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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2026 was filed after the filing date of the instant application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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).
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; 34 to 68 weight percent lies within the claimed range);
(b) from about 35.5% to 41% by weight of HFC-134a (refer to the Abstract, 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; 9 to 42 weight percent lies within the claimed range);
(c) from 2.2% to 5.5% by weight of HFC-125 (refer to claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from 1 to 19 weight percent pentafluoroethane; 1 to 19 percent lies within the claimed range); and
(d) from 3.8% to about 8% by weight of HFC-32 (from 1 to 29 weight percent
difluoromethane; 1 to 29 percent lies within the claimed range), 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, wherein the term “about” signals that an exact calculation is not required, but a rounded or estimated answer is acceptable; not precise; close to but not exactly) 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-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 2. 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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks that claim 1 defines compositions which are much narrower than the ranges cited by the Examiner, and not specifically disclosed in Leck; the large number of compositions within Leck include numerous compositions which do not produce this unexpected result. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In the instant case, the reference of Leck discloses in col.37, claim 1, a single composition that includes the four components as in claim 1. Leck discloses a range of weight for each of the four components that overlaps or lies inside the claimed ranges. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, Leck meeting the limitations of the claim. Further, the term “about” signals that an exact calculation is not required, but an estimated answer is acceptable; not precise; close to but not exactly, therefore, meeting the limitation of “about 750”.
For at least the reasons disclosed above, claims 1-6 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights