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 1-16 are currently pending and under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 1. Claim s 1 -3, 6-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin). Regarding claim 1 , Robin teaches a composition comprising Z-1-chloro-2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene ( Z-HCFO-1224yd ) and one or more compounds such as water (claim 1, [0026]) , 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 is 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 ([0089], [0266]) , which reads on the claimed aerosol raw material composition . Regarding claim 2 , Robin teaches a composition comprising Z-HCFO-1224yd and one or more compounds such as water (claim 1, [0026]), 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 5 wt % to about 9 5 wt % in the composition ([0027], Table 1, p.4). Thus, in the composition of Robin, the content of water is in an amount of about 5 wt % to about 9 5 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 a composition comprising Z-HCFO-1224yd and one or more compounds such as water (claim 1, [0026]), wherein Z-HCFO-1224yd is in an amount of about 50 wt % to about 99 wt % in the composition ([0023]), and water is in an amount of about 1 wt % to about 9 9 wt % in the composition ([0027], Table 1, p.4). Thus, in the composition of Robin, the total amount of water and Z-HCFO-1224yd is more than 50 wt % with respect to a total amount of the composition, which falls within the claimed range of “ 50.0% by mass or more ”. Regarding claim 6 , Robin teaches that the composition is used as an aerosol composition and further comprises a surfactant ([0273]). Regarding claim 7 , Robin teaches that the composition further comprises an alcohol ([0026], Table 1, p. 4). Regarding claim 8 , Robin teaches that the composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]) ; 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 claim s 9 and 10 , Robin teaches that the compressed gas is nitrogen ([0270]). Regarding claim 11 , Robin teaches that the liquefied gas is d imethyl ether ([0270]). 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 . 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. 2. Claims 4, 5 , 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) as applied to claim s 1-3, 6-11, and 13 above . The disclosure of Robin is relied upon as set forth above. Regarding claims 4 and 5 , Robin teaches that this composition ( t he claimed aerosol raw material composition ) can reduce the flammability of fluids ([0289]), and can also suppress a flame ([0293]). Robin also teaches that th is composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]) . Robin does not teach that the aerosol composition ( t he claimed aerosol raw material composition ) in a flame generation condition test has a flame length of less than 4.0 cm . However, t he court has held that “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. See MPEP 2112.01 II. "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). See MPEP 2112.01 I. 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 reasonably expect that the claimed property of the aerosol raw material composition in a flame generation condition test ha ving a flame length of less than 4.0 cm , would flow naturally from the teaching of Robin, because the teaching of Robin provides substantially the same aerosol raw material composition comprising the same water , and the same 1-chloro-2,3,3,3 - tetrafluoropropene , wherein 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 ( t he claimed aerosol raw material 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 12 , Robin teaches that this composition (t he claimed aerosol raw material composition ) can reduce the flammability of fluids ([0289]), and can also suppress a flame ([0293]). Robin also teaches that this 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 Robin, because the teaching of Robin 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 (t he claimed aerosol raw material 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 16 , Robin teaches that this composition (t he claimed aerosol raw material composition ) can reduce the flammability of fluids ([0289]), and can also suppress a flame ([0293]). Robin also teaches that this composition is used as an aerosol composition ([0089], [0266]) . 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. 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 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 Robin, because the teaching of Robin provides substantially the same aerosol product comprising the same container body , and the same aerosol composition as claimed, and also because the aerosol composition (t he claimed aerosol raw material 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. 3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13 above, and further in view of Goodspeed ( US 2 , 908 , 479 A , hereinafter Goodspeed ). The disclosure of Robin is relied upon as set forth above. 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, Goodspeed teaches that an aerosol container is attached with a valve mechanism (Figs. 1 and 5), the valve mechanism can control the dispensing of fluids or sprays from the aerosol container (col. 1, ll. 15-19). 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 Goodspeed , in order to control the dispensing of fluids or sprays 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. 4 . Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin (US 2020/0230454 A1, hereinafter Robin) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13 above, and further in view of Kawasaki ( US 2019 / 0224083 A1 , hereinafter Kawasaki ). The disclosure of Robin 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]); t he aerosol container is not particularly limited, and can be a conventional aerosol container ([0147]); t he 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. Conclusion 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