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 action is responsive to Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 09/16/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
The Drawings filed 05/08/2024 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statement filed 10/06/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy accompanies this action.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is suggested to remove the comma between “8.9 psia” and “and” for the boiling point range to be “between 19.7°C at a pressure of about 8.9 psia and about 80.0°C at a pressure of about 61.8 psia” in order to improve clarity in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
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.
The definition of the term “consisting essentially of” set forth in [00023] of the specification is noted: “As used herein, the term ‘consisting essentially of’, with respect to the components of an azeotrope or azeotrope-like composition or mixture, means the composition contains the indicated components in an azeotrope or azeotrope-like ratio, and may contain additional components provided that the additional components do not form new azeotrope or azeotrope-like systems. For example, azeotrope mixtures consisting essentially of two compounds are those that form binary azeotropes, which optionally may include one or more additional components, provided that the additional components do not render the mixture non-azeotropic and do not form an azeotrope with either or both of the compounds (e.g., do not form a ternary or higher azeotrope).” In other words, the claimed composition may include additional components and are open-ended as if the claims recited “comprising” so long as the additional component(s) do not affect the azeotropic properties.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as anticipated by Ruehlen (US 3,686,082 A).
Ruehlen teaches a process for the production, recovery, and separation of perhalogenated fluorocarbons (abstract). The Examples demonstrate the workup and separation of various fluorocarbon compounds. The Tables thereof demonstrate the principal components of various streams at various points in the process. In Example 1 / Table 1 there exists a composition comprising both 1,1,2-trifluorochloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane / CFC-113 (CCl2F-CClF2) and 1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane / HCFC-142a (CHClF-CH2F) at both of reference no. 44 and 48. The compositions at ref. no. 44 and 48 of the disclosed system certain contain effective amounts of both CFC-113 and HCFC-142a. The claimed limitations the composition is an azeotrope or azeotrope-like and the boiling point temperature and pressure conditions thereof are presumed inherent from the cited teachings of the reference absent a showing to the contrary as the reference teaches a composition comprising the same components in effective amounts just as that broadly claimed.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 5,780,521 A).
Schmidt et al. teach a blowing agent for making a foamed polymer comprising various components (col. 2). The blowing agent comprises a component capable of imparting a high degree of nucleation (col. 3 lines 13-28). The blowing agent may further comprise an organic co-blowing agent (col. 3 lines 29-57). An exemplary blowing agent comprises HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) and HCFC-142a (1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane) (#19 in Table 2 with 8.5 parts HFC-134a and 0.9 parts HCFC-142a, defined at col. 8 to mean loadings of pph based upon polymer weight meaning the numbers are effectively relative parts by weight, i.e., about 90 wt.% HFC-134a and about 10 wt.% HCFC-142a). The exemplary blowing agent certainly contains an effective amount of HCFC-142a. Further note that the reference’s disclosure of the co-blowing agent also includes CFC-113 (trichlorotrifluoroethane) (col. 3 at line 55).
While the composition fails to meet the claimed composition consisting essentially of/comprising effective amounts of both CFC-113 and HCFC-142a under the meaning of anticipation, based on the above cited teachings, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide CFC-113 to the exemplary HCFC-142a-containing blowing agent or blend both CFC-113 and HCFC-142a together in order to obtain a blowing agent composition for suitably foaming a polymer with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed limitations the composition is an azeotrope or azeotrope-like and the boiling point temperature and pressure conditions thereof, the claimed limitations would flow naturally from the cited teachings of the reference absent a showing to the contrary as the reference teaches/suggests a composition comprising the same components in effective amounts just as that broadly claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest an azeotrope or azeotrope-like composition consisting essentially of/comprising about 31.7-63.1 wt.% 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113) and about 36.9-68.3 wt.% 1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane (HCFC-142a), and subsets thereof.
Ruehlen (US 3,686,082 A) teaches a process for the production, recovery, and separation of perhalogenated fluorocarbons (abstract). The Examples demonstrate the workup and separation of various fluorocarbon compounds. The Tables thereof demonstrate the principal components of various streams at various points in the process. In Example 1 / Table 1 there exists a composition comprising both 1,1,2-trifluorochloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane / CFC-113 (CCl2F-CClF2) and 1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane / HCFC-142a (CHClF-CH2F) at both of reference no. 44 and 48. The compositions at ref. no. 44 and 48 of the disclosed system certain contain effective amounts of both CFC-113 and HCFC-142a. However, these streams, given in gram moles per hour, contain only minor amounts of these components and contain greater amounts of other halogenated ethanes such that Ruehlen fail to teach or suggest the claimed concentrations of about 31.7-63.1 wt.% CFC-113 and about 36.9-68.3 wt.% HCFC-142a, and subsets thereof, with any precision or specificity.
Burt et al. (US 4,808,331 A) teach an azeotrope or azeotrope-like composition of 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113) with trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and cyclopentane useful in solvent cleaning applications. The reference fails to teach or suggest the addition/presence of 1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane (HCFC-142a) as instantly claimed.
Schmidt et al. (US 5,780,521 A) teach a blowing agent for making a foamed polymer comprising various components (col. 2). The blowing agent comprises a component capable of imparting a high degree of nucleation (col. 3 lines 13-28). The blowing agent may further comprise an organic co-blowing agent including HCFC-142a (1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane) and/or CFC-113 (trichlorotrifluoroethane) (col. 3 lines 29-57). An exemplary blowing agent also comprises HFC-134a (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane) and HCFC-142a (1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane) (#19 in Table 2 with 8.5 parts HFC-134a and 0.9 parts HCFC-142a, defined at col. 8 to mean loadings of pph based upon polymer weight meaning the numbers are effectively relative parts by weight, i.e., about 90 wt.% HFC-134a and about 10 wt.% HCFC-142a). While the teachings of Schmidt et al. broadly encompass a blowing agent comprising among other components CFC-113 and HCFC-142a, Schmidt et al. fail to teach or suggest the claimed concentrations of about 31.7-63.1 wt.% CFC-113 and about 36.9-68.3 wt.% HCFC-142a, and subsets thereof, with any precision or specificity.
Demmin et al. (US 5,137,929 A) teach a hydrohalocarbon blowing agent comprising a hydrochlorofluorocarbon such as 1-chloro-1,2-difluoroethane (col. 8 lines 52-63, especially lines 54-55), i.e., HCFC-142a. The reference further mentions chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the background section in col. 1 and even refers to 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113) but discloses this and other CFCs have detrimental effects on the atmosphere and are to be replaced by the reference’s hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) compounds because they are inherently less chemically stable in the atmosphere and have lower ozone depletion potentials and greenhouse warming potentials than fully halogenated CFCs. One of ordinary skill in the art reading the reference, especially col. 1 and the mention of the Montreal Protocol, would understand the addition of CFCs such as the instantly claimed CFC-113 are strongly discouraged and taught away by the reference. Thus, while the reference’s inventive blowing agent may comprise HCFC-142a, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the addition of CFCs such as the instantly claimed CFC-113 are strongly discouraged and taught away by Demmin et al. and it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at or even approach the claimed composition of CFC-113 and HCFC-152a from the teachings of Demmin et al.
Takahashi (US 2021/0403778 A1) teaches a composition containing HFC-142a and at least one additional component selected from the group consisting of, among others, HCFC-142a (abstract). The composition may be azeotropic or azeotrope-like (para. 0019). However, the reference fails to teach or suggest the addition/presence of 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113) as instantly claimed.
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described 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./
October 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights