Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendments/remarks filed 06/18/2026.
Claims 36-39, 41-48, and 50-55 are currently pending and under examination.
The rejection of claims 36-49 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Low (US 2011/0184890 A1) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.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 54 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 54 recites “further comprising 1other saturated HFC”. Applicant is suggested to add a space between “1” and “other”, and revise this limitation as “further comprising 1 other saturated HFC” 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 36-39, 41-46, 48, 50-53, and 55 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Motta (US 2012/0119136 A1, hereinafter Motta).
Regarding claim 36, the transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis in original) See MPEP 2111.03 III. Additional refrigerants (and even additives typical for provision in refrigerants) are permissible because they would not change the characteristics of the composition from being a refrigerant. Therefore, for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355. See MPEP 2111.03 III.
Motta teaches ([0011], claim 1) a heat transfer composition comprising:
from about 10% to about 50% by weight of HFC-32 ([0011]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “25.5 to 43 weight percent”;
from about 50% to about 90% by weight of component (b), wherein the component (b) can be HFO-1234ze ([0011]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “from about 56 to 73 weight percent”;
from greater than 0% to about 25% by weight of HFC-152a ([0011]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “from 1 to 18 weight percent”.
Motta does not teach the claimed composition at once under the meaning of anticipation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 37, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition has a close match in cooling capacity to R-404A ([0020]); the heat transfer composition has a cooling capacity that is within about 10% of the cooling capacity of R-404A (claim 1). Thus, the heat transfer composition of Motta can have a cooling capacity in a range of from about 90% to about 110% of the cooling capacity of R-404A, which falls within the claimed range of “from about 75% to about 130%”.
Regarding claim 38, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition has the GWP of less than about 400 (abstract, [0032]); R-404A has the GWP of 3922 ([0004]). Thus, the GWP of the heat transfer composition of Motta is less than the GWP of R-404A.
Regarding claim 39, Motta teaches that the term “mildly flammable” refers to compounds or compositions which are classified as being 2 L ([0008]). Motta also teaches that the heat transfer composition in Motta has a degree of flammability that is mildly flammable or even less flammable than mildly flammable ([0020]), which reads on the claimed flammability of the composition being classified at most as 2L.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition of Motta is used in heat transfer systems for heating and cooling applications ([0002]); evaporation or condensation of the heat transfer composition happens in the heating or cooling cycle ([0046]); the heat transfer system contains a condenser, an expansion device, an evaporator, and a compressor ([0047]), which reads on the claimed process to produce cooling comprising condensing the composition and thereafter evaporating said composition in the vicinity of a body to be cooled, and also reads on the claimed process to produce heat comprising condensing the composition in the vicinity of a body to be heated and thereafter evaporating said composition.
Regarding claims 43 and 44, Motta teaches a method for replacing R-404A in a system designed to use R-404A, wherein the method comprises providing the heat transfer composition of Motta to this system ([0020], [0048], [0055]).
Regarding claims 45 and 46, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition of Motta can be used in an air-conditioning system, and the air-conditioning system can be a stationary air conditioning system ([0038]).
Regarding claims 45 and 48, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition of Motta can be used in a heat pump system ([0038]).
Regarding claims 50-52, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition comprises from about 10% to about 50% by weight of HFC-32 ([0011]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “at least 26 weight percentage”, “at least 27 weight percentage”, and “at least 30 weight percentage”.
Regarding claims 53 and 55, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition comprises from about 50% to about 90% by weight of component (b), wherein the component (b) can be HFO-1234ze ([0011]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “less than 60 weight percentage”, and “no more than 59 weight percentage”.
2. Claim 47 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Motta (US 2012/0119136 A1, hereinafter Motta) as applied to claims 36-39, 41-46, 48, 50-53, and 55 above, and further in view of Rached (US 2013/0055739 A1, hereinafter Rached).
The disclosure of Motta is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 47, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition of Motta can be used in a refrigeration ([0038]).
Motta does not teach that the refrigeration is a stationary refrigeration.
However, Rached teaches a ternary composition comprising difluoromethane (HFC-32), 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), and 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234ze) (claim 2). Rached also teaches that the composition is used in a heat-transfer equipment, and the heat-transfer equipment can be a stationary refrigeration ([0039], [0041]).
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 provide the stationary refrigeration as taught by Rached as the refrigeration in Motta, in order to make the composition being used in heat transfer application with a reasonable expectation of success, because the composition comprising HFC-32, HFC-152a, and HFO-1234ze can be used in a stationary refrigeration as recognized by Rached. Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claim 54 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Motta (US 2012/0119136 A1, hereinafter Motta) as applied to claims 36-39, 41-46, 48, 50-53, and 55 above, and further in view of Low (US 2011/0184890 A1, hereinafter Low).
The disclosure of Motta is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 54, Motta teaches that the heat transfer composition comprises from about 10% to about 50% by weight of HFC-32, from about 50% to about 90% by weight of component (b), and from greater than 0% to about 25% by weight of HFC-152a, wherein the component (b) can be HFO-1234ze ([0011]).
Motta also teaches that the heat transfer composition has a degree of flammability that is mildly flammable or less flammable than mildly flammable ([0020]).
Motta also teaches that the heat transfer composition has a burning velocity (BV) of less than about 10 cm/s (abstract, claim 1). Motta further teaches that the burning velocity of the composition can be calculated from the wt % times the pure component burning velocity ([0033], [0045], Formula 1); and HFC-134a has a burning velocity of 0 (Table 1).
Motta does not teach that the heat transfer composition further comprises 1 other saturated HFC up to about 10 weight percent.
However, Low teaches that a composition contains R-32, R-152a, and R-1234ze(E) ([0030]). Low also teaches that the compositions containing R-32, R-152a, and R-1234ze(E) can further comprise 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R-134a); the R-134a is included to reduce the flammability of the compositions ([0048]).
Low further teaches that if R-134a is present, then the composition typically contains up to about 50% by weight R-134a ([0049]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “up to about 10 weight percent”. The R-134a in Low reads on the claimed 1 other saturated HFC.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the heat transfer composition comprising HFC-32, HFC-152a, and HFO-1234ze as taught by Motta, further comprising up to about 50% by weight of R-134a as taught by Low, in order to reduce the flammability of the composition with a reasonable expectation of success, because the R-134a is included in the composition comprising R-32, R-152a, and R-1234ze to reduce the flammability as recognized by Low.
Low also teaches that R-134a has no significant ozone depletion potential, but has a GWP of 1300 ([0011]).
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 optimize the weight percentage of R-134a in the heat transfer composition as taught by the combination of Motta and Low, in order to reach the desired flammability and the desired GWP of the composition via a routine optimization thereby obtaining the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success, because the weight percentage of R-134a in the composition affects the flammability and GWP of the composition as recognized by Low.
It is well established that optimization of a prior art range flows from the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. see Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. If the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. Id. ('A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.'). See MPEP 2144.05. 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 new references, Motta (US 2012/0119136 A1), and Rached (US 2013/0055739 A1), in addition to the previous reference Low (US 2011/0184890 A1) under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 36 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Motta (US 2012/0119136 A1).
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
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights