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 .
Claims 1-24 are pending.
The Drawings filed 09/21/2023 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statement filed 09/21/2023 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, Applicant is suggested to amend “The composition any of claims 1 or 2” to read as “The composition of any of claims 1 or 2” in order to improve grammar and clarity in the claim.
Claim 3 also spans more than a single sentence via the “-30° C.”. Applicant is suggested to remove the period after the “C”.
In claim 22, the claim sets forth abbreviations HEV, MHEV, PHEV, and EV but the instant claim and its parent claims do not clarify the meanings of the abbreviations. Clarity in the claim could be improved if claim 22 were amended to recite the abbreviations similarly like claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18, 19, and 23 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 18 recites “The heating or cooling system of claim 1” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 1 is directed to “A refrigerant composition” in its preamble, not a heating or cooling system. In fact, there is no prior claim with a matching preamble of “A heating or cooling system”. Accordingly, it is very unclear what claim 18 (and its dependent claim 19) encompass and are referring to.
For purposes of compact prosecution and further examination (or else claims 18-19 would not be compared relative to prior art), claim 18 will be construed as if it depended on claim 17 and reciting “The system of claim 17” as its preamble. Note that claim 17 is the only prior claim drawn to any sort of a system comprising a heating system and/or a cooling system.
Claim 23 is worded in an improper multiple dependent claim manner that renders the claim indefinite. Claim 23 recites “A method of charging a refrigerant composition of claim 3 to an automotive system comprising, providing the providing the composition of claim 1 to an automotive heating or cooling system.” While the charging/providing is synonymous, it is seriously unclear whether the composition of claim 1 or the composition of claim 3 is provided/charged to an automotive system. It is also unclear how the claim is dependent on claim 3 (a narrower aspect/composition of claim 1) but the sole recited method step requires the more broad composition of claim 1 than the narrower composition of claim 3.
For purposes of compact prosecution and further examination (or else claim 23 would not be compared relative to prior art), claim 23 will be construed as if it depended entirely on claim 1 and recited the dependency only once (rather than twice as presently recited) as, “A method of charging the refrigerant composition of claim 1 to an automotive system comprising, providing the refrigerant composition to an automotive heating or cooling system.”
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected 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).
Minor et al. teach fluoroolefin compositions (para. 0017). Minor et al. teach near-azeotropic compositions in Table 6 under para. 0092. One such exemplary near-azeotropic fluoroolefin-containing composition is specifically (consists of) 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234yf) and propane where the proportions thereof are 1-80 wt.% HFC-1234yf and 20-99 wt.% propane (first col. of Table 6; see the compositions where “HFC-1234yf” is the “Component A”). Propane in an amount of 20-99 wt.% overlaps the claimed range. The composition may further comprise 0.01-5 wt.% of a stabilizer additive (para. 0111). Note that provision of 0.01-5 wt.% of a stabilizer component with a blend of 1-80/20-99 HFC-1234yf/propane still overlaps the claimed amount of propane (e.g., 0.1 wt.% stabilizer as encompassed by the range means the remainder of the composition contains relatively 0.999 wt.% HFC-1234yf and 98.9 wt.% propane to 79.92 wt.% HFC-1234yf and 19.98 wt.% propane or 1 wt.% stabilizer as encompassed by the range means the remainder of the composition contains relatively 0.99 wt.% HFC-1234yf and 98.01 wt.% propane to 79.2 wt.% HFC-1234yf and 19.8 wt.% propane).
Minor et al. fail to teach their 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 stabilizer of Minor et al. in order to stabilize the hydrofluoroolefin/HFO-1234yf component in a near-azeotropic refrigerant composition comprising HFO-1234yf and 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 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 Howell et al. (US 2010/0288965 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 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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-37 of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,051. Note this patent is the parent application of the present application.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to substantially identical and/or overlapping refrigerant compositions, apparatus, and methods of use thereof comprising refrigerant compositions consisting of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and one of ethane or propane in overlapping if not the same amounts, terpene stabilizers/species, and a lubricant as well as properties thereof. Many, if not all, of the patented claims appear to anticipate the instant claims. In the event the patented claims do not anticipate the instant claims, the patented claims nevertheless certainly overlap the instant claims. 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./
March 17, 2026