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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 13, 15, and 34-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens et al. (Bivens et al, “Performance of R-32/R-125/R134a Mixtures in Systems With Accumulators or Flooded Evaporators”,1997,ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 103, 777-780 (Year: 1997), previously cited) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0017742, “Tsuchiya” , previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Bivens discloses a method for replacing R-22 refrigerant in flooded evaporator refrigeration systems comprising:
Providing a flooded evaporator refrigeration system that uses a first lubricant (page 778, col 1, lines 30-32),
wherein the refrigeration system comprising a flooded evaporator is a chiller (see page 779, col 1, lines 25-40),
replacing a first lubricant with a second lubricant, wherein the first lubricant is a mineral oil and the second lubricant is a polyol ester (POE) (page 778, col 1, lines 30-32);
recovering the R-22 refrigerant from the system and charging with a non- azeotropic refrigerant (page 778, col 1, lines 30-32).
However, Bivens does not explicitly disclose wherein the composition is selected from the group consisting of R-448A, R-449A, R-452A, R-454B, and R-454A. Tsuchiya, however, discloses a refrigeration system (fig 1) which may be a chiller (¶0036) and wherein a composition in the evaporator is selected from the group consisting of R-448A, R-449A, R-452A, R-454B, and R-454A (¶0033). Tsuchiya teaches that these refrigerants offer lower global warming potential that traditional refrigerants (¶0002-0005). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Bivens to have the composition be selected from R-448A, R-449A, R-452A, R-454B, and R-454A in order to reduce the global warming impact of the system.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens does not explicitly disclose wherein the chiller is used for providing industrial or commercial air conditioning, cooling of industrial manufacturing processes, cold storage, food or pharmaceutical preparation, processing or preservation by cooling or freezing, or freezing an ice rink floor. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that these applications are old and well known in the art of refrigeration and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Bivens, as modified, to provide the Chiller in one of these applications.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, further discloses wherein the non-azeotropic composition is R- 448A (¶0033, Tsuchiya).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, further discloses wherein the non-azeotropic composition is R-R- 449A (¶0033, Tsuchiya).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, further discloses wherein the non-azeotropic composition is R-R- 452A (¶0033, Tsuchiya).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, further discloses wherein the non-azeotropic composition is R-R- 454B (¶0033, Tsuchiya).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, further discloses wherein the non-azeotropic composition is R- R- 454A (¶0033, Tsuchiya).
5. Claim(s) 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens and Tsuchiya as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lenko (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0125108, previously cited).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Bivens and Tsuchiya discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, further discloses wherein the chiller for cooling a heat transfer fluid that transports the cooling to a remote location for chilling (as this is an inherent function of a chiller). However, Bivens as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat transfer fluid being an aqueous brine solution or a glycol. Lenko, however, discloses a method of cooling (fig 1) wherein a chiller for cooling a heat transfer fluid transports the cooling to a remote location for chilling (¶0031), the heat transfer fluid being a glycol (¶0032). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Bivens, as modified, to provide glycol as the heat transfer fluid in order to efficiently transfer the heat.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Bivens, Tsuchiya, and Lenko discloses all previous claim limitations. Bivens, as modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooled heat transfer fluid is used for freezing an ice rink floor. Lenko, however, discloses a method of cooling wherein the cooled heat transfer fluid is used for freezing an ice rink floor (¶0031). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Bivens, as modified, to have the chiller freeze an ice rink floor such as taught by Lenko in order to efficiently utilize the system.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pages 2-3) that Bivens (lines 30-32, column 2 of page 778) does not disclose a flooded evaporator refrigeration system as indicated by the Office Action. The above citation was made erroneously, however, Bivens teaches wherein the flood evaporator being a chiller in page 779, col 1, lines 20-39.
Applicant argues (page 3) that in Bivens the cited sections of lines 30-32, column 2 of page 778 and page 779, col 1, lines 20-39 are different embodiments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees; Bivens is not a patent publication and is not teaching embodiments of an invention, the citation of page 779, col 1, lines 20-39 is teaching the effects of a non- azeotropic refrigerant in a chiller.
Applicant argues (pages 3) that Tsuchiya does not teach the replacement of a refrigerant with a higher GWP with one of R-448A, R-449A, R-452A, R-454B, and R-454A which has a lower GWP. The Examiner respectfully disagrees; in paragraphs [0002-0005] Tsuchiya teaches that these refrigerants offer a lower GWP.
7. The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 7/14/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 13, 15, and 32-38 based upon the 103(a) rejection as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicant argues (pages 7-8) that the evidence provide with the Affidavit filed 7/14/2026 shows unexpected results in the performance of the refrigerant of the instant application relative to comparative examples. However, these results only show the results of R-454b, which is only 1 of 5 of the claimed refrigerants. Further, these results do not show how it would not be obvious for a known refrigerant to be used in a known refrigeration apparatus.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY E ARANT whose telephone number is (571)272-1105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571)270-7740. 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.
/HARRY E ARANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights