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 amendments/remarks filed 07/14/2026.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejections as stated in the Non-Final Rejection filed 03/18/2026 are all withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Derythrose”, “Dxylulose”, “Lgalactose”, and “Dglucose”. Applicant is suggested to revised them as “D-erythrose”, “D-xylulose”, “L-galactose”, and “D-glucose” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1. Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) in view of Matsui (JP 2018115009 A, hereinafter Matsui).
Regarding claim 1, Robin teaches that a composition can comprises Z-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (Z-HCFO-1224yd) and water (Table 1, p.4; claim 1), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd is in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 99 wt % in the composition ([0023]), and water is in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 99 wt % in the composition ([0027], Table 1, p.4).
Thus, in the composition of Robin, the content of water can be in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 99 wt % with respect to a total amount of water and Z-HCFO-1224yd, which falls within the claimed range of “1.0% by mass or more”.
Robin also teaches that the composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0266]), which reads on the claimed aerosol raw material composition.
Robin also teaches that the composition can further comprise a surfactant ([0273]).
Robin does not teach that the composition comprises a monosaccharide.
However, Matsui teaches an aerosol product comprising an aerosol container filled with an aerosol composition, and the aerosol composition consists of a stock solution and a liquefied gas, wherein the stock solution contains a surfactant, and the liquefied gas contains a hydrofluoroolefin (claim 1, [0049]).
Matsui also teaches that the stock solution further contains a monosaccharide, wherein the monosaccharide is in an amount of 1-30% by mass in the stock solution ([0073], [0079]). Matsui also teaches that the stock solution is in an amount of 70-97% by mass in the aerosol composition ([0064]).
Thus, the monosaccharide can be in an amount of about 1-29% by mass in the aerosol composition of Matsui, which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.5-20 wt%”.
Matsui teaches that examples of the monosaccharide include erythritol ([0078]), which reads on the claimed monosaccharide being erythritol.
Matsui further teaches that the monosaccharide is included to prevent the precipitation of surfactants, and to make the foam being sufficiently hard, being easily molded, and not having a sticky texture ([0078], [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aerosol composition as taught by Robin, further comprising a monosaccharide such as erythritol in an amount of about 1-29% by mass in the aerosol composition as taught by Matsui, in order to prevent the precipitation of a surfactant and make the aerosol composition having good foamability with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Robin teaches that the composition can comprises Z-HCFO-1224yd and water (Table 1, p.4; claim 1), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd can be in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 99 wt % in the composition ([0023]), and water can be in an amount of about 5 wt % to about 95 wt % in the composition ([0027], Table 1, p.4).
Thus, in the composition of Robin, the content of water can be in an amount of about 5 wt % to about 95 wt % with respect to a total amount of water and Z-HCFO-1224yd, which falls within the claimed range of “5.0% by mass or more”.
Regarding claim 3, Robin teaches that the composition can comprises Z-HCFO-1224yd and water (Table 1, p.4; claim 1), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd can be in an amount of about 50 wt % to about 99 wt % in the composition ([0023]), and water can be in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 99 wt % in the composition ([0027], Table 1, p.4).
Thus, in the composition of Robin, a total amount of water and Z-HCFO-1224yd can be more than 50 wt % with respect to a total amount of the composition, which overlaps with the claimed range of “50.0% by mass or more”.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Robin teaches that the composition can reduce the flammability of fluids ([0289]), and can also suppress a flame ([0293]). Robin also teaches that the composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]).
Robin does not teach that the aerosol composition in a flame generation condition test has a flame length of less than 4.0 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of the aerosol raw material composition in a flame generation condition test having a flame length of less than 4.0 cm, would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Robin and Matsui, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and Matsui provides substantially the same aerosol raw material composition comprising the same water, the same 1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, and the same monosaccharide, wherein the same content of the monosaccharide is 0.5-20 wt%, the same content of water is 1.0% by mass or more with respect to a total amount of water and 1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, and the same total amount of water and 1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene is 50.0% by mass or more with respect to a total amount of the aerosol raw material composition as claimed, and also because the aerosol composition of Robin can reduce the flammability of fluids and can also suppress a flame as recognized by Robin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Robin teaches that the composition can be used as an aerosol composition and can further comprise a surfactant ([0273]).
Regarding claim 7, Robin teaches that the composition can further comprise an alcohol ([0026], Table 1, p. 4). The combination of references also meets this limitation because erythritol as taught and provided by Matsui is also an alcohol.
Regarding claim 8, Robin teaches that the composition can be used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]).
Robin also teaches that an aerosol product comprises the aerosol composition, and at least one of a compressed gas or a liquefied gas ([0270]). The aerosol product of Robin reads on the claimed aerosol composition.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Robin teaches that the compressed gas can be nitrogen ([0270]).
Regarding claim 11, Robin teaches that the liquefied gas can be dimethyl ether ([0270]).
Regarding claim 12, Robin teaches that the composition can reduce the flammability of fluids ([0289]), and can also suppress a flame ([0293]). Robin also teaches that the composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]).
Robin also teaches that an aerosol product comprises the aerosol composition, and at least one of a compressed gas or a liquefied gas ([0270]). The aerosol product of Robin reads on the claimed aerosol composition.
Robin does not teach that the aerosol product (the claimed aerosol composition) in a flame generation condition test has a flame length of less than 4.0 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of the aerosol composition in a flame generation condition test having a flame length of less than 4.0 cm, would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Robin and Matsui, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and Matsui provides substantially the same aerosol composition comprising the same aerosol raw material composition, and the same at least one of a compressed gas or a liquefied gas as claimed, and also because the aerosol composition of Robin can reduce the flammability of fluids and can also suppress a flame as recognized by Robin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Robin teaches that the system is packaged in a container, such as an aerosol type can ([0220]). Thus, the product of Robin comprises a container, such as an aerosol type can, and the aerosol product (the claimed aerosol composition). The product of Robin reads on the claimed aerosol product.
Regarding claim 14, Robin teaches that the system is packaged in a container, such as an aerosol type can ([0220]).
Robin does not teach that a valve mechanism is attached to the container.
However, Matsui teaches that an aerosol product comprises an aerosol container filled with an aerosol composition (claim 1); the aerosol container comprises a container body, and a valve mechanism attached to the container body ([0024], Fig. 2). Matsui also teaches that the valve mechanism is controlling the filling, closing, and dispensing of the contents of the container body ([0026], [0048], [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aerosol container as taught by Robin being attached with a valve mechanism as taught by Matsui, in order to control the filling, closing, and dispensing of fluid or spray from the aerosol container with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Robin teaches that the composition can reduce the flammability of fluids ([0289]), and can also suppress a flame ([0293]). Robin also teaches that the composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]).
Robin further teaches that the system is packaged in a container, such as an aerosol type can ([0220]). Thus, the product of Robin comprises a container, such as an aerosol type can, and the aerosol product (the claimed aerosol composition). The product of Robin reads on the claimed aerosol product.
Robe does not teach that the product (the claimed aerosol product) in a flame generation condition test has a flame length of less than 4.0 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect that the claimed property of the aerosol product in a flame generation condition test having a flame length of less than 4.0 cm, would flow naturally from the teaching of the combination of Robin and Matsui, because the teaching of the combination of Robin and Matsui provides substantially the same aerosol product comprising the same container body, and the same aerosol composition as claimed, and also because the aerosol composition of Robin can reduce the flammability of fluids and can also suppress a flame as recognized by Robin. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1) in view of Matsui (JP 2018115009 A) as applied to claims 1-14 and 16 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 2019/0224083 A1, hereinafter Kawasaki).
The disclosure of Robin in view of Matsui is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 15, Robin teaches that the system is packaged in a container, such as an aerosol type can ([0220]).
Robin does not teach that a pressure inside the aerosol container is 0.2 MPa or higher at 25 °C.
However, Kawasaki teaches that an aerosol composition is filled in an aerosol container ([0145]); the aerosol container is not particularly limited, and can be a conventional aerosol container ([0147]); the internal pressure of the aerosol container is not particularly limited, and is preferably adjusted to be from 0.3 to 1.5 MPa at 25 °C ([0150]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.2 MPa or higher at 25 °C”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the aerosol container as taught by Robin with an internal pressure of from 0.3 to 1.5 MPa at 25 °C as taught by Kawasaki, in order to make a safe container with an aerosol product with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes a new reference, Matsui (JP 2018115009 A), in addition to the previous references, Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1) and Kawasaki (US 2019/0224083 A1), under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1) in view of Matsui (JP 2018115009 A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights