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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for all of the claims would not impose a serious burden on the office. This is not found persuasive because the examiner has shown (A) Separate classification (B) separate status in the art and (C) different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-4 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 and its dependents are rejected because “characterized” is not conventional U.S. transitional language.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected because claim 1 recites a ratio of the total content of the second component to the sum of the content of 1-chloro-2,3,3-trifluoropropene and the total content of the second component. However, 0.0001 to 1.0 mass % is not a ratio.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO-2018047972 (appears on PTO-1449).
WO teaches a process for producing 1-chloro-2,3,3-trifluoropropene (1233yd). See abstract. In Table 8, example 12, WO teaches a total of 99.18 mol% of 1233yd(E) and 1233yd(Z) as well as 0.79 mol% of 1,2,3-trichloro-3-fluoropropene.
WO does not specifically teach the claimed ratio per se. However, given that the claimed ratio is not a ratio the examiner takes the position that WO comes close to or overlaps the claimed ratio, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 3 is 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. The prior art fails to teach or suggest a solvent composition according to Claim 1, which further contains, as a third component, at least one member selected from the group consisting of trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, nonafluorobutoxymethane, nonafluorobutoxyethane, 20 ethanol, isopropanol, 1,2-dichloro-2,3,3-trifluoropropane and 1,2-dichloro-3,3-difluoropropene.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18411354/20260901
Prosecution Insights