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 1-10 are currently pending.
Priority
It is noted this application was filed on 12/15/2023 as a continuation-in-part of US Application 18/241,651. As under pre-AIA law, the effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. The principle that different claims in the same application may be entitled to different effective filing dates vis-à-vis the prior art remains unchanged by the AIA . See MPEP 2133.01 and 2152.01.
The Examiner has carefully reviewed the basis for the claimed invention in the parent application and its provisional applications and notes the following:
Provisional application 63/403,719 (filed 09/03/2022) discloses broad 1132E refrigerants with stabilizers but generally fails to disclose or suggest the particular R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO2 composition claimed.
Provisional application 63/403,729 (filed 09/03/2022) discloses a turbine rim sticker and fails to disclose or suggest any refrigerant composition.
Provisional application 63/436,574 (filed 12/31/2022) discloses the R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO2 refrigerant composition and its method(s) of use but fails to disclose or suggest the additional presence of an alkylated naphthalene, acid depleting moiety, etc. stabilizer(s).
Provisional application 63/436,575 (filed 12/31/2022) discloses a HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO2 refrigerant composition but fails to disclose or suggest the particular R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO2 composition claimed.
Parent application 18/241,651 (filed 09/01/2023), like provisional application 63/403,719, discloses broad 1132E refrigerants with stabilizers but generally fails to disclose or suggest the particular R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO2 composition claimed.
Accordingly, the effective filing date(s) of the claims have been determined as follows:
Claims 1, 2, and 7-9 have an effective filing date of 12/31/2022 (the effective filing date of Provisional application 63/436,575, which is the earliest support for the claimed R-32/HFO-1234yf/HFO-1132(E)/CO2 refrigerant(s)), and
Claims 3-6 and 10 have an effective filing date of 12/15/2023 (the filing date of this present continuation-in-part application, which is the earliest support for the claimed R-32/HFO-1234yf/HFO-1132(E)/CO2 refrigerant(s) with the recited particular stabilizer(s)).
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 5 and 6 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 5 recites the limitation that the acid depleting moiety (a stabilizer in the heat transfer composition) comprises “at least one of ADM1A, ADM1D, ADM2A, ADM4 and ADM5.” As it is explained below that the ADM1A, ADM1D, and ADM4 are clear and definite, it is unknown and unclear what the “ADM2A” and “ADM5” are or mean.
While Applicant has defined several compounds in the specification as being represented by certain abbreviations of various, numbered “ADM” (see, e.g., pages 42-46 of the spec.), Applicant indicates ADM2A is a certain group of epoxides but the referenced compounds are not epoxides at all. See [0108] of the spec where Formula II defines an alkyl ether:
PNG
media_image1.png
178
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is also unclear what is meant by the R1 – R4 of Formula II as Formula II only contains R5 and R6 and no R1, R2, R3, or R4 as implied. Thus, the scope of ADM2A is very unclear.
Furthermore, while the specification has definitions (albeit unclear like ADM2A) for a ADM5A, ADM5B, ADM5C, and ADM5D among [0220]-[0226], there is no definition, meaning, nor standard for an “ADM5” compound, which also renders the claim indefinite.
For purposes of further examination, the claim will only be considered for the ADM1A, ADM1D, and ADM4 acid depleting moieties as the ADM2A and ADM5 are unknown and/or very unclear.
Claim 6 recites “The heat transfer composition of claim 1 …”. However, claim 1 is a refrigerant not a heat transfer composition. Thus, the preamble lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the identified claim. For purposes of further examination (or else the limitations of claim 6 would not be considered relative to prior art), claim 6 is construed as if it were dependent on claim 2 (the most broad claim drawn to a heat transfer composition).
Additionally in claim 6, the claim recites the limitation that certain numbered “Naphthyl Epoxy” components are further contained. As it is explained below that the Naphthyl Epoxy 1, Naphthyl Epoxy 2, Naphthyl Epoxy 3, Naphthyl Epoxy 4, and Naphthyl Epoxy 5 are clear and definite per definitions among [0229]-[0240] on p.46-48, it is unknown and unclear what the “Naphthyl Epoxy 6” is or means. There is no definition, meaning, nor standard for an “Naphthyl Epoxy 6” compound, which also renders the claim indefinite.
For purposes of further examination, the claim will only be considered for the Naphthyl Epoxies 1 to 5 as the Naphthyl Epoxy 6 is unknown and/or very unclear.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Interpretation
Notwithstanding the above 112 issues, it is noted the claims otherwise recite clear and definite abbreviations. The abbreviated and numbered alternative alkyl naphthalenes as AN4, AN5, AN9, and AN10, the remaining abbreviated and numbered alternative acid depleting moieties ADM1A, ADM1D, and ADM4, and the remaining numbered alternative Naphthyl Epoxies "Naphthyl Epoxy 1", "Naphthyl Epoxy 2", "Naphthyl Epoxy 3", "Naphthyl Epoxy 4", and "Naphthyl Epoxy 5" are clear and definite.
Tables AN-A and AN-B among p.39-41 set forth a clear definition and standard for the abbreviated and numbered alkylated naphthalenes.
Pages 42 to 44 set forth a clear definition and standard for the abbreviated and numbered acid depleting moieties ADM1A, ADM1D, and ADM4.
Pages 46 to 48 set forth a clear definition and standard for the numbered Naphthyl Epoxies "Naphthyl Epoxy 1", "Naphthyl Epoxy 2", "Naphthyl Epoxy 3", "Naphthyl Epoxy 4", and "Naphthyl Epoxy 5". Despite it being unusual to have terminology capitalized in the claims ("Naphthyl Epoxy 1", etc.), the specification sets forth a clear definition and standard for the components such that there does not seem to be any issue of those components being trademark or tradenames.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2020/213697 A1, utilizing US 2022/0064509 A1 as an English language equivalent).
As to independent claims 1 and 7, Itano et al. refrigerant composition comprising CO2, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), difluoromethane (R32), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) (abstract). These are the same four refrigerant components as claimed. Itano et al. represent their compositions as figures of lines and curves in ternary diagrams where the mass percentages of CO2, HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234yf are represented by the variables w, x, y, and z in a manner such that the x, y, and z values are a function of w and form points connecting the curves/lines. See para. 0057+ and the Figures. The composition has different concentrations depending on the value of w (CO2 concentration).
While the reference does not anticipate the claimed refrigerant composition of claim 1 and in the event the reference is not found anticipatory of the refrigerant composition of claim 7 (note the separate 102 rejection of claim 7, below), the reference nevertheless renders obvious the claimed refrigerant composition(s) under a prima facie case of obviousness via several different rationale.
First, note Itano et al. teach an exemplary refrigerant composition of 18.1 wt.% R32, 63.2wt.% R1234yf, 14.7 wt.% HFO-1132(E), and 4.0 wt.% CO2 which has a GWP of 125 (Ex. 58 point E in Table 9 on p.23). The example’s R32 and R1234yf concentrations are squarely within the claimed R-32 and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The 4.0 mass% CO2 is inside the range of claim 7 but slightly outside the range of claim 1 (maximum of 3.5 wt.%). While persons skilled in the art would regard the 14.7 mass% HFO-1132(E) as within the range of claim 7 due to the recited “about” modifier of the range, 14.7 wt.% is slightly outside the range of claim 1 (maximum of 14.5 wt.%). However, these values of CO2 and HFO-1132(E) are so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect compositions of CO2/HFO-1132(E)/R32/HFO-1234yf with concentrations of 3.5 wt.% CO2 with 14.5 wt.% HFO-1132(E) and 4.0 wt.% CO2 with 14.7 wt.% HFO-1132(E) to be so close such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Second, two preferred compositions are Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 when CO2 is 2.5 mass% and 4.0 mass%, respectively. While it might not be apparent at first, these Figures constitute prima facie overlap of the claimed invention. Itano et al.’s inventive composition of CO2, HFO-1132(E), R32, and R1234yf is the figure within the curve/lines of points I, J,K, L, B”, D, and C (para. 0057+). Superimposing the general claimed ranges of HFO-1132(E), R-32, and HFO-1234yf and shading in the area encompassed within the three ranges (corresponding to the claimed scope/ranges) shows the Figures overlap with the claimed composition. While it is noted, for the 4.0 mass% Figure of CO2, 4.0 mass% CO2 is inside the range of claim 7 but slightly outside the range of claim 1 (maximum of 3.5 wt.%), the two values are so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect compositions of CO2/HFO-1132(E)/R32/HFO-1234yf with concentrations of 3.5 wt.% CO2 and 4.0 wt.% CO2 to be so close such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
PNG
media_image2.png
468
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6, a composition with 2.5 wt.% CO2, with claimed ranges superimposed thereon
PNG
media_image3.png
468
626
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 with claimed scope shaded (the overlap of the prior drawn lines). Note the overlap along line DC
PNG
media_image4.png
454
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7, a composition with 4.0 wt.% CO2, with claimed ranges superimposed thereon
PNG
media_image5.png
454
595
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 with claimed scope shaded (the overlap of the prior drawn lines). Note the overlap along line DC
Regarding GWP, note the Figures indicate the GWP of the compositions are under 350, if not under 250, which overlaps/encompasses that recited in claim 7.
