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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 30 August 2024. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-14, 17, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Peng (US-20210040368-A1).
With regard to claim 1, Peng teaches a composition comprising 99.7 wt. % HFO-1234yf, 1,000 ppm HFO-1234ze, 150 ppm HFO-1225yez, and 3 ppm trifluoropropyne, with the balance consisting of compounds that do not adversely affect refrigeration performance or inhibitor activity, alongside 50 ppm of a d-limonene inhibitor and 3,300 ppm of an air initiator (para., Table 4, Example 1). This disclosure anticipates the claimed composition, which requires at least one fluoroolefin comprising:
a) HFO-1234yf;
b) an effective amount of at least one oligomerization/homopolymerization inhibitor; and
c) one or more components selected from (i) air, (ii) trifluoropropyne, and (iii) HFO-1234ze and HFO-1225yez, while remaining substantially free of oligomeric, homopolymeric, or other polymeric products.
With regard to claim 3, Peng teaches that the refrigerant composition may further comprise at least one component selected from the group consisting of air, oxygen, cumene hydroperoxide, fluoroolefin polyperoxides, peroxides, hydroperoxides, persulfates, percarbonates, perborates, and hydropersulfates (para [0023]).
With regard to claim 4, Peng teaches that the inhibitor comprises limonene (para [0002]).
With regard to claim 5, Peng teaches that the refrigerant composition comprises at least one lubricant (Abstract).
With regard to claim 6, Peng teaches that the refrigerant compositions wherein the fluorolefin comprises at least one member of HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze (para [0025]).
With regard to claim 7, Peng discloses that the refrigerant composition further comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of: HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HFC-227ea, and carbon dioxide (para. [0026]); alternatively, HFC-134a, HFO-1243zf, HFO-1225ye, HFO-1234ze, 3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propyne, HCFO-1233xf, HFC-244bb, and HFC-245cb (para. [0027]); alternatively, HCC-40, HCFC-22, CFC-115, HCFC-124, HCFC-1122, and CFC-1113 (para. [0028]); or alternatively, HFO-1225yeZ, HFO-1243zf, HFO-1234ze, HFC-236ea, HFC-245fa, and 3,3,3-trifluoropropyne (para. [0034]).
With regard to claim 10, Peng teaches refrigerant compositions wherein the inhibitor is present in an amount of about 50ppm (Table 4), which falls in the claimed range.
With regard to claim 11, Peng teaches that the antioxidant comprise at least one member selected from the group consisting of butylated hydroxytoluene, butylated hydroxyanisole, tertiary-butylhydroquinone, gallate, 2-phenyl-2-propanol, 1-(2,4,5-trihydroxyphenyl)-1-butaone, bisphenol methane derivatives, 2,2′-methylene bis (4-methyl-6-t-butyl phenol) (para [0016]).
With regard to claim 13, Peng teaches that the inhibitor is present in a liquid (para [0002]).
With regard to claim 14, Peng teaches that the refrigerant compositions further comprising at least one antioxidant (para [0033]).
With regard to claim 17, Peng teaches that the refrigerant compositions wherein the composition is substantially free of at least one of ammonia and CF3I (para [0036]).
With regard to claim 28, Peng discloses a refrigerant composition comprising 99.7 wt.% HFO-1234yf, 1,000 ppm HFO-1234ze, 150 ppm HFO-1225yez, 3 ppm trifluoropropyne, 50 ppm d-limonene (acting as an inhibitor), and 3,300 ppm air (acting as an initiator), with the balance being compounds that do not adversely impact refrigeration performance or inhibitor activity (see para, Table 4, Example 1). This disclosure anticipates the claimed composition, which requires: (i) approximately 99.5 weight percent of HFO-1234yf; (ii) at least one additional refrigerant; and (iii) an effective amount of at least one oligomerization/homopolymerization inhibitor, such as limonene.
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.
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.
Claims 12, 18-19, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US-20210040368-A1) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 11, 13-14, 17, and 28 above, and further in view of Sato (US-5798054-A).
The teachings of Peng is disclosed above.
With regard to claims 12 and 18-19, Peng does not teach the inhibitor comprises meta, ortho, or para- xylene.
In the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches a refrigerant composition comprising ozone-friendly freon substitutes, including hydrogen-containing halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerants. Specifically, Sato identifies chlorodifluoromethane (R22, HCFC-22, CHClF2), 2,2-dichloro-
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (R123, HCFC-123, CF3CHCl2), 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (R141b, HCFC-141b, CCl2FCH3), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R134a, HFC-134a, CF3CH2F), difluoroethane (R152a, HFC-152a, CHF2CH3), and mixtures thereof (col. 1, lines 30–38).
Furthermore, Sato teaches the inclusion of a solvent, such as p-xylene or o-xylene to yield a product that exhibits a high viscosity index and maintains compatibility with the alternative freon refrigerants across a wide temperature range ((col. 3, lines 54–62 and col. 12, lines 58–62).
With regard to the p-xylene or o-xylene, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Peng in view of Sato. Specifically, to incorporate para-xylene or ortho-xylene as established in Sato. Sato would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ p-xylene to yield a product characterized by high viscosity and compatibility with refrigerants across a wide range of temperatures (col 12, lines 58-62). The reference collectively teaches refrigerant compositions comprising refrigerants. It is noted that a prima facie of obviousness does not require the solution of the same problem or recognition of the same advantages as applicant’s invention. In re Dillion, 16 USPQ 2nd 1987. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable results of modification because Peng can be provided with refrigerants of the following. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify these known elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve the recognized properties established in Sato.
With regard to claim 32, Peng does not explicitly teach the specified pair of inhibitors. However, Peng teaches a refrigerant composition comprising an effective amount of at least one inhibitors wherein the inhibitor is a hydrocarbon comprising at least one cyclic monoterpenes and mixtures thereof. Peng further teaches that the composition may comprise additional hydrocarbon components, such as propane, n-butane, and isobutane (paragraphs [0018] and [0106]). Additionally, Peng discloses alternative inhibitor mixtures—such as d-limonene combined with butylated hydroxytoluene—at lower concentrations (200 ppm) (Table 4, continued).
With regard to the paired inhibitor, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the inhibitor of Peng. Specifically, to a combination of hydrocarbons such as β-terpene/propane. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable results of modification because Peng can be provided with hydrocarbon inhibitors that can be effectively formulated in mixtures within an functional concentration range. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify these known elements, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US-20210040368-A1) in view of Sato (US-5798054-A).
With regard to claim 2, Peng discloses a composition comprising 99.7 wt.% HFO-1234yf, 1,000 ppm HFO-1234ze, 150 ppm HFO-1225yez, and 3 ppm trifluoropropyne (para., Table 4, Example 1). The balance of this mixture consists of compounds that do not adversely affect either the refrigeration performance of the mixture or the activity of the components, which include 50 ppm of a d-limonene inhibitor and 3,300 ppm of an air initiator.
This disclosure reads directly upon the claimed composition, specifically the following elements:
i) HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze, as expressly quantified in Example 1.
iii) An oligomerization inhibitor, represented by the 50 ppm d-limonene component.
iv) An additional HFO and air component, satisfied by the 150 ppm HFO-1225yez and 3,300 ppm air initiator, respectively.
Furthermore, Peng teaches that this composition can be blended with at least one hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) selected from the group consisting of HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HFC-236fa, and HFC-227ea, and may optionally be combined with carbon dioxide (para. [0115]). This disclosure reads upon element ii) a C1 and/or C2 hydrofluorocarbon, and optionally carbon dioxide.
However, Peng does not teach the specified oligomerization inhibitor.
In the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches a refrigerant composition comprising ozone-friendly freon substitutes, including hydrogen-containing halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerants. Specifically, Sato identifies chlorodifluoromethane (R22, HCFC-22, CHClF2), 2,2-dichloro-
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (R123, HCFC-123, CF3CHCl2), 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (R141b, HCFC-141b, CCl2FCH3), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R134a, HFC-134a, CF3CH2F), difluoroethane (R152a, HFC-152a, CHF2CH3), and mixtures thereof (col. 1, lines 30–38).
Furthermore, Sato teaches the inclusion of a solvent, such as p-xylene or o-xylene to yield a product that exhibits a high viscosity index and maintains compatibility with the alternative freon refrigerants across a wide temperature range ((col. 3, lines 54–62 and col. 12, lines 58–62).
With regard to the p-xylene or o-xylene, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Peng in view of Sato. Specifically, to incorporate para-xylene or ortho-xylene as established in Sato. Sato would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ p-xylene to yield a product characterized by high viscosity and compatibility with refrigerants across a wide range of temperatures (col 12, lines 58-62). The reference collectively teaches refrigerant compositions comprising refrigerants. It is noted that a prima facie of obviousness does not require the solution of the same problem or recognition of the same advantages as applicant’s invention. In re Dillion, 16 USPQ 2nd 1987. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable results of modification because Peng can be provided with refrigerants of the following. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify these known elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve the recognized properties established in Sato.
Claim 24-27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (EP-3461871-B1) in view of Sato (US-5798054-A).
With regard to claim 24, Rao discloses a composition comprising trans-HFC-1234ze and HFC-1234yf within a weight ratio of 1–99 to 99–1 (Table 2). Rao further teaches that refrigeration system additives—such as lubricants, inhibitors, free radical scavengers, stabilizers, antioxidants, and tracers—may optionally be added to enhance lubricity and system stability (paras. [0033]–[0036]). These additives are disclosed at a concentration of 0.1 to 3 wt.% each, a range that overlaps with the concentration effective to inhibit the stabilized blend of the present invention.
Rao does not teach the specified free radical scavenger.
In the same field of endeavor, Sato teaches a refrigerant composition comprising ozone-friendly freon substitutes, including hydrogen-containing halogenated hydrocarbon refrigerants. Specifically, Sato identifies chlorodifluoromethane (R22, HCFC-22, CHClF2), 2,2-dichloro-
1,1,1-trifluoroethane (R123, HCFC-123, CF3CHCl2), 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (R141b, HCFC-141b, CCl2FCH3), 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (R134a, HFC-134a, CF3CH2F), difluoroethane (R152a, HFC-152a, CHF2CH3), and mixtures thereof (col. 1, lines 30–38).
Furthermore, Sato teaches the inclusion of a solvent, such as p-xylene or o-xylene to yield a product that exhibits a high viscosity index and maintains compatibility with the alternative freon refrigerants across a wide temperature range ((col. 3, lines 54–62 and col. 12, lines 58–62).
With regard to the p-xylene or o-xylene, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Rao in view of Sato. Specifically, to incorporate para-xylene as established in Sato. Rao would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ additives such as a free radical scavenger to enhance lubricity and stability of the composition (para [0033]). Sato would guide one having ordinary skill in the art to employ p-xylene to yield a product characterized by high viscosity and compatibility with refrigerants across a wide range of temperatures (col 12, lines 58-62). The reference collectively teach refrigerant compositions comprising refrigerants. It is noted that a prima facie of obviousness does not require the solution of the same problem or recognition of the same advantages as applicant’s invention. In re Dillion, 16 USPQ 2nd 1987. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable results of modification because Rao can be provided with refrigerants of the following. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify these known elements, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve the recognized properties established in Sato.
With regard to claim 25, Rao teaches an azeotropic or near azeotropic composition comprising a composition selected from about 1 weight percent to about 99 weight percent HFC-1234yf and about 99 weight percent to about 1 weight percent trans-HFC-1234ze (Table 2), which overlaps the claimed range.
With regard to claims 26-27, Rao teaches an additive concentration range of less than 0.1 wt. % to 3 wt. % (para. [0033]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
As stated above, the combined teachings of Rao and Sato teaches the xylene.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 October 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights