DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to the amendment file August 26, 2026 in which claims 1, 2, 7 and 53 were amended.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims.
It should be noted that the previous rejection under 35 USC 103 over Rached contained a typographical error. Claim 53 was listed as claim 59. However, it is clear that the claim should have been listed as 53 because there is no claims 54-59 in the claim set and claim 53 is the last claim in the claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 14, 19-23 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rached (US 20160355718-appears on the PTO-1449).
Rached teaches a heat transfer method using ternary composition containing 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 1,1-difluoroethane and difluoromethane, as a heat transfer fluid in refrigeration systems, to replace R-134a. The refrigerant consisting essentially of 70 to 88 wt % of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf); 4 to 16 wt % of difluoromethane (HFC-32); and 8 to 14 wt % of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) (see abstract).
Rached teaches that in the automobile industry, the systems for air conditioning of vehicles marketed in many countries have changed over from a chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant (CFC-12) to a hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane: HFC-134a), which is less harmful to the ozone layer (see para 0006). Rached also teaches that additional compounds such as tetrafluoropropene, difluoromethane, pentafluoroethane, tetrafluoroethane, difluoroethane, heptafluoropropane, hexafluoropropane, pentafluoropropane, and pentafluorobutane may be used in refrigerant compositions (see para 0011).
Rached teaches that the refrigerant can be implemented in the presence of lubricants such as mineral oil, alkylbenzene, polyalkylene glycol and polyvinyl ether (see para 0037). Advantageously, the compositions used include, consist essentially of, or consist of from 84 to 88 (or 85 to 88, or 86 to 88) wt. % of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, from 11 to 14 wt. % of 1,1-difluoroethane, and from 4 to 14 (or 4 to 13, or 4 to 12) wt. % of difluoromethane. See also examples in Table 2. Rached meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below.
Rached does not specifically teach about 3 to 7 or 15 to 17 weight percent HFC-152a. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because Rached teaches 8 to 14 weight percent of the compound. It is well settled that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This was the case before the present amendment wherein applicant was claiming from about 3 to 17 weight percent of HFC-152a. The claim now reads 3 to 7 or 15 to 17 weight percent HFC-152a. However, similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Applicant has not shown that unexpected results are obtained with the newly amended range for HFC-152a.
Rached does not exemplify a composition containing the exact percentages as set forth in claims 7. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because Rached teaches ranges of the components that overlap or are close enough to those of the present invention. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 14, Rached teaches that it is known to combine additional compounds such as HFC-134a (tetrafluoroethane) or HFC-245cb (pentafluoropropane) with the claimed refrigerants (see para 0011).
With respect to claims 19-21, Rached does not specifically the burning velocity, classification or the LFL of the refrigerant. However, since Rached teaches the same components and proportions that overlap those of the present invention it would be reasonable to expect that the refrigerant of Rached would meet these parameters and classification.
Claims 43 and 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rached (US 20160355718 appears on the PTO-1449) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Low (US 20210261840-appears on the PTO-892) and Allgood (US 20210122962-appears on the PTO-892).
Rached has been discussed above. Rached does not specifically teach the use of his composition in a system for heating and cooling the passenger compartment of an electric vehicle. However, Low and Allgood teach this difference using a similar refrigerant.
Low teaches a refrigerant in a heat pump system in an electric vehicle of a composition. The composition comprises 1,1-difluoroethylene (R-1132a) and at least one fluorocarbon refrigerant compound selected from the group consisting of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf), difluoromethane (R-32), 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234ze(E)) and 1,1-difluoroethane in any proportion (R-152a) (see abstract).
Low teaches a quaternary refrigerant composition comprising from 1 to 20 weight % 1,1-difluoroethylene (R-1132a), from 1 to 21 weight % difluoromethane (R-32) and from 59 to 98 weight % of a mixture of 1,1-difluoroethane (R-152a) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf) in any proportion (see para 0031).
The compositions of Low are those which have laminar burning velocity less than 10 cm/s, meaning that they will be classified as “2L” flammable under ASH RAE Standard 34 (see para 0047). The compositions may provide particular benefits where the heat pump and/or air-conditioning system is used in an electric vehicle, whether a purely electric or hybrid vehicle. Unless otherwise stated, it is to be understood that the term “electric vehicle” refers to both purely electric vehicles as well as vehicles which use electricity as one of several means of propulsion, such as hybrid vehicles (see para 0052-0053).
With respect to the heating and cooling system comprising an evaporator, compressor, condenser and expansion device each operably connected to perform a vapor compression cycle, Allgood teaches this difference (see para 197, 202) wherein the same or similar refrigerants are used (see para 0027-0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the refrigerant composition in an electric vehicle because Rached teaches that refrigerants are used in automotives, Low teaches that these automotives may be electric vehicles and Allgood teaches that one would expect that the electric vehicles would comprise an evaporator, compressor, condenser and expansion device, each operably connected to perform a vapor compression cycle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 2, 7 and 53 include refrigerant blend compositions that do not overlap with Rached.
While some of the ranges of Rached do overlap those of the present compounds, those that do not are close enough to the claimed ranges that one would expect that the amount of the compounds would produce similar results. It is well settled that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Applicant has not shown any criticality with the now amended ranges. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
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 CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is (571)272-1126. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6368. 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.
/CEPHIA D TOOMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18569718/20261013
Prosecution Insights