CTNF 18/540,931 CTNF 91704 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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. The Drawings filed 12/15/2023 are approved by the examiner. 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 HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO 2 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 a R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO 2 refrigerant composition but fails to disclose or suggest the particular R-32, HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO 2 composition claimed. Provisional application 63/436,575 (filed 12/31/2022) discloses a HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO 2 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). 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 HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO 2 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)/CO 2 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 HFO-1234yf/HFO-1132(E)/CO 2 refrigerant(s) with the recited particular stabilizer(s)). Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, Applicant is suggested to amend “CO2” to read as “CO 2 ” in order to improve clarity in the claim. Claim 9 is also objected to for the same reason. In claim 6, the limitation “further comprising at least one of Naphthyl Epoxy 1, Naphthyl Epoxy 2, Naphthyl Epoxy 3, Naphthyl Epoxy 4 Naphthyl Epoxy 5, Naphthyl Epoxy 6” is objected to for its grammar. Note the recitation of “Naphthyl Epoxy 4 Naphthyl Epoxy 5, Naphthyl Epoxy 6” that appears to be missing proper punctuation (a comma) between Naphthyl Epoxy 4 and Naphthyl Epoxy 5 (“Naphthyl Epoxy 4 , Naphthyl Epoxy 5”) and a proper conjunction (“and” or “or”) between the penultimate and ultimate species denoting the composition further comprises one of the recited six apparent species (“Naphthyl Epoxy 5, and Naphthyl Epoxy 6”). For purposes of further examination, the claim is construed as if it recited a proper list that the composition further comprises one of the six reacted components (i.e., “further comprising at least one of Naphthyl Epoxy 1, Naphthyl Epoxy 2, Naphthyl Epoxy 3, Naphthyl Epoxy 4, Naphthyl Epoxy 5, and Naphthyl Epoxy 6”). Claim 7 is objected to for spanning multiple sentences (see the period at the end of the CO 2 concentration limitation c. and before the further limitation beginning with “provided that” describing the GWP of the refrigerant), being in improper form. Applicant is required to amend the claim such that it properly ends with a period. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See also MPEP 608.01(m). For further examination, the claim is construed as if the period after “CO 2 ” was a comma. Also in claim 9, Applicant is suggested to add a semicolon between limitation (a)(i) and (a)(ii) (“ … to less than 91% by weight of HFO-1234yf ; ”) in order to improve clarity in the claim. In claim 10, in limitation (b)(ii), “the power consumption pf R448A” appears to be a spelling error for “the power consumption of R448A” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 5-7, 9, and 10 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 32-36 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 161 616 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 [147]-[150], 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). In independent claims 7 and 9, the claims recite a refrigerant “comprising at least about 95% by weight based on the total of all refrigerant components of the following four components in the following relative concentrations:”. This denotes four refrigerant components should be listed and follow. However, only three refrigerant components/concentrations are listed : HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), CO 2 . Are there four components in the composition or is this an oversight for “comprising at least about 95% by weight based on the total of all refrigerant components of the following three components in the following relative concentrations:”? If the composition should have four components in the concentrations, the claim is indefinite for missing required features/limitations; otherwise, the claim is indefinite for unclearly stating there should be four components when only three are actually listed (it is confusing to state four components and their concentrations follow but only three actually follow). Claim 10 is also indefinite for its dependency on claim 9. For purposes of further examination, claims 7 and 9 are construed as if they said “the following three components”. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. 07-30-03-h AIA 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.30-31 set forth a clear definition and standard for the abbreviated and numbered alkylated naphthalenes. Pages 32 to 35 set forth a clear definition and standard for the abbreviated and numbered acid depleting moieties ADM1A, ADM1D, and ADM4. Pages 36 to 38 set forth a clear definition and standard for the numbered Naphthyl Epoxies "Naphthyl Epoxy 1", "Naphthyl Epoxy 2", "Naphthyl Epoxy 3", "Naphthyl Epoxy 4", "Naphthyl Epoxy 5", and "Naphthyl Epoxy 6". 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 & 103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Itano et al. (WO 2023/176927 A1, utilizing US 2025/0059423 A1 as an English language equivalent). Note that Itano et al. was earlier filed as JP 2022-041678 with sufficient support for the cited teachings; a copy of the earlier JP foreign application is attached to the supplied copy of the WO reference. Accordingly, Itano et al. has an effective filing date of 03/16/2022. As to claims 1 and 7, Itano et al. refrigerant composition comprising CO 2 , trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) (abstract). These are the same three refrigerant components as claimed. Itano et al. teach an exemplary refrigerant composition of 10 wt.% E-HFO-1132, 87.5 wt.% R1234yf (note, while the table identifies the component is “R1234(ze + yf)” the table also clearly states “r = R1234ze/(R1234ze + R1234yf) = 0” meaning there is 0 wt.% R1234ze and all the R1234 component is indeed R1234yf), and 2.5 wt.% CO 2 which has a GWP of 4 (Ex. 14 in Table 3 on p. 9 in the PGPub; see also Ex. 14 in para. 0080/Table 3 of the foreign priority application). The example’s E-HFO-1132, R1234yf, and CO 2 concentrations are squarely within the claimed HFO-1132(E), HFO-1234yf, and CO2 concentrations, respectively. The refrigerant is 100% of the three components, which meets the at least 95% by weight of the three 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. As to claim 9 and further regarding claim 8, note the discussion of the refrigerant set forth in claims and 1 7 above: Itano et al. teach an exemplary refrigerant composition of 10 wt.% HFO-1132(E), 87.5 wt.% HFO-1234yf, and 2.5 wt.% CO 2 that are squarely within the claimed concentrations. Itano et al. teach this refrigerant is for provision into a refrigeration machine (i.e., a heat transfer system) and a method of operating the refrigerating machine by circulating the refrigerant therein (see claims 19 & 20 and para. 0168+). 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. 0021 and the evaporation/condensation temperature conditions for the cited example at para. 0256-0263); 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 methods of providing heat transfer as claimed. While Itano et al. primarily pertains to a replacement for R134a, R1234yf, or R404 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2023/176927 A1, utilizing US 2025/0059423 A1 as an English language equivalent). Note that Itano et al. was earlier filed as JP 2022-041678 with sufficient support for the cited teachings; a copy of the earlier JP foreign application is attached to the supplied copy of the WO reference. Accordingly, Itano et al. has an effective filing date of 03/16/2022 . As to independent claims 1 and 7, Itano et al. teach a refrigerant composition comprising CO 2 , trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) (abstract, para. 0023, 0054+, etc.). These are the same three refrigerant components as claimed. While it is noted Itano et al. further mention the presence of R1234ze (e.g., abstract, para. 0023, etc.), this component is entirely optional and is disclosed in the alternative from the cited R1234yf component. Itano et al. represent their compositions as figures of lines and curves in ternary diagrams where the mass percentages of CO 2 , HFO-1132(E), and R1234yf are represented by the variables x, y, and z in a manner such that the x, y, and z values form points connecting the curves/lines. See para. 0054+ and Fig. 4 of the PGPub. In the event the reference is not found anticipatory of the refrigerant composition of claims 1 and 7 (note the separate 102 rejection of these claims, above), the reference nevertheless renders obvious the claimed refrigerant composition(s) under a prima facie case of obviousness. See the preferred compositions of Fig. 4 described at para. 0054-0067. See also para. 0025 and Fig. 4 of the foreign priority application. This figure/embodiment constitutes prima facie overlap of the claimed invention. Itano et al.’s inventive composition of CO 2 , HFO-1132(E), and R1234yf (where R1234ze is not present/zero, i.e., r=0) is the figure within the curve/lines of points H r=0 , I r=0 , J r=0 , J2 r=0 , K2 r=0 , K r=0 , Q r=0 (para. 0054+). Superimposing the general claimed ranges of HFO-1132(E), HFO-1234yf, and CO 2 and shading in the area encompassed within the three ranges (corresponding to the claimed scope/ranges) shows the Figures overlap with the claimed composition: PNG media_image2.png 592 736 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 4 with claimed ranges superimposed thereon PNG media_image3.png 580 736 media_image3.png Greyscale Fig. 4 with claimed scope shaded (the overlap of the prior drawn lines) While it is noted there is a slight difference between the compositions of independent claims 1 and 7 (claim 1’s HFO-1234yf is >84 to <91 wt.% whereas claim 7’s is 83-90.5 wt.%; claim 1’s HFO-1132(E) is >7 to <15 wt.% whereas claim 7’s is about 8.5 to 14.2 wt.%; claim 1’s CO 2 is >1 to 2.5 wt.% whereas claim 7’s is 1.3-2.5 wt.%), this does not substantially change the extent of overlap shown/depicted above due to the lack of perfect precision of the hand-drawn lines in the depiction. For example, the depiction would not change much, if at all, if a 1.3 wt.% CO 2 line was drawn instead of a 1 wt.% CO 2 line. The extent of overlap shown/depicted above sufficiently shows there is overlap of the claimed ranges whether the HFO-1234yf is either >84 to <91 wt.% or 83-90.5 wt.%, the HFO-1132(E) is either >7 to <15 wt.% or about 8.5 to 14.2 wt.%, and/or the CO 2 is either >1 to 2.5 wt.% or 1.3-2.5 wt.%. Also, in the cited figure the refrigerant is 100% of the three components, which meets the at least 95% by weight of the three components limitations. Regarding GWP, the Office also calculated the GWP of the points at para. 0055-0061 that constitute the extremities of Itano et al.’s composition in Microsoft Excel, as GWP is merely the weighted average of the GWP of each component in the composition. GWPs of 1 were used for CO 2 and 1132E and 4 was used for 1234yf. The calculated GWPs for the extremities of Itano et al.’s composition (that overlaps the claimed composition) are all 150 or less as required by claim 7: PNG media_image4.png 234 337 media_image4.png Greyscale 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. As to claims 2 and 3, Itano et al. teach a working fluid composition comprising the refrigerant composition with a refrigeration oil (para. 0017, 0109, & 0158). The refrigeration oil is a lubricant and reads on the claimed lubricant (para. 0159+). Itano et al. teach composition further comprises a stabilizer (para. 0146-0153). 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. 0154-0157, another additive for the composition, would arguably serve as a protective agent, too. As to claim 8, Itano et al. teach the refrigerant/working fluid is for provision into a refrigeration machine (i.e., a heat transfer system) and a method of operating the refrigerating machine by circulating the refrigerant therein (see claims 19 & 20 and para. 0168+). Itano et al. teach operation of the refrigeration machine transfer heat to or from the refrigerant therein (see para. 0021 and the evaporation/condensation temperature conditions for the cited example at para. 0256-0263); 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 HFO-1234yf, HFO-1132(E), and CO 2 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 (i.e., a heat transfer system) and a method of operating the refrigerating machine by circulating the refrigerant therein (see claims 19 & 20 and para. 0168+). 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. 0021 and the evaporation/condensation temperature conditions for the cited example at para. 0256-0263); 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 a replacement for R134a, R1234yf, or R404 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 three 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. 0146-0153). 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. 0154-0157, another additive for the composition, would arguably serve as a protective agent, too . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2023/176927 A1, utilizing US 2025/0059423 A1 as an English language equivalent) as applied to claim s 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, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf), and CO 2 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. 0161). 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 mm 2 /s at 40°C which is equivalent to 20-80 cSt and preferably 2-20 mm 2 /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 103 rejection 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano et al. (WO 2023/176927 A1, utilizing US 2025/0059423 A1 as an English language equivalent) as applied to claim s 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, trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)), 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf), and CO 2 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. 0161). As to claims 4-6, Itano et al. fail to teach the stabilizer comprises or the presence of the particular alkylated naphthalene, acid depleting moiety, or naphthyl epoxy. 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 103 rejection 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 2017/0058172 A1) teach a composition comprising 1,2-difluoroethylene (abstract). The 1,2-difluoroethylene may be trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) alone with no other isomer(s) (para. 0023). The composition may further comprise an optional component such as a hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) other than the HFO-1132 (para. 0025), such as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (para. 0040-0042) in a concentration of 1-99 mass% (para. 0043). The composition may further contain (in addition to the above/prior optional component), carbon dioxide in a preferred amount of 5 mass% or less of the composition (para. 0049 and 0059). This broadly amounts to a composition comprising 1-99 wt.% HFO-1132(E), greater than zero and up to 5 wt.% CO 2 , and remainder HFO-1132(E). At the time of writing this correspondence, the cited Itano et al. reference of record is regarded as closer prior art than Fukushima et al. Ohkubo et al. (US 2020/0377777 A1) teach a refrigerant composition comprising trans-1,2-difluoroethylene (HFO-1132(E)) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (abstract). While Ohkubo et al. teach the HFO-1132(E) is generally present in an amount of 35.0 to 65.0 mass % and HFO-1234yf is present in an amount of 65.0 to 35.0 mass % based on the total mass of HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1234yf (abstract), there are alternative embodiments outside these ranges such as in para. 0030 teaching HFO-1132(E) present in an amount of 21.0 to 28.4 mass % and HFO-1234yf present in an amount of 79.0 to 71.6 mass %, based on the total mass of HFO-1132(E) and HFO- 1234yf. However, not only are these concentrations outside the claimed ranges of HFO-1132(E) and HFO-1234yf, Ohkubo et al. also fail to teach or suggest the additional presence of CO 2 as required by the instant claims. Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0079279 A1) teach a composition comprising a refrigerant characterized by having a GWP lower than that of R410A and a COP equivalent to that of R410A, specifically a refrigerant comprising CO 2 (R744) and at least one compound A selected from the group consisting of trans-1,2-difluoroethylene [(E)-HFO-1132], cis-1,2-difluoroethylene [(Z)-HFO-1132], fluoroethylene (HFO-1141), and 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne (TFP) (abstract). Clearly, the refrigerant may comprise carbon dioxide and HFO-1132(E). The refrigerant according to the present disclosure is preferably a mixed refrigerant in which R744 is present in an amount of 0.1 to 50 mass %, and the compound A is present in an amount of 50 to 99.9 mass %, based on the total amount of R744 and the compound A taken as 100 mass % (para. 0042). The refrigerant according to the present disclosure is preferably a mixed refrigerant comprising CO 2 and the compound A and further comprising at least one compound B selected from the group consisting of, among others, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) (para. 0046+), which amounts to a composition comprising carbon dioxide, HFO-1132(E), and HFO-1234yf. The refrigerant according to the present disclosure is preferably a mixed refrigerant in which R744 is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 mass %, and the compound B is present in an amount of 10 to 50 mass %, based on the total amount of R744, the compound A, and the compound B taken as 100 mass % (para. 0051). In view of the foregoing, Takahashi et al. generally teaches a composition opposite of that claimed. Takahashi et al.'s teachings/suggestions amount to a refrigerant comprising a relatively large amount of HFO-1132E with relatively small amounts of HFO-1234yf and CO2 whereas the claimed invention amounts to relatively small amounts of HFO-1132E and CO2 with a relatively large amount of HFO-1234yf. 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 15, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 11 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 12 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 13 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 14 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 15 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 16 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 17 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 18 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 19 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 20 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 21 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 22 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 18/540,931 Page 23 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights