DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-6, 18 and 19 in the reply filed on 06/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation of “HFO-1234yf,” (claim 1, line 3; claim 2, line 2; claim 3, line 2; claim 4, line 2) is believed to be --HFO-1234yf;--.
The recitation of “claim 2consisting” (preamble of claim 3) is believed to be --claim 2 consisting--.
The recitation of “claim 1consisting” (preamble of claim 4) is believed to be --claim 1 consisting--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leck (US 9,902,888) in view of Wohlfeil (EP 3786516 A2, refer to attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Leck discloses a refrigerant comprising at least about 95% by weight, based on all refrigerant components, of the following four components:
(a) from about 50.5% to about 52.5% by weight of HFO-1234yf (refer to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises 34 to 68 weight percent of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene);
(b) from about 35.5% to 41% by weight of HFC-134a (refer to summary of invention, and claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 9 to 42 weight percent of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane, or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, or a mixture thereof);
(c) from 2.2% to 5.5% by weight of HFC-125 (from 1 to 19 weight percent pentafluoroethane); and
(d) from 3.8% to about 8% by weight of HFC-32 (from 1 to 29 weight percent difluoromethane), with said percentages being based on the total of (a) through (d), provided that the refrigerant has a GWP of about 750 (refer to col. 5, lines 63-64) and is a non-flammable refrigerant (refer to col. 5, lines 60-62, wherein the composition is non-flammable as determined by ASTM-E681 at 60° C).
While Leck discloses a non-flammable refrigerant, Leck fails to explicitly disclose a Class Al non-flammable refrigerant.
However, Wohlfeil teaches that it is known in the art of refrigeration, to provide refrigeration circuits equipped with safety refrigerants of safety Class A1, in order to provide non-flammable and non-toxic refrigerants (refer to the third par. of the Description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Leck such that the refrigerant is a Class Al non-flammable refrigerant in view of the teachings by Wohlfeil, in order to provide a non-flammable and non-toxic refrigerant.
Regarding claim 2, Leck as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Leck as modified discloses the refrigerant consisting essentially of: from about 50.5% to about 52.5% by weight of HFO-1234yf (refer to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises 34 to 68 weight percent of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene); from about 35.5% to 41% by weight of HFC-134a (refer to summary of invention, and claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 9 to 42 weight percent of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane, or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, or a mixture thereof); from 2.2% to 5.5% by weight of HFC-125 (from 1 to 19 weight percent pentafluoroethane); and from 3.8 to about 8% by weight of HFC-32 (from 1 to 29 weight percent difluoromethane).
Regarding claim 3, Leck as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Leck as modified discloses the refrigerant consisting essentially of: about 51% by weight of HFO-1234yf (refer to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises 34 to 68 weight percent of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene); about 40% by weight of HFC-134a (refer to summary of invention, and claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 9 to 42 weight percent of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane, or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, or a mixture thereof); about 4% by weight of HFC-125 (from 1 to 19 weight percent pentafluoroethane); and about 4% by weight of HFC-32 (from 1 to 29 weight percent difluoromethane).
Regarding claim 4, Leck as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Leck as modified discloses the refrigerant consisting of: about 51% by weight of HFO-1234yf (refer to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises 34 to 68 weight percent of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene), about 40% by weight of HFC-134a (refer to summary of invention, and claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 9 to 42 weight percent of 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane, or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, or a mixture thereof); about 4% by weight of HFC-125 (from 1 to 19 weight percent pentafluoroethane); and about 4% by weight of HFC-32 (from 1 to 29 weight percent difluoromethane).
Regarding claim 5, Leck as modified discloses a secondary loop residential refrigeration system comprising an indoor refrigerant (refer to low temp loop 112) according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leck (US 9,902,888), Wohlfeil (EP 3786516 A2), and further in view of Sugimoto (EP 3070417 A1, refer to attached translation).
Regarding claim 6, Leck as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Leck as modified discloses an outdoor refrigerant (refer to the high temp loop 114), but fails to explicitly disclose the outdoor refrigerant comprising one or more of propane, R454B or R32.
However, Sugimoto further teaches a refrigerant circuit including a cascade condenser, comprising an outdoor refrigerant (flowing through high-temperature-side first refrigerant circuit 3) comprising R32 (refer to pg. 3, second par. of Embodiment 1, wherein R32 flows through the high-temperature-side first refrigerant circuit 3), in order to provide a slightly flammable refrigerant with a small GWP value of 675 (refer to 2nd par. of the Technical Problem), and if leakage of the R32 occurs, the R32 refrigerant is leaked outdoors (refer to las par. of pg. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Leck such that the outdoor refrigerant comprises R32 in view of the teachings by Sugimoto, in order to provide a slightly flammable refrigerant with a small GWP value of 675, and if leakage of the R32 occurs, the R32 refrigerant is leaked outdoors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA M VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/ANA M VAZQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights