way valve as taught by Rached in the apparatus of Yana Motta et al. in order to enable the reversing of the refrigerant flow in the apparatus rendering the apparatus capable of switching between refrigeration mode or heat pump mode with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 21 and 22, Yana Motta et al. teach a composition comprising a refrigerant component consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% and a lubricant component (Id.). The composition is suitable for use in air conditioning, refrigeration, and heat pump apparatus, including in automotive applications by circulating the refrigerant composition in the heat pump system/apparatus (Id., e.g., para. 0035).
While Yana Motta et al. teach circulating the composition in automotive vehicles, Yana Motta et al. fail to specifically articulate the composition is circulated in automotive hybrid/electric vehicles.
However, Rached is drawn to heating and/or air conditioning of automobiles containing a reversible cooling loop (abstract). The system is rendered reversible by provision of a four-way valve to the refrigeration loop (see, e.g., 12 in Fig 1, 22 in Fig. 2, and para. 0012 and 0018). Accordingly, Rached teaches affixing a refrigeration system (or heat transfer apparatus) with a four way valve between the compressor and heat exchangers (evaporator and condenser) enables the refrigerant flow direction to be reversed which reverses the operating cycle of the system, i.e., switching between refrigeration mode or heat pump mode. See also para. 0020. Rached also teach providing reversibility to the apparatus renders the circuit suitable for hybrid motor vehicles as it provides best control over inputs of energy according to climatic conditions (hot or cold) both in terms of the cabin and in terms of the battery and notably allows the battery to be warmed or cooled through a heat transfer fluid circuit (para. 0020).
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 a four-way valve as taught by Rached in the apparatus of Yana Motta et al. and provide the apparatus to a hybrid electric vehicle as taught by Rached in order to enable the reversing of the refrigerant flow in the apparatus rendering the apparatus capable of switching between refrigeration mode or heat pump mode and provide a best control over inputs of energy in a hybrid vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 regarding the 103 rejections over and based on Yana Motta et al. (US 2009/0267019 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the obviousness rejections are improper because they render the Yana Motta et al. reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Applicant elaborates Yana Motta et al.’s composition requires a siloxane compound and alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art knows that the siloxane will exhibit a tendency to polymerize the HFO-1234yf of the claimed composition, polymerization will occur due to oxygen molecules in the siloxane and the double bond of HFO-1234yf, it is unreasonable to assume Yana Motta et al.’s siloxane would remain the composition at a sufficient to function as a solubilizing agent given the small percentage of non-HFO-1234yf in the composition, and polymerizing the HFO-1234yf provides a function opposite to its intended function cited in Yana Motta et al.
In response, these arguments are not persuasive because the allegations that Yana Motta et al.’s siloxane component, disclosed in the reference to function as a solubilizing agent for improving miscibility of the hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) refrigerant with the lubricant (e.g., para. 0019 & 0031) (not as a polymerization initiator as alleged), exhibits a tendency to polymerize the claimed HFO is an unsupported argument that cannot take the place of evidence. There is no objective evidence of record that Yana Motta et al.’s siloxane solubilizing agent (disclosed for solubilizing an HFO, such as the claimed HFO-1234yf, with a lubricant), has a tendency to polymerize the HFO. Also, the Office has considered Yana Motta et al. and cannot locate where the reference teaches or requires polymerization of the HFO-1234yf, or any HFO, as alleged; the word “polymer” does not appear in the reference. It is very reasonable to assume Yana Motta et al.’s siloxane remains in the composition at a sufficient amount to function as a solubilizing agent because that is what the reference teaches its function is and what it is provided for. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor.
Applicant’s arguments are also akin to arguing the cited teachings of Yana Motta et al. (or the reference as a whole) are inoperable. Note that Yana Motta et al. (US 2009/0267019 A1) later issued as a US patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,038,899). Under 35 U.S.C. 282, all U.S. Patents are presumed valid. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent rests on Applicant to provide. This high burden has not been met. See also MPEP 716.07 and 2121. Furthermore, even if Applicant was able to show addition of a siloxane polymerizes HFO-1234yf in some extreme conditions, it does not preclude the presence and provision of siloxane and HFO-1234yf at non-extreme conditions (i.e., room temperature, etc.). Additionally, Yana Motta et al. further teaches inclusion of a stabilizer (para. 0033), which wholly rebuts Applicant’s allegation the reference is inoperable and/or the rejection modifies the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand and interpret addition of a stabilizer as being capable of inhibiting degradation of the composition including said alleged polymerization.
The Office is also confused regarding what is meant by “the small percentage of non-HFO-1234yf in the composition, per claims 1, 13 & 17,” because the claimed refrigerant compositions are all open-ended with “comprising” language. While the refrigerant component of the refrigerant composition recited with close-ended “consisting of” language is closed to additional refrigerant components (i.e., components that reversibly evaporate and condense during operation/use) and the two recited components are present in certain weight percentages relative to only the two refrigerant components, the claims are further open to any and all additives in any amount. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues adding Yana Motta et al.’s siloxane to the claimed composition would result in an embodiment contrary to the language of the independent claims (that require the refrigerant component consists of HFO-1234yf and one of either ethane or propane) because addition of the siloxane would then further include an amount of polymerized HFO-1234yf and no longer consisting of the HFO-1234yf and either of the ethane or propane. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above (e.g., that Applicant’s allegation that Yana Motta et al. effectively requires or results in polymerized HFO-1234yf is unfounded, lacks objective evidence, etc.). This argument is further not persuasive because, as cited in the rejection of record and briefly discussed above, Yana Motta et al. teaches the inclusion of a stabilizer that precludes/inhibits polymerization (Id.).
Applicant’s further arguments that polymerizing the HFO-1234yf would definitely decrease the HFO-1234yf’s relative concentration and increase the propane/ethane relative concentration are also not persuasive for the same reasons of record (e.g., that Applicant’s allegation that Yana Motta et al. effectively requires or results in polymerized HFO-1234yf is unfounded, lacks objective evidence, etc.).
Regarding the additional concern the rejection of record lacks a reasonable expectation of success in achieving all of the elements of the claimed invention of claims 1, 13, and 17, such as the required amount of at least 63.5 or 85 weight percent HFO-1234yf, the rejection of record rejecting independent claims 1, 13, and 17 merely relies upon and follows teachings of a single prior art reference. Following and combining the teachings of a single prior art reference has a reasonable expectation of success required for prima facie obviousness. Where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a refrigerant composition comprising a refrigerant (consisting of HFO-1234yf and one of ethane or propane), lubricant, and optionally a stabilizer with a reasonable expectation of success because Yana Motta et al. directly teach and motivate provision of HFO-1234yf as the sole hydrofluorocarbon component (the abstract states “one or more”) along with 0.1-10 wt.% of either ethane or propane (meeting and overlapping the claimed refrigerant component as it consists of 0.1-10 wt.% ethane or propane and 90-99.9 HFO-1234yf), a lubricant, and an optional stabilizer. See the rejection of record and MPEP 2143.02.
Accordingly, the rejections of record are maintained.
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 and/or to support the above grounds of rejection:
Applicant’s attention is drawn to each of US 2014/0260350 A1, US 2014/0260352 A1, and US A1, which teach prior art, conventional equipment/apparatus for charging and servicing (including recovering, recycling, and recharging) refrigerants in automotive applications.
Mahler et al. (US 2009/0278075 A1) teach compositions comprising HFO-1234yf and at least one additional compound (abstract and para. 0013). The additional compound may be ethane or propane individually, and the amount of the additional compound is greater than zero and less than 1 wt.% of the composition (para. 0014). The compositions are useful as heat transfer compositions (para. 0017).
CN 104531079 A teach a mixed refrigerant comprising tetrafluoropropene as a first component and a hydrocarbon substance such as propane, propylene, isobutane, butane, 1-butylenes, or isobutene as a second component to improve the miscibility of the refrigerant and lubricating oil (abstract and para. 0005-0008). The tetrafluoropropene may be 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (para. 0007). The first component is 10-90 mol% of the composition and the second component is 10-90 mol% of the composition (para. 0009).
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 discussed 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./
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights