Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/814,488

NON-FLAMMABLE REFRIGERANTS WITH LOW GWP AND SECONDARY REFRIGERANT SYSTEMS INCLUDING SUCH REFRIGERANTS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Aug 24, 2024
Examiner
TADESSE, MARTHA
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Honeywell International Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
410 granted / 618 resolved
-3.7% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
657
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
53.2%
+13.2% vs TC avg
§102
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§112
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 618 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 calls for the limitation of “ASHRAE standard34 2022” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite due to the changing nature of the ASHRAE standard over time. Claim 3 calls for the limitation of “ASHRAE standard34 2022” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite due to the changing nature of the ASHRAE standard over time. Claim 7 calls for the limitation of “ASHRAE standard34 2022” which renders the scope of the claim indefinite due to the changing nature of the ASHRAE standard over time. Regarding claim 8, the phrase “said third component is present and comprises R245fa” in lines 3-4 of the claim is indefinite as third component comprises R245fa is not required of claim 7, from which claim 8 depends. Instead, third component comprises R245fa is only optional in the claim, therefore the metes and bounds of claim 8 have not been made clear. Regarding claim 9, the phrase “weight of R245fa” in line 5 of the claim is indefinite as third component comprises R245fa is not required of claim 7, from which claim 9 depends. Instead, third component comprises R245fa is only optional in the claim, therefore the metes and bounds of claim 8 have not been made clear. Regarding claim 10, the phrase “weight of R245fa” in line 5 of the claim is indefinite as third component comprises R245fa is not required of claim 7, from which claim 10 depends. Instead, third component comprises R245fa is only optional in the claim, therefore the metes and bounds of claim 8 have not been made clear. 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 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 of this title, 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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana Motta et al. (US 2022/0135859) in view of Kennoy et al. (US 2014/0070129) In regards to claim 1, Yana Motta discloses a refrigeration system (refer to par. 2) comprising a first refrigerant circuit (primary loop) comprising a first refrigerant (refer to par. 138); and a second refrigerant circuit (secondary loop) comprising a second refrigerant (refer to par. 138) which exchanges heat with said first refrigerant in said first refrigeration circuit (refer to par. 138), wherein the second refrigerant has: (i) a global warming potential (GWP) of not greater than 150 (refer to par. 24); (ii) full evaporator glide of less than 5.6°C (refer to par. 17); (iii) non-flammability according to ASHRAE Standard 34 2022 (refer to par. 29) Yana Motta fails to explicitly teaches wherein the second refrigerant comprises cis-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(Z)), trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)), and 1233ZD(e) and has: (iv) a normal boiling point of not greater than 6.3°C. Kennoy teaches wherein the second refrigerant comprises cis-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(Z)), trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)), and 1233ZD(e) (refer to pars. 108 and 110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yana Motta such that the second refrigerant comprises cis-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(Z)), trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)), and 1233ZD(e) as taught by Kennoy in order to reduce risk of flammability which are useful as refrigerants, heat transfer fluids while providing beneficially very low GWP and a very low ozone depletion potential (refer to pars. 1-3 of Kennoy). In regards to the claim that (iv) a normal boiling point of not greater than 6.3°C, Yana Motta teaches a saturation temperature of the refrigerant is about 1°C to about 3°C, temperature at which a liquid refrigerant boils into vapor at a given pressure (see paragraphs 17 and 30). Therefore, a normal boiling point of the second refrigerant is recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is achieving an unexpectedly small change in refrigerant temperature through the evaporator and utilizing and achieving highly efficient heat exchanger design (par. 17). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. having the low saturation temperature of the refrigerant and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by Yana Motta, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Yana Motta, by setting the second refrigerant having a normal boiling point of not greater than 6.3°C. In regards to claim 2, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Yana Motta teaches wherein: (i) the first refrigerant circuit further comprises a condenser, an expansion device, a compressor, and an intermediate heat exchanger (refer to pars. 105, 138 and 163); and (ii) the second refrigerant circuit further comprises a receiver, an evaporator, and said intermediate heat exchanger (refer to pars. 105 and 138). In regards to claim 4, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Yana Motta teaches wherein said first refrigerant (primary refrigerant) comprises from 10 wt.% to 30 wt.% difluoromethane (R32) and from 70 wt.% to 90 wt.% 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf) (refer to pars. 345 and 389). In regards to claim 5, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 1. Further, Kennoy teaches wherein said second refrigerant further comprises R245fa (refer to pars. 108 and 110). In regards to claim 6, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 5. Further, Kennoy teaches wherein said second refrigerant consists essentially of said cis-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(Z)), trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)), 1233ZD(e) and R245fa (refer to pars. 108 and 110). In regards to claim 7, Yana Motta discloses a refrigerant comprising: (a) a first component comprising one or more of cis-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(Z)) and trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)) (refer to par. 138); (b) a second component comprising one or more of trans-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene (R1336mzz(E)), R1224yd(Z), and R1233zd(E) (refer to par. 138); and (c) optionally a third component comprising at least one of R134a, R245fa and R227ea, wherein said secondary refrigerant has: (i) a global warming potential (GWP) of not greater than 150 (refer to par. 24); (ii) full evaporator glide of not greater than about 5.5°C (refer to par. 17); (iii) non-flammability according to ASHRAE Standard 34 2022 (refer to par. 29); but fails to explicitly teach (iv) a normal boiling point of not greater than about 6°C. Yana Motta however does teach a saturation temperature of the refrigerant is about 1°C to about 3°C, temperature at which a liquid refrigerant boils into vapor at a given pressure (see paragraphs 17 and 30). Therefore, a normal boiling point of the second refrigerant is recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is achieving an unexpectedly small change in refrigerant temperature through the evaporator and utilizing and achieving highly efficient heat exchanger design (par. 17). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. having the low saturation temperature of the refrigerant and design factors involved, were disclosed in the prior art by Yana Motta, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range or value by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify Yana Motta, by setting the second refrigerant having a normal boiling point of not greater than 6.3°C. In regards to claim 8, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 7. Further, Kennoy teaches wherein: (a) said first component comprises cis-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(Z)) and trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234ze(E)) (refer to par. 108 and 110); (b) said second component comprises R1233zd(E) (refer to par. 108 and 110); and (c) said third component is present and comprises R245fa (refer to par. 108 and 110). In regards to claim 9, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach the specific percentages recited (at least about 95% by weight of the following four components, with each compound being present in the following relative percentages: (a) from about 20% to about 70% by weight of R1234ze(Z); (b) from about 7% to about 15% by weight of R1234ze(E); (c) from about 9% to about 52% by weight of R1234zd(Z); and (d) from about 3% to about 5% by weight of R245fa. First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the mixture in Yana Motta et al. as the replacement mixture of Kennoy et al. for the purpose of taking advantage of decreasing the flammability of the compositions (par. 26). Second, while Kennoy et al. does not teach the particular percentages recited, it does teach utilizing the same mixture of compounds 95 wt% to 99.996 wt% trans-HCFO-1233zd containing approximately: 0.1 wt % HFO-1234ze and 0.1% HFC-245fa (par. 108). Arriving at particular component percentages is considered a simple matter of result effective variables that could have been easily arrived at through routine experimentation and that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the purposes of optimizing refrigerant performance and decreasing the flammability of the compositions. In regards to claim 10, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach the specific percentages recited (at least about 95% by weight of the following four components, with each compound being present in the following relative percentages: (a) from about 20% to about 70% by weight of R1234ze(Z); (b) from about 7% to about 15% by weight of R1234ze(E); (c) from about 9% to about 52% by weight of R1234zd(Z); and (d) from about 3% to about 5% by weight of R245fa. First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the mixture in Yana Motta et al. as the replacement mixture of Kennoy et al. for the purpose of taking advantage of decreasing the flammability of the compositions (par. 26). Second, while Kennoy et al. does not teach the particular percentages recited, it does teach utilizing the same mixture of compounds 95 wt% to 99.996 wt% trans-HCFO-1233zd containing approximately: 0.1 wt % HFO-1234ze and 0.1% HFC-245fa (par. 108). Arriving at particular component percentages is considered a simple matter of result effective variables that could have been easily arrived at through routine experimentation and that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the purposes of optimizing refrigerant performance and decreasing the flammability of the compositions. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yana Motta et al. (US 2022/0135859) in view of Kennoy et al. (US 2014/0070129), further in view of TAYLOR (US 2015/0152986). In regards to claim 3, Yana Motta as modified meets the claim limitations as disclosed above in the rejection of claim 2. Further, Yana Motta teaches wherein the first refrigerant and second refrigerant are “A1” (non-flammable and low toxicity) according to ASHRAE Standard 34-2022 Designation and Safety Classification of Refrigerants and described in Appendix B1 to ASHRAE Standard 34-2022.21 (refer to pars. 17, 29 and 31), but fails to explicitly teach wherein the higher temperature refrigerant circuit and lower temperature refrigerant circuit further comprise connecting lines comprising polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and wherein the connecting lines are operated under positive pressure. TAYLOR teaches wherein the higher temperature refrigerant circuit and lower temperature refrigerant circuit further comprise connecting lines comprising polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and wherein the connecting lines are operated under positive pressure (refer to par. 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Yana Motta such that the higher temperature refrigerant circuit and lower temperature refrigerant circuit further comprise connecting lines comprising polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and wherein the connecting lines are operated under positive pressure as taught by TAYLOR in order to advantageously resist high pressure and temperature, thus increase the efficiency of a system within which the connector (refer to par. 2 of TAYLOR). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTHA TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-0590. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M.T/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584684
Refrigerator
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571547
Hybrid Geothermal, Air Source, Water Source Systems
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12539789
COOLING CONTROL APPARATUS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12540753
Ducted Type Air Conditioner
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12535255
CONTAINER FOR PHASE-CHANGE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+15.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 618 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month