Third, note that the purpose of line DC in the Figures/compositions is to obtain at least an 80% capacity of the refrigerant relative to R410A (see the key in the figures and para. 0516). This suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that additional CO2/R32/HFO-1132(E)/HFO-1234yf refrigerant compositions may be obtained beyond the line DC with the expectation that a lower, albeit less desirable or effective, relative capacity be obtained. Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate additional CO2/R32/HFO-1132(E)/HFO-1234yf compositions than depicted within the cited Figures with slightly higher R32 concentrations, slightly lower HFO-1132(E) concentrations, and/or slightly lower R1234yf concentrations extending beyond the line DC and further overlapping with the claimed range with the caveat that lower relative capacities will be obtained.
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to modify a reference. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Fourth, the Office also considered the mathematical equations for the curves and lines that constitute Itano et al.’s composition. See the “1.2<w≤4.0” embodiment of para. 0065-0072 which is for Itano et al.’s compositions with greater than 1.2 wt.% and equal to or less than 4.0 wt.% CO2 (the w variable). The concentrations of refrigerant components (w,x,y,z) must sum to 100% (per para. 0057) and be within a figure surrounded by curves IJ, JK, and KL, and straight lines LB″, B″ D, DC, and CI that connect the following points I, J, L, B”, D, and C or be on the above line segments except for points on B”D and CI (Id.). The Office focused on points D and C and their connecting line DC as those are generally where the concentrations seemed to overlap (see the annotated Figures, above). Point D is represented by the equations (−2.8226w+40.211, 0.0, 1.8226w+59.789) and point C is represented by the equations (0.0, 0.1081w.sup.2−5.169w+58.447, −0.1081w.sup.2+4.169w+41.553) (para. 0071-0072). The Office used Microsoft Excel to calculate actual values of points D and C along an increasing amount of w. Below are the results. For purposes of brevity, calculations are only shown when w is 3.0 to 4.0 (rather than calculate every value of w between Itano et al.'s w of 0 to 7).
PNG
media_image6.png
301
445
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
300
580
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This means that, alone line DC, R-32 is generally about 0-32 wt.%, HFO-1132(E) is generally 0-44 wt.%, and HFO-1234yf is generally 53-67 wt.% when CO2 is about 3-4 wt.%. This overlaps the claimed concentration ranges.
Furthermore, Line DC is a straight line such that other points along the line are easily calculated by solving for a y = mx + b type formula for a line passing between the two points from a given w and additional variable with a value intermediate of those of the points. At the w of 3.0 to 4.0 (CO2 wt.% concentration) and at y 13.0 and 14.0 (HFO-1132(E) wt.% concentration), solving for x (R32 wt.%) via a calculated line equation from points C and D, and determining z (HFO-1234yf wt.%) by subtracting the sum of the prior three values (w+x+y) from 100, there is indeed overlap of the claimed concentrations from Itano et al.'s composition after checking that each of the eight concentration requirements by the claim(s) are met (each range has two concentration requirements and there are four ranges, meaning there are eight concentration requirements that must be met for the reference’s composition, on line DC, to overlap that claimed):
PNG
media_image8.png
284
790
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
280
789
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Note the Office also calculated the GWP of these compositions, as GWP is merely the weighted average of the GWP of each component in the composition. GWPs of 1 were used for CO2 and 1132E, 4 was used for 1234yf, and 675 was used for R-32. The calculated GWPs for the overlapping compositions are all 150 or less as required by claim 7.
In all the above rationale, the refrigerant is 100% of the four components, which meets the at least 95% by weight of the four components limitations.
In view of the foregoing, Itano et al.’s compositions overlap in concentration with those instantly claimed.
While a lower flame limit of the composition not explicitly taught or acknowledged by the reference, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed lower flame limit of 0.25 or greater of claim 7 to flow naturally from the refrigerant composition of Itano et al. as the reference’s composition is made of the same four components in concentrations overlapping those narrow concentrations claimed. Furthermore, Itano et al. teach the exemplary/disclosed compositions are achieve both a WCF and ASHRAE lower flammability limit (see Fig. 7 showing point E below the lower flammability curves; see the definitions of “WCF lower flammability” and “ASHRAE lower flammability” at para. 0054), which appears to further suggest, if directly meet, the claimed LFL would flow naturally from the disclosed compositions. In particular, any composition in the ternary diagram figures with concentrations to the right and below of curves IJKL and MWNOP possess the lower flammability properties.
As to claims 2 and 3, Itano et al. teach a working fluid composition comprising the refrigerant composition with a refrigeration oil (para. 0050 & 0242-0243). The refrigeration oil is a lubricant and reads on the claimed lubricant (para. 0291+). Itano et al. teach composition further comprises a stabilizer (para. 0278-0285). Many stabilizer species are listed. Provision of such stabilizer species reads on the stabilizer comprising a protective agent as the stabilizer species would certainly afford some sort of protection to the refrigerant and/or apparatus thereof. The polymerization inhibitor of para. 0286-0289, another additive for the composition, would arguably serve as a protective agent, too.
As to claim 8, Itano et al. teach the is for provision into a refrigeration machine and a method of operating the refrigerating machine by circulating the refrigerant therein (see claims 10 & 11 and para. 0301+). Itano et al. teach operation of the refrigeration machine transfer heat to or from the refrigerant therein (see para. 0051, 0290, and 0508 and the evaporation/condensation temperature results of the exemplary composition in Table 9); furthermore, these are well-known and conventional unit operations of refrigeration machines which transfer heat to and/or from the refrigerant. Thus, Itano et al. fairly meet the claimed method of providing heat transfer by providing the recited composition and transferring heat via the composition in the recited system as claimed.
As to independent claim 9, regarding a method for providing heat transfer, as described in detail regarding claims 1 and 7 Itano et al. teach providing a refrigerant comprising CO2, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), difluoromethane (R32), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) overlapping those claimed. For purposes of brevity (or else the Office action would span many additional pages), those reasons will not be repeated here but are incorporated herein. See the above rationale to the overlapping ranges.
Itano et al. teach this refrigerant is for provision into a refrigeration machine and a method of operating the refrigerating machine by circulating the refrigerant therein (see claims 10 & 11 and para. 0301+). Itano et al. teach the refrigerating machine comprises a compressor, a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator and that operation of the refrigeration machine transfer heat to or from the refrigerant therein (see para. 0051, 0290, and 0508 and the evaporation/condensation temperature results of the exemplary composition in Table 9); furthermore, these are well-known and conventional unit operations of refrigeration machines which transfer heat to and/or from the refrigerant. Thus, Itano et al. fairly meet the claimed method of providing heat transfer by providing the recited composition and transferring heat via the composition in the recited system as claimed.
Regarding the claimed properties of the refrigerant in said system to R448A, while Itano et al. primarily pertains to an R410A replacement rather than a R448A replacement composition as intended by the claimed invention, like the LFL property discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed relative capacity and power consumption of the claimed refrigerant to that of R448A to flow naturally from the providing and operating Itano et al.’s refrigerant composition in a heat transfer system/refrigeration apparatus as the reference’s composition is made of the same four components in concentrations overlapping those narrow concentrations claimed and is operated in the same/conventional system.
As to claim 10, Itano et al. teach the refrigerant composition may further comprise a stabilizer (para. 0278-0285). Many stabilizer species are listed. Provision of such stabilizer species reads on the method further comprising addition of a stabilizer to said refrigerant and the stabilizer comprises a protective agent as the stabilizer species would certainly afford some sort of protection to the refrigerant and/or apparatus thereof. The polymerization inhibitor of para. 0286-0289 (and its addition) would arguably serve as a protective agent, too.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as being anticipated by Itano et al. (WO 2020/213697 A1, utilizing US 2022/0064509 A1 as an English language equivalent).
As to claim 7, Itano et al. refrigerant composition comprising CO2, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), difluoromethane (R32), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) (abstract). These are the same four refrigerant components as claimed. Itano et al. teach an exemplary refrigerant composition of 18.1 wt.% R32, 63.2wt.% R1234yf, 14.7 wt.% HFO-1132(E), and 4.0 wt.% CO2 which has a GWP of 125 (Ex. 58 point E in Table 9 on p.23). The example’s R32, R1234yf, and CO2 concentrations are squarely within the claimed R-32, HFO-1234yf, and CO2 concentrations, respectively. The Office also fairly considers the disclosed 14.7 wt.% HFO-1132(E) to anticipate (i.e., be within or at least touch) the claimed “from about 4% to about 14.5% by weight of HFO-1132(E)” range due to extra breadth afforded from the claimed “about” modifier of the end point. 14.7 wt.% is about 14.5 wt.%. The refrigerant is 100% of the four components, which meets the at least 95% by weight of the four components limitations.
The claimed lower flame limit of 0.25 or greater is also presumed as met by the exemplary composition under an inherency rationale as it is squarely within the narrow concentrations claimed. In addition to the inherency rationale of the claimed lower flame limit, Itano et al. teach the exemplary/disclosed compositions are achieve both a WCF and ASHRAE lower flammability limit (see Fig. 7 showing point E below the lower flammability curves; see the definitions of “WCF lower flammability” and “ASHRAE lower flammability” at para. 0054), which appears to further directly meet the claimed LFL limitation.
As to claim 9, note the discussion of the refrigerant set forth in claim 7 above: Itano et al. teach an exemplary refrigerant composition of 18.1 wt.% R32, 63.2wt.% R1234yf, 14.7 wt.% HFO-1132(E), and 4.0 wt.% CO2 (Ex. 58 point E in Table 9 on p.23). The example’s R32, R1234yf, and CO2 concentrations are squarely within the claimed R-32, HFO-1234yf, and CO2 concentrations, respectively. The Office also fairly considers the disclosed 14.7 wt.% HFO-1132(E) to anticipate (i.e., be within or at least touch) the claimed “from about 4% to about 14.5% by weight of HFO-1132(E)” range due to extra breadth afforded from the claimed “about” modifier of the end point. 14.7 wt.% is about 14.5 wt.%. The refrigerant is 100% of the four components, which meets the at least 95% by weight of the four components limitations.
Itano et al. teach this refrigerant is for provision into a refrigeration machine and a method of operating the refrigerating machine by circulating the refrigerant therein (see claims 10 & 11 and para. 0301+). Itano et al. teach the refrigerating machine comprises a compressor, a condenser, an expansion device, and an evaporator and that operation of the refrigeration machine transfer heat to or from the refrigerant therein (see para. 0051, 0290, and 0508 and the evaporation/condensation temperature results of the exemplary composition in Table 9); furthermore, these are well-known and conventional unit operations of refrigeration machines which transfer heat to and/or from the refrigerant. Itano et al. fairly meet and anticipate the claimed method of providing heat transfer as claimed.
While Itano et al. primarily pertains to an R410A replacement rather than a R448A replacement composition as intended by the claimed invention, the claimed relative capacity and power consumption of the claimed refrigerant to that of R448A is presumed inherent of the exemplary composition of Itano et al. as it is squarely within the narrow concentrations claimed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2020/213697 A1, utilizing US 2022/0064509 A1 as an English language equivalent).
The disclosure of Itano et al., particularly the 102 rejection of independent claim 9, is incorporated as set forth above.
While not anticipatory under the cited example of the reference, Itano et al. teach the refrigerant composition may further comprise a stabilizer (para. 0278-0285). Many stabilizer species are listed. Provision of such stabilizer species reads on the further addition of a stabilizer to said refrigerant and the stabilizer comprises a protective agent as the stabilizer species would certainly afford some sort of protection to the refrigerant and/or apparatus thereof. The polymerization inhibitor of para. 0286-0289 would arguably serve as a protective agent, too.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further provide a stabilizer and/or polymerization inhibitor as directly taught and motivated by Itano et al. to the exemplary 32/1234yf/1132(E)/CO2 composition in order to sufficiently stabilize and protect the refrigerant from degradation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2020/213697 A1, utilizing US 2022/0064509 A1 as an English language equivalent) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Takigawa et al. (US 2013/0207024 A1) or Smith et al. (US 2020/0131417 A1).
The disclosures of Itano et al. (both the separate 102 and 103 rejections) are incorporated as set forth above.
Itano et al. teach a heat transfer composition comprising, inter alia, CO2, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), difluoromethane (R32), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) as refrigerant components, a lubricant, and a stabilizer (Id.). Itano et al. teach the lubricant (refrigeration oil) preferably comprises polyalkylene glycol, polyol ester, or polyvinyl ether (para. 0293).
As to claims 4 and 5, Itano et al. fail to teach the stabilizer comprises or the presence of the particular alkylated naphthalene or acid depleting moiety.
However, Takigawa et al. teach polyol ester refrigerating machine oils, i.e., lubricants, comprising an ester of a polyhydric alcohol and fatty acids of 4-6 carbons and 7-9 carbons (abstract). The compositions may further comprise alkylnaphthalenes and polyvinyl esters as additional base oils in the refrigerating machine oil (para. 0055). The compositions may further comprise a glycidyl ether to improve stability of a working fluid comprising the refrigerating machine oil and the glycidyl ether may be 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether (para. 0078), which reads on the claimed acid depleting moiety and “ADM4” species thereof. The compositions are useful with refrigerants comprising blends of difluoromethane with other refrigerants such as HFOs and/or carbon dioxide (para. 0095). Regarding viscosity, see para. 0088 which discloses the viscosity is preferably 20-80 mm2/s at 40°C which is equivalent to 20-80 cSt and preferably 2-20 mm2/s at 100°C which is equivalent to 2-20 cSt; this encompasses, overlaps, and otherwise reads on the viscosity range encompassed/defined by the instantly claimed alkylated naphthalene and “AN4” (and narrower) components. Specific alkyl naphthalenes are not disclosed, but selection of one of a limited genus of alkyl naphthalenes amounts to routine experimentation. Such experimentation would be guided by the disclosed viscosity limitations, as the alkyl naphthalenes vary widely in viscosity, and the desirability of a low viscosity is disclosed.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the alkylated naphthalene and/or glycidyl ether as taught by Takigawa et al. in the composition of Itano et al. in order to sufficiently lubricant and stabilize the heat transfer composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, Smith et al. is similarly drawn heat transfer compositions comprising a refrigerant, lubricant, and stabilizer where the stabilizer comprises an alkylated naphthalene and optionally but preferably an acid depleting moiety (abstract). AN4 is a preferred and exemplary alkylated naphthalene (Table 1 on p.6). Additionally, AN5, AN9, and AN10 are preferred, narrower alkyl naphthalene stabilizers (Tables 1 & 2 and para. 0071-0083). In the event the disclosed numbered alkylated naphthalenes are not identical to those claimed, the properties of the alkylated naphthalenes nevertheless overlap per Smith et al.’s Tables. A preferred acid depleting moiety is 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether aka “ADM4” (para. 0093), which is the same as that instantly claimed. The disclosed formula for ADM1 in the reference also appears to overlap the claimed ADM1A and ADM1D (para. 0089). Smith et al. discloses provision of the alkylated naphthalenes and epoxides/ADM provide advantageous and surprising stability to refrigerants utilizing them (para. 0072 & 0086).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the stabilizing alkylated naphthalene and acid depleting moieties as taught by Smith et al. in the composition of Itano et al. in order to sufficiently stabilize the heat transfer composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
While the above rationale is to meet the particulars of dependent claims 4 and 5, it also alternatively meets the limitations of claims 3 and 10. Note the prior 102 and 103 rejections addressed the aspects of claims 3 and 10 regarding the stabilizer comprising a protective agent whereas the present rationale under this heading addresses the other aspects of claims 3 and 10 regarding the stabilizer comprising an alkylated naphthalene and/or acid depleting moiety.
Claims 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2020/213697 A1, utilizing US 2022/0064509 A1 as an English language equivalent) as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (WO 2022/271925 A1).
The disclosures of Itano et al. (both the separate 102 and 103 rejections) are incorporated as set forth above.
Itano et al. teach a heat transfer composition comprising, inter alia, CO2, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), difluoromethane (R32), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) as refrigerant components, a lubricant, and a stabilizer (Id.). Itano et al. teach the lubricant (refrigeration oil) preferably comprises polyalkylene glycol, polyol ester, or polyvinyl ether (para. 0293).
As to claims 4-6, Itano et al. fail to teach the stabilizer comprises or the presence of the particular alkylated naphthalene or acid depleting moiety.
However, Yu et al. is similarly drawn heat transfer compositions comprising a refrigerant, lubricant, and stabilizer where the stabilizer comprises at least one stabilizing compound of Formula I which depicts a naphthalene with two terminal epoxies, i.e., a naphthyl epoxy, (abstract). Several preferred stabilizer structures of the naphthyl epoxy are disclosed among p.4 to 13. The stabilizer compounds of Formula I at p.4 lines 18-21 and p.11 lines 15-18 are equivalent to the claimed Naphthyl Epoxy 1. The stabilizer compounds of Formula I at p.4 lines 27-20 and p.11 line 29 to p.12 line 3 are equivalent to the claimed Naphthyl Epoxy 2. The stabilizer compound of Formula I at p.5 lines 14-18 is equivalent to the claimed Naphthyl Epoxy 3. The stabilizer compounds of Formula I at p.5 lines 23-26 and p.12 lines 14-16 are equivalent to the claimed Naphthyl Epoxy 4. The stabilizer compound 1,6-diglyicidyl naphthalene ether at p.6 lines 4-8 and p.13 lines 1-10 is equivalent to the claimed Naphthyl Epoxy 5. Yu et al. further teach the addition of alkylated naphthalenes as co-stabilizers alongside the above naphthyl epoxy (p.16 line 23+) AN4 is a preferred and exemplary alkylated naphthalene (Table 1 on p.17). Additionally, AN5, AN9, and AN10 are preferred, narrower alkyl naphthalene stabilizers (Tables 1 & 2 and p.16 & 17). In the event the disclosed numbered alkylated naphthalenes are not identical to those claimed, the properties of the alkylated naphthalenes nevertheless overlap per Yu et al.’s Tables. Yu et al. further teach addition of acid depleting moieties (ADM) compounds that have a synergistic enhancement of stability with the alkylated naphthalene stabilizer (p.19 line 1+). A preferred ADM is 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether aka “ADM4” (p.19 lines 15-17 and p.20 lines 7-9), which is the same as that instantly claimed. The disclosed formula for ADM1 in the reference also appears to overlap the claimed ADM1A and ADM1D (p.19 lines 19-24).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the stabilizing naphthyl epoxy, alkylated naphthalene and acid depleting moieties as taught by Yu et al. in the composition of Itano et al. in order to sufficiently stabilize the heat transfer composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
While the above rationale is to meet the particulars of dependent claims 4 to 6, it also alternatively meets the limitations of claims 3 and 10. Note the prior 102 and 103 rejections addressed the aspects of claims 3 and 10 regarding the stabilizer comprising a protective agent whereas the present rationale under this heading addresses the other aspects of claims 3 and 10 regarding the stabilizer comprising an alkylated naphthalene and/or acid depleting moiety.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Fukushima et al. (US 2016/0333243 A1) teaches a refrigerant composition comprising from 20 to 70 mass % of HFO-1132(E), from 10 to 40 mass % of HFO-1234yf and from 20 to 40 mass % of HFC-32 (para. 0101). While the composition may further comprise up to 10 mass% CO2 (para. 0104-0107), Fukushima et al. fail to teach or suggest the lower amount of HFO-1132(E) instantly claimed (4-14.5 wt.%).
Itano et al. (US 2020/0317975 A1) teach a composition comprising the refrigerant comprising trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), difluoromethane (R32), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propene (R1234yf) (abstract). The concentrations of components are represented by a figure of lines/curves in a ternary diagram. However, Itano et al. fail to teach or suggest the additional presence of CO2 as required by the instant claims.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights