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 amendment/remarks filed 07/24/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-14, 18, and 19 are currently pending.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the above amendment canceling the claim.
After careful review and reconsideration, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankland et al. (US 2006/0043331 A1) as set forth in the previous Office action is maintained and has been revised below to reflect the changes in claim scope made by Applicant’s present claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shankland et al. (US 2006/0043331 A1).
As to claims 1, 2, 5, 7-13, and 18, Shankland et al. teach heat transfer fluid compositions for refrigeration comprising tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide (abstract). The compositions comprise about 60-99 wt.% of the tetrafluoropropene, preferably 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf), and about 1-40 wt.% of carbon dioxide (abstract and para. 0012), which overlap and encompass the claimed ranges of 75-84 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 1-5 wt.% (and narrower 2-4 wt.%) carbon dioxide. Preferred compositions comprise about 70-95 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) and 5-30 wt.% carbon dioxide (para. 0012 & 0048), which also overlaps and encompasses the claimed range of 75-84 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and overlap/touches the claimed range of 1-5 wt.% carbon dioxide. Shankland et al. teaches additional HFCs such as 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) may be included in the compositions as a co-refrigerant with the tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide and present in a relative amount depending on the particular application for the composition and may be added to tailor the properties of the composition as needed (para. 0059-0074). Please especially see the list of additional compound species at para. 0030-0041 (each a single line) including 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) at para. 0036 and para. 0029 stating that the additional compound can include “one or more of the following” immediately preceding the list of additional compound species motivating provision of a single one of the listed species, i.e., HFC-152a as the only additional component beyond HFO-1234yf and CO2; the same is also substantially duplicated at para. 0059-0071 but with the list of additional species, including 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), termed as “co-refrigerants”.
While Shankland et al. fail to teach a single/exemplary composition under the meaning of anticipation to anticipate the claimed mixed refrigerant composition, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate and arrive within a composition overlapping the claimed concentrations of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 1,1-difluoroethane, and carbon dioxide as claimed by providing HFC-152a as a co-refrigerant additive in the HFO-1234yf/CO2 composition from the cited teachings of the reference in order to obtain a refrigerant/heat transfer composition with a reasonable expectation of success.
Such a formulated composition would have concentrations consisting of about 60-99 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, about 1-40 wt.% carbon dioxide, and greater 0 wt.% and up to about 39 wt.% HFC-152a (calculated by subtracting the disclosed minimum amounts of required HFO-1234yf and CO2 components from 100 wt.%), which overlap and encompass the claimed ranges of 75-84 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 15-20 wt.% 1,1-difluoroethane, and 1-5 wt.% (and narrower 2-4 wt.%) carbon dioxide. Similarly, such a formulated preferred composition would have concentrations consisting of about 70-95 wt.% HFO-1234yf, about 5-30 wt.% carbon dioxide, and greater than 0 wt.% and up to about 25 wt.% HFC-152a (calculated by subtracting the disclosed minimum amounts of required HFO-1234yf and CO2 components from 100 wt.%), which overlap and encompass the claimed ranges of 75-84 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and 15-20 wt.% 1,1-difluoroethane and overlap/touches the claimed range of 1-5 wt.% carbon dioxide. Clearly, the sets of concentrations of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 1,1-difluoroethane, and carbon dioxide overlap the concentrations that are instantly claimed in claim 1 as well as in dependent claim 18. Also, the sets of concentrations of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 1,1-difluoroethane, and carbon dioxide overlap the relative weight concentrations that are instantly claimed in claims 5 and 7. 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).
Regarding any remaining limitations among claims 1 and 8-13, while Shankland et al. fail to specifically teach the mixed refrigerant has certain properties within certain ranges (a certain boiling point, a certain critical temperature, a certain critical pressure, certain temperature glides at certain pressures, a certain latent heat, and a certain global warming potential) a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect and understand such properties would flow naturally from the cited teachings of the reference and above-presented rationale from the cited teachings of the reference since Shankland et al. teach substantially the same composition consisting of the same components (2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 1,1-difluoroethane, and carbon dioxide, Id.), in the same/overlapping ranges as claimed (about 60-99 wt.% preferably about 70-95 wt.% HFO-1234yf vs 75-84 wt.% as claimed, about 1-40 wt.% preferably 5-30 wt.% carbon dioxide vs 1-5 wt.% as claimed, and greater 0 wt.% and up to about 39 wt.% preferably greater than 0 wt.% and up to about 25 wt.% HFC-152a vs 15-20 wt.% as claimed, Id.). Also note the reference teaches the compositions have global warming potentials (GWP) of preferably less than 150 (para. 0051) but the reference encompasses GWPs well-within and overlapping the narrow range of <40 as claimed. GWP is well-known in the art as merely the weighted average of the GWPs of the respective compounds in a given composition. Note that Applicant has disclosed GWP values of the HFO-1234yf, HFC-152a, and carbon dioxide in the original specification as 4 or less, 150 or less, and 1, respectively. For example, a composition comprising 80 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene/HFO-1234yf, 15 wt.% 1,1-difluoroethane/HFC-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2 (all well-within the reference’s preferred ranges) has a GWP of about 21; also, a composition comprising 78 wt.% HFO-1234yf, 18 wt.% HFC-152a, and 4 wt.% carbon dioxide (all within the reference’s effective ranges) has a GWP of about 25. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to claim 14, Shankland et al. teach the compositions are suitable for use as refrigerants in heat pump systems (para. 0010 & 0073).
As to claim 19, Shankland et al. teach the heat transfer systems (i.e., the heat pump systems, Id.) comprising the composition are vapor compression cycles comprising a compressor, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evaporator (para. 0075).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2026 regarding Shankland et al. (US 2006/0043331 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Shankland et al. does not provide a motivation to arrive at the claimed ternary composition because their core disclosure is to a binary carbon dioxide (CO2) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) composition and, while 1,1-difluoroethane (R-152a aka HFC-152a) is listed along other possible optional co-refrigerants, Shankland et al. does not single out R-152a for any particular role or advantage, does not specify a weight range of R-152a, and provides no examples or experimental data for a ternary blend incorporating R-152a.
In response, these arguments are similar to those of record addressed in previous Office actions and are not persuasive for those reasons of record. As set forth in the previous Office action mailed 02/24/2026, regarding the claimed relative limitation of 1,1-difluoroethane, Shankland et al. teach the compositions comprise about 60-99 wt.% of the tetrafluoropropene, preferably 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFO-1234yf) and about 1-40 wt.% of carbon dioxide (abstract and para. 0012). Shankland et al. further teaches additional HFCs such as 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) may be included in the compositions as a co-refrigerant with the tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide and present in a relative amount depending on the particular application for the composition and may be added to tailor the properties of the composition as needed (para. 0059-0074). Please especially see the list of additional compound species at para. 0030-0041 (each a single line) including 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) at para. 0036 and para. 0029 stating that the additional compound can include “one or more of the following” immediately preceding the list of additional compound species motivating provision of a single one of the listed species, i.e., HFC-152a as the only additional component beyond HFO-1234yf and CO2; the same is also substantially duplicated at para. 0059-0071 but with the list of additional species, including 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), termed as “co-refrigerants”. A simple cursory reading of the grammar “one or more”, sufficiently encompasses, permits, and motivates provision of a single “one” of the listed compounds (such as HFC-152a) alone. “one or more” means that provision of a single one of any of the listed compounds is included/permitted/motivated in Shankland et al.’s teachings. Provision of 1,1-difluoroethane as a single co-refrigerant additive or additional compound in the HFO-1234yf/CO2 composition as motivated by the cited teachings of the reference arrives a composition having concentrations consisting of about 60-99 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, about 1-40 wt.% carbon dioxide, and greater 0 wt.% and up to about 39 wt.% HFC-152a (calculated by subtracting the disclosed minimum amounts of required HFO-1234yf and CO2 components from 100 wt.%), which overlap and encompass the claimed ranges of 75-84 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 15-20 wt.% 1,1-difluoroethane, and 1-5 wt.% carbon dioxide.
In a system (a composition in the present case) with three variable concentrations, a third variable (1,1-difluoroethane concentration) can be calculated if the first and second variables (2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide concentrations) are known. The 1,1-difluoroethane concentration can be calculated by subtracting the permitted concentrations of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide from 100%. The rejection of record made what is believed a reasonable and fair construction/calculation as to the concentration of the 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) co-refrigerant (when added as the sole co-refrigerant component as motivated by para. 0059, 0066, 0072, & 0074 of the reference) by subtracting the disclosed minimum amounts of required 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide components from 100 wt.% so that the composition maintains the required concentrations ,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and carbon dioxide components elsewhere required in the reference at the abstract and para. 0012.
As the cited teachings amount to a composition having concentrations consisting of about 60-99 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, about 1-40 wt.% carbon dioxide, and greater 0 wt.% and up to about 39 wt.% HFC-152a, Shankland et al. meet and encompass the claimed limitation that 1,1-difluoroethane is the second major component (present in the second greatest/highest amount) as claimed.
Regarding the concern that the reference does not single out R-152a, as described in the Final Office action mailed 07/30/2025, Shankland et al. clearly teach the additional compound/co-refrigerant may be “one or more of the following” where only twelve (12) particular compounds are listed, one of which being the claimed 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) (see para. 0029-0041 and 0059-0071 of the reference), that, even from a simple cursory reading of the grammar “one or more”, sufficiently encompasses, permits, and motivates provision of a single “one” of the listed compounds (such as HFC-152a) alone. “one or more” means that provision of a single one of any of the listed compounds is included/permitted/motivated in Shankland et al.’s teachings.
Additionally, it is not a prerequisite of a prima facie case of obviousness a prior art reference must exemplify the claimed combination/arrangement of components (i.e., provide an example or experimental data for any ternary blend incorporating R-152a) as alleged in Applicant’s arguments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Applicant further argues the claimed compositions preserve an A2L safety classification at a critical boundary that Shankland et al. does not recognize and demonstrate the carbon dioxide concentration of 1-5 wt.% is critical and affords the claimed composition unexpected results. This argument regarding criticality and unexpected results is exclusively based on the contents of the contents of a 132 Declaration by Ji Seong Noh filed on 07/24/2026 and will be fully addressed separately in the next section, below.
Second Declaration of Ji Seong Noh filed 07/24/2026
Page 1 at ¶ 1 to 4 of the declaration provide a summary of the declarant’s background and understanding of the rejection of record over Shankland et al. Pages 1 to 3 at ¶ 5 to 11 of the declaration provides a background of refrigerant flammability classification/tests, provides new flammability evaluation data (Comparative Examples 11 to 13) compared with that of Example 20 of record, and a discussion thereof to allege the claimed carbon dioxide concentration of 1-5 wt.% is critical and affords the claimed composition unexpected results. Pages 3 to 5 at ¶ 12 to 15 of the declaration provides new heating and cooling performance evaluation data for the new Comparative Examples 11 to 13 compositions compared with that of Example 20 of record and a brief discussion thereof. Pages 5 to 8 at ¶ 16 to 22 of the declaration presents previous data of record (Examples 1 to 20 and Comparative Examples 1 to 1) reproduced from the (first and previously addressed) Declaration of Ji Seong Noh filed 12/01/2025 and the original specification. Pages 8 to 9 at ¶ 23 to 25 of the declaration is a summary and conclusion section summarizing the totality of the declaration. The remainder of page 9 at ¶ 26 of the declaration is a concluding statement and the declarant’s signature and date.
After careful and full consideration of its contents, the declaration filed 07/24/2026 is insufficient to overcome the 103 rejection of record over Shankland et al. (US 2006/0043331 A1).
The declaration alleges the claimed carbon dioxide concentration of 1-5 wt.% is critical and affords the claimed composition unexpected results because transitioning from a composition comprising 5 wt.% CO2 (Example 20 of 75 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2) to 6 wt.% (Comparative Example 11 of 74 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 6 wt.% CO2) crosses the ASHRAE Standard 34 burning velocity safety rating of 10 cm/s of 9.93 cm/s with a A2L lower flammability rating (≤ 10 cm/s) to an A2 flammable rating (> 10 cm/s). ¶ 5 to 9 & 23 and Table 1. The declaration also presents Comparative Examples 12 and 13 (70 wt.% R-1234yf, 24 wt.% R-152a, and 6 wt.% CO2 and 66 wt.% R-1234yf, 28 wt.% R-152a, and 6 wt.% CO2, respectively) also outside the claimed range of 1-5 wt.% CO2 that have burning velocities above 10 cm/s and thus have the A2 flammable safety ratings. Id. The position in the declaration is that this shows the claimed composition has a qualitative, regulatory, and practical difference in its safety category, and that this abrupt transition from A2L to A2 from 5 wt.% CO2 to 6 wt.% CO2 could not have been predicted from the reference because the reference does not characterize the flammability behavior of ternary blends containing R-152a at any CO2 concentration and this is a function of the composition’s identity and proportions. ¶ 10, 11, & 23 to 25.
In response, after very careful consideration of the new data, these arguments and data are not persuasive to establish the results are unexpected, significant, and/or critical because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the probative value of data in the examples. The comparative data only shows the differences of 5 wt.% and 6 wt.% CO2 at one aspect of the claimed composition (75 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2 to 74 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 6 wt.%). However, as the claim includes compositions with 75-84 wt.% R-1234yf and 15-20 wt.% R-152a, there are several other 5 wt.% CO2 compositions encompassed by the claim:
76 wt.% R-1234yf, 19 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2;
77 wt.% R-1234yf, 18 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2;
78 wt.% R-1234yf, 17 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2,
79 wt.% R-1234yf, 16 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2; and
80 wt.% R-1234yf, 15 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2.
Applicant has not demonstrated the claimed upper boundary of 5 wt.% CO2 is critical at the higher concentrations of R-1234yf and lower corresponding concentrations of R-152a encompassed by the claim. A showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. Additionally, there is insufficient data to permit a person having ordinary skill in the art to ascertain there is a trend that extends across the breadth of the claimed concentration ranges within the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. Applicant has also not provided evidence and a reasoned argument explaining why the one tested edge case of 75 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a to 5 wt.% CO2 to 74 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 6 wt.% is representative of the full scope of the claimed composition at other 5 to 6 wt.% CO2 edge cases.
Additionally, the new comparative data, particularly the worst case fractionation for flammability (WCFF) compositions, reveal an interesting trend. As is known in the art, the claimed components each individually vary in their flammability; CO2 is non-flammable, R-1234yf is slightly flammable, and R-152a is (more) flammable. In examination of refrigerant patent applications, the Examiner routinely holds the position that combining a more-flammable compound (e.g., R-152a) with less flammable compounds (e.g., R-1234yf) and/or non-flammable compounds (e.g., CO2) yielding a composition that is less flammable than the more/most flammable compound (R-152a) is merely an expected beneficial result of their combination, and, when blending three compounds, such as the three claimed R-1234yf, R-152a, and CO2, one of ordinary skill in the art would very reasonably and predictably expect the final composition would contain a composite or net flammable intermediate of the three individual components. The comparative data confirms this intuitive position and seems to even go a step further.
While the Office understands a WCFF evaluation is to test an art standard worst case scenario of flammability, the WCFF compositions nevertheless omit the CO2 (i.e., omit the least flammable component) altogether such that flammability is tested for binary blends of slightly flammable R-1234yf and more flammable R-152a without CO2. The WCCF compositions remove at least a portion of the composition including all the CO2 and renormalize relative percentages for the remaining (flammable) R-1234yf and R-152a components. For example, Example 20 to 75 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 5 wt.% CO2 is shown to correspond to a WCFF composition of 61 vol.% R-1234yf and 39 vol.% R-152a with a burning velocity of 9.93 cm/s and the Comparative Example 11 to 74 wt.% R-1234yf, 20 wt.% R-152a, and 6 wt.% is shown to correspond to a WCFF composition of 60 vol.% R-1234yf and 40 vol.% R-152a with relatively more of the more-flammable R-152a resulting in a higher burning velocity of 10.10 cm/s. A trend continues in Comparative Examples 12 and 13 where burning velocity continues to increase as the R-152a concentration (in both the initial composition with CO2 and in the final WCFF when CO2 is omitted) increases and R-1234yf concentration (again, in both the initial composition with CO2 and in the final WCFF when CO2 is omitted) decreases. Provision of relatively larger concentrations of a more-flammable compound (e.g., R-152a) with a relatively smaller concentrations of a less flammable compound (e.g., R-1234yf) yielding compositions increasing in flammability is merely an expected beneficial result of providing an increasing concentration of the more-flammable compound.
In response to the declarant’s argument in ¶ 10, 23, & 24 of the declaration that the transition from A2L to A2 flammability ratings between 5 and 6 wt.% CO2 can not be predicted from Shankland et al., in addition to the rationale that the showing is not commensurate in scope and examples do not constitute a teaching away from broader/non-preferred embodiments in a reference (Id.), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. While Shankland et al. fail to quantify or teach their composition has a particular flammability rating, the flammability rating and/or burning velocity underpinning said rating would flow naturally from the teachings of the prior art reference because the cited teachings of the reference amount to a composition containing the same three components in amounts overlapping those claimed. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Also, the ability to absolutely predict a flammability rating transition with pin-point precision is not a requirement of a prima facie case of obviousness. Rather, a prima facie case of obviousness only requires some degree of predictability. There is indeed some degree of predictability as required for a prima facie case of obviousness for at least the following reasons
First, the rejection of record sets forth that at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formulate and arrive within a composition overlapping the claimed concentrations of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 1,1-difluoroethane, and carbon dioxide as claimed by providing HFC-152a as a co-refrigerant additive in the HFO-1234yf/CO2 composition from the cited teachings of the reference in order to obtain a refrigerant/heat transfer composition with a reasonable expectation of success. Following teachings of a reference, such as those cited, has some degree of predictably being successful as required for a prima facie case of obviousness.
Additionally, as proffered in the preceding pages of this section above, a combination of a more-flammable compound (e.g., R-152a) with less-flammable compounds (e.g., R-1234yf and CO2) yielding a composition that is less flammable than the more-flammable compound (HFO-1132(E) is merely an expected beneficial result of their combination, and, when blending three compounds, such as the three claimed R-1234yf, R-152a, and CO2, one of ordinary skill in the art would very reasonably and predictably expect the final composition would contain a composite or net flammable intermediate of the three individual components.
The Office also acknowledges the submission of the new heating and cooling performance data for Example 20 and Comparative Examples 11 to 13 and discussion thereof in ¶ 12 to 15, 23, & 24 of the declaration but maintains the rationale of record that relationships of some properties increase while others decrease or some properties improve at the at the expense of others at the varying concentrations (i.e., compressor outlet pressure generally increases as carbon dioxide and/or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene increases, compressor outlet temperature generally increases as carbon dioxide and/or 1,1-difluoroethane increases, and evaporator temperature glide generally increases as carbon dioxide increases) merely demonstrates trade-offs between the properties rather than amounting to a true showing of unexpected results. Also, because superiority alone is not sufficient to show that the result is unexpected, Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]ny superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness.”), Applicant has not provided evidence of the unexpected nature of the observed results.
The Office also acknowledges the reproduction of the prior data of record (Examples 1 to 21 and Comparative Examples 1 to 10) and explanation thereof in ¶ 16 to 22 of the declaration but maintains the positions thereof taken to that data in the previous Office action that this data is insufficient to withdraw the rejection of record. See pages 19 to 23 of the Non-Final Office action mailed 02/24/2026. Also, the new points set forth above regarding the new data additionally apply (combining a more-flammable compound with a less flammable compound(s) yielding a composition that is less flammable than the more/most flammable compound is merely an expected beneficial result of their combination, the WCFF compositions lack CO2 and demonstrate compositions with increasing amounts of R-152a [a flammable component more flammable than the remaining R-1234yf] expectedly have an increase in flammability, relationships of some properties increase while others decrease or some properties improve at the at the expense of others at the varying concentrations merely demonstrates trade-offs between the properties rather than amounting to a true showing of unexpected results, superiority alone is not sufficient to show that the result is unexpected, etc.).
Any of Applicant’s arguments set forth in the present remarks that are based on the declaration are also not persuasive for the same reasons that the declaration is insufficient to withdraw the 103 rejection.
In view of the foregoing, the rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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./
August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights