DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s reply and request for continued examination (RCE), filed 30 January 2026 in response to the Final Office action mailed 31 October 2025, has been entered and fully considered. As per Applicant’s filed claim amendments claim 1-8 and 10-18 are pending, wherein: claims 1, 8, 10 and 15-16 have been amended, claims 2-7 and 11-14 are as previously presented, claim 9 has been cancelled, and claims 17-18 are new.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 15-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the as-amended recitation of tested ‘under different environmental conditions’ renders the claim indefinite as such is a relative term that is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This includes claims 16-17 as they depend from claim 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (US PGPub 2004/0123608) in view of Singh et al. (US PGPub 2002/0121623).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Kamimura teaches non-azeotropic refrigerant mixtures, suitable for use in refrigerating devices, comprising 20 to 80 mass% carbon dioxide and a remainder of a least one kind of combustible refrigerant of the HFC series, where the non-combustible carbon dioxide improves the safety of the combustible refrigerant by effectively reducing the combustibility of the refrigerant, while also maintaining a high COP and allowing for use in large systems with high absolute capacity that the refrigerant would otherwise not be suitable for use in (abstract; [0031]; [0032]). Kamimura teaches that HFC series combustible refrigerants include R-32 (instant difluoromethane) ([0022]). The teaching of 20 to 80 mass% carbon dioxide substantially overlaps with and renders taught ‘higher than 50 mass%’ (claim 1), between 50 and 75 mass% (claim 2) and between 67 and 70 mass% (claim 3).
Kamimura is silent to the inclusion of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. However, Singh teaches non-azeotropic refrigerant mixtures (abstract; [0015]) comprising a first component of difluoromethane (HFC-32) ([0017]), a second component of carbon dioxide ([0018]), and a third component of 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)([0019]; Table 2 ex 35; claims 1, 7 and 8 at pg5-6). Singh teaches that the flammability of HFC-32, an otherwise environmentally acceptable refrigerant, limits its use but can be overcome by blending with HFC-134a and by further blending with an additional nonflammable component, i.e. carbon dioxide, in order to completely eliminate flammability in both the liquid and leaked vapors ([0013]-[0014]; [0018]-[0017]; [0031]). Singh and Kamimura are analogous art and are combinable because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely non-azeotropic refrigerants comprising difluoromethane in combination with nonflammables, including carbon dioxide, with the aim of reducing combustibility/flammability. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the HFC-134a of Singh in the composition of Kamimura and would have been motivated to do so as Kamimura teaches the combination of carbon dioxide and difluoromethane to reduce the combustibility of the latter and further as Singh teaches also including HFC-134a to carbon dioxide and difluoromethane combinations allows for the complete elimination of flammability of the difluoromethane in both the liquid and leaked vapors.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 12-13, Kamimura in view of Singh renders obvious the composition as set forth in claims 1-3 above. It is noted that Kamimura teaches the carbon dioxide is present from 20 to 80 mass% of the refrigerant composition.
Kamimura does not specifically teach the flammable HFC, i.e. R-32 (difluoromethane), is present between 9 and 19 mass% (claim 5) or at 12 mass% (claim 13) and does not teach 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane present between 12.5 and 22 mass% (claim 4) or at 19 mass% (claim 12). Singh renders obvious the combination of difluoromethane, carbon dioxide and HFC-134a as set forth above. Singh further teaches about 10 to 90 wt% of the flammable first component difluoromethane and teaches about 1 to 50 wt% of the flammability-reducing third component HFC-134a ([0015]), wherein relative amounts of HFC-32 in combination with HFC-134a can be adjusted so that the mixture remains nonflammable in all proportions of air ([0037]-[0038]). As such, Singh teaches ranges of HFC-32 and HFC-134a that substantially overlap with and render taught the respective claimed ranges of difluoromethane and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the relative amounts taught by Singh in order to obtain a composition of Kamimura that remains nonflammable in all proportions of air when in both liquid form and in the case of leaked vapors.
It is further/alternatively noted with respect to instant claims 12-13: that Singh teaches the relative amounts of HFC-32 and HFC-134a as result-effective variables to obtain completely nonflammable refrigerant blends. Where, experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of HFC-32 and HFC-134a of Singh, within the remainder range of Kamimura, and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a desired elimination of flammability. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claim 7, Kamimura in view of Singh render obvious the refrigerant composition as set forth in claim 1 above and Kamimura further teaches refrigerating devices utilizing the non-azeotropic refrigerant mixture, including refrigerating cycles, air-conditioners, household refrigerators, large devices, etc. (abstract; [0033]-[0042]). Kamimura teaches refrigerating cycles of Figure 3 having a compressor, a cooler, an expansion mechanism, an evaporator, a four-way valve, and a drying device all sequentially connected by a refrigerant path (refrigerant pipes) ([0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Kamimura in view of Singh renders obvious the composition as set forth in claims 1-3 above. It is noted that Kamimura teaches the carbon dioxide is present from 20 to 80 mass% of the refrigerant composition.
Kamimura does not specifically teach 69 mass%, however Kamimura teaches a range that encompasses such, wherein selection of any value within is held suitable by Kamimura to obtain a refrigerant composition with effectively reduced combustibility. As such, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of carbon dioxide within the preferred range of Kamimura and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a desired COP, temperature glide property, and reduction in combustibility ([0031]; [0032]). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claim 14, Kamimura in view of Singh renders obvious the composition as set forth in claims 1 and 6 above. It is noted that Kamimura teaches the carbon dioxide is present from 20 to 80 mass% of the refrigerant composition.
Kamimura does not specifically teach the flammable HFC, i.e. R-32 (difluoromethane), is present at 12 mass% and does not teach 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane present at 19 mass%. Singh renders obvious the combination of difluoromethane, carbon dioxide and HFC-134a as set forth above. Singh further teaches about 10 to 90 wt% of the flammable first component difluoromethane and teaches about 1 to 50 wt% of the flammability-reducing third component HFC-134a ([0015]), wherein relative amounts of HFC-32 in combination with HFC-134a can be adjusted so that the mixture remains nonflammable in all proportions of air ([0037]-[0038]). As such, Singh teaches ranges of HFC-32 and HFC-134a that substantially overlap with and render taught the respective claimed ranges of difluoromethane and 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the relative amounts taught by Singh in order to obtain a composition of Kamimura that remains nonflammable in all proportions of air when in both liquid form and in the case of leaked vapors.
Singh teaches the noted range of carbon dioxide of from 20 to 80 mass% of the refrigerant composition and as such substantially overlaps with and renders obvious the values falling within that range including the instantly claimed 69 mass% carbon dioxide. It is further/alternatively noted with respect to the instant claim: i) that Kamimura teaches selection of the carbon dioxide as any value within the range as suitbale to obtain a refrigerant composition with effectively reduced combustibility and ii) that Singh teaches the relative amounts of HFC-32 and HFC-134a as result-effective variables to obtain completely nonflammable refrigerant blends. Wherein, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to: i) optimize the amount of carbon dioxide within the preferred range of Kamimura and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a desired COP, temperature glide property, and reduction in combustibility ([0031]; [0032]); and ii) optimize the amount of HFC-32 and HFC-134a of Singh, within the remainder range of Kamimura, and would have been motivated to do so in order to obtain a desired elimination of flammability. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claim 18, Kamimura in view of Singh renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 1 above. Kamimura is silent as to the GWP of the composition. However, Kamimura, and Kamimura in view of Singh, render the composition, comprising a combination of greater than 50 mass% carbon dioxide with 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane and difluoromethane, obvious as set forth above. The instant specification states that such a composition will have a GWP of less than 380 (instant original specification, pg7 ln16-18). 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “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.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Claims 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (US PGPub 2004/0123608) in view of Singh et al. (US PGPub 2002/0121623) as set forth in claim 7 and further in view of Otake et al. (US PGPub 2010/0300135) as evidenced by Bissell (WO 2019/171087 A2).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 15-16, Kamimura in view of Singh renders obvious the refrigerating devices utilizing the non-azeotropic refrigerant mixture as noted in claims 1 and 7 above, incorporated here by reference (claim 1 rejection meeting also claim 16), and refrigerating cycles utilizing such mixtures. Kamimura teaches refrigerating cycles, air-conditioners, household refrigerators, large devices, etc. (abstract; [0033]-[0042]). Kamimura teaches the refrigeration cycle set forth above and further teaches modification by inclusion of auxiliary heat exchange, serial arrangements, etc. ([0042]-[0044]).
Kamimura does not specifically teach coupling to a second refrigeration device as recited. However, Otake teaches refrigeration apparatus systems comprising an arranged loop of a first refrigeration cycle having a first refrigerant successively coupled to a second refrigeration cycle having a second refrigerant (abstract; [0011]). Otake teaches the first refrigerant is selected from R404A, other fluorocarbon type refrigerants, or natural refrigerants including carbon dioxide, etc. ([0035]) and teaches the second refrigerant is carbon dioxide or other refrigerants ([0045]). Otake further teaches the first refrigeration cycle is a closed circuit and comprises a compressor, a radiator, cycle circuit side flow paths, a supercooler, a high-pressure side flow path, a heat exchanger, a strainer, an expansion valve, a pressure-reducing device, an evaporator, and an accumulator ([0035]) and teaches the second refrigeration cycle is a closed circuit and comprises a compressor, a radiator, an expansion valve, a pressure-reducing device, a supercooler, an accumulator, and cycle circuit side flow paths ([0044]), and teaches that heat exchange occurs between the first and second cycles via the second cycle evaporator ([0050]). Otake and Kamimura are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely refrigeration devices and cycles utilizing carbon dioxide refrigerants. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a second loop circuit as taught by Otake in the refrigerant cycle/device of Kamimura and would have been motivated to do so as Kamimura is expressly open to modification of additional arrangements for air conditioner cycles and large and small refrigeration cycles and further as Otake teaches the coupled system having two circuit loops allows for enhanced refrigeration cycle and cooling efficiency as well as energy saving ([0009]).
As noted, Otake teaches that the first refrigerant is selected from R404A or other fluorocarbon type refrigerants such as R407, R134a, or the like ([0035]). Otake teaches selection of known commercially available fluorocarbon type refrigerants including R404A or similar known products but does not specifically teach R449A or R452A. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the commonly known and commercially available commercial refrigerants and arrive at the instant invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The evidentiary reference of Bissell demonstrates that R404A, R407, R449A, R452A, and R134a are commonly well-known, commercially available and equivalent fluorocarbon refrigerants for refrigerator apparatus applications (pg7 Table).
As noted above Kamimura teaches refrigerating cycles, air-conditioners, household refrigerators, large devices, etc. (abstract; [0033]-[0042]). Kamimura further teaches refrigeration devices like household refrigerators comprising freezing storage compartments and/or cold storage compartments ([0039]). The freezing and cold storage compartments of a household refrigerator are readable over an environmentally controlled chamber having an insulated space, and as such any items commonly stored within a household freezer or refrigerator space can be considered an ‘inserted specimen’ which is ‘testable’ as claimed under ‘different environmental conditions’ as claimed such as the working temperature range of the apparatus, including common/normal parts of a refrigerator such as shelves, hinges, drawers, etc. readable over “mechanical body specimens”. It is further noted that the recitation of ‘to be tested’ is one of intended use and does not confer patentability to the claims since the recitation of an intended use does not impart patentability to otherwise old compounds or compositions (see In re Tuominen, 671 F.2d 1359, 213 USPQ 89 (CCPA 1982)). Furthermore, the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim(s) to that product patentable (see In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ 2d 1429, (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding claim 17, Kamimura in view of Singh and Otake renders obvious the composition as set forth in claim 15 above. Kamimura is silent as to the GWP of the composition or the composition ‘adapted to attain’ a temperature of below -57°C. However, Kamimura, and Kamimura in view of Singh, render the refrigerant composition, comprising a combination of greater than 50 mass% carbon dioxide with 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane and difluoromethane, obvious as set forth above. The instant specification states that such a composition will have a GWP of less than 380 and is capable of attaining a temperature of well below -57°C (instant original specification, pg7 ln13-18). 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 (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “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.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 10 and 15-16 as previously set forth are withdrawn. Note the new 112(b) rejection(s) set forth above as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-14 as unpatentable over Kamimura (US PGPub 2004/0123608) in view of Singh (US PGPub 2002/0121623) is maintained. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 7-11) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues [A] that one of ordinary skill would not modify Kamimura with Singh (Remarks, pages 7-9). Applicant present arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kamimura “takes great pains” to provide a “very specific formulation” and points to the Tables (examples). Applicant again attempts to limit the disclosure of Kamimura to the examples only. This argument remains both unpersuasive and improper. Kamimura teaches a broader disclosure with as much emphasis as the examples Applicant relies solely upon. Kamimura is not limited to the examples and the examples do not serve to negate the broader disclosure. It is noted that 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 (see MPEP 2123; see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.); see Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments (see In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)).
Applicant again reduced the rejection to an allegation of merely ‘being combinable’ and again ignores the rejection as a whole. Applicant repeats the blatantly incorrect statement that the Examiner fails to establish a motivation and has not provided a reason to combine the references. The Examiner once again notes that such a rational was in fact provided (see above; see below; see the non-final Office action of 4/23/2025; see the Final Office action of 10/31/2025) in the very next sentence following the statement of analogous and combinable art.
Provided here for Applicant’s edification and ease of reading: as stated both above and in the prior Office action on pages 4-5:
Singh and Kamimura are analogous art and are combinable because they are both concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely non-azeotropic refrigerants comprising difluoromethane in combination with nonflammables, including carbon dioxide, with the aim of reducing combustibility/flammability. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the HFC-134a of Singh in the composition of Kamimura and would have been motivated to do so as Kamimura teaches the combination of carbon dioxide and difluoromethane to reduce the combustibility of the latter and further as Singh teaches also including HFC-134a to carbon dioxide and difluoromethane combinations allows for the complete elimination of flammability of the difluoromethane in both the liquid and leaked vapors.
Applicant again fails to respond to or rebut in anyway the Examiner’s provided motivational rational other than to repeatedly and incorrectly insist that no such rational was provided. Regarding Applicant’s position, the motivation to modify Kamimura with Singh was not based only upon their combinability. Explicit motivation was provided.
Applicant states that one of ordinary skill in the “crowded art of refrigeration” would not modify Kamimura with Singh. Applicant asserts that Kamimura is directed to non-azeotropic mixtures comprising carbon dioxide and ‘at least one kind of combustible refrigerants that are preferably hydrocarbons’ and asserts that Signh is concerned with non-azeotropic refrigerants that only contain CO2 and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) and not hydrocarbons. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s interpretation of Kamimura is incorrect. Kamimura explicitly teaches the non-azeotropic refrigerants include carbon dioxide and at least one kind of combustible refrigerant which “can be hydrocarbon series combustible refrigerants or HFC series combustible refrigerants” (see [0022]). Kamimura clearly invites HFCs as suitable for combination with carbon dioxide and it would not be a ‘speculative’ act to do so. Applicant’s assertion that the hydrocarbons of Kamimura would “need to be removed” is neither persuasive nor a reasonable conclusion.
Applicant argues [B] that even if Kamimura is modified by Singh the claimed invention would not result (Remarks, pages 9-11). Applicant’s presented arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant states that in [0022] that Kamimura teaches selecting from “hydrocarbons or HFCs” and that “HFCs are not among the preferred refrigerants” but rather that preferred refrigerants are “natural refrigerants (hydrcarbons)”. Applicant admits that HFCs are taught as alternatives to hydrocarbons by Kamimura. As has been pointed out to Applicant numerous times, non-preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away and do not negate the broader teachings (see MPEP 2123). Kamimura teaches that HFCs may be selected and therefore HFCs may be selected.
Applicant argues that Kamimura is a two-component composition while Singh is a three-component composition and therefore if one so-modified Kamimura the range amount of carbon dioxide taught (20-80mass%) would change. The Examiner notes that Kamimura is not limited to a two-component composition. Applicant again relies wholly on the examples and ignores the broader teachings. Kamimura expressly states combining the carbon dioxide with “at least one kind” of further refrigerant and at no point states, restricts or otherwise asserts the composition can only contain two components. Rather, Kamimura teaches that when combined with other refrigerants (with at least one other refrigerant being a phrase not limited to ‘one’), the carbon dioxide should be present in the refrigerant mixture as a whole from 40 to 90 mass% ([0031]; [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art, having modicum of common sense, would understand that when combining with additional refrigerant compounds the carbon dioxide should be present in the resulting composition in a range form 40 to 90 mass% because Kamimura teaches so. It is further noted that narrower ranges as recited in dependent claims have been addressed by the Examiner and not disputed by Applicant.
Applicant’s repeated assertion that the amount would be ‘purely speculative’ is not persuasive for the reasons outlined above and selecting the amount of carbon dioxide within the teaching of Kamimura is well withing the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art of refrigeration with at least a minimal amount of mathematical competency.
Applicant asserts that the amount of carbon dioxide ‘would be reduced’ by the addition of a third component. Again, Kamimura teaches that in the composition as a whole the carbon dioxide is present from 40-90 mass% while the ‘at least one other’ refrigerant also present would be in the remainder, in other words it is not the amount of carbon dioxide being modified but instead the remainder of the composition.
Applicant’s assertion that any formulation of Kamimura that does not include 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane is ‘inapplicable’ to any carbon dioxide mass% taught. This argument makes little sense, has no basis in the teachings of either cited reference and appears to imply Kamimura’s lack of anticipation render it unusable as a teaching in a obviousness rejection.
Applicant cites Table 1 and states that one of ordinary skill in the art “who actually read Kamimura” would only include a CO2 percentage of “less than 50%” because Kamimura “teaches away from using high CO2 percentages”. The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art who actually read Kamimura would take Kamimura’s teachings of 40-90 mass% carbon dioxide as just that: a teaching of 40-90 mass% carbon dioxide. Applicant grossly misinterpret Table 1 wherein Kamimura demonstrates only that various properties can changed in a predictable manner by various incremental ratios of CO2 in a mixture (see also [0026]-[0029]) that is not limiting to the broader disclosure. Kamimura does not teach away from ‘higher percentages’ and in no way teaches a range of ‘less than 50%’. Kamimura further makes no statements as to the resulting properties being good/bad or desired/undesired, just that they can be predictably adjusted.
Applicant argues that [0030] is Kamimura ‘confirming’ that a COP “desirably increases”. This is not a correct interpretation of Kamimura who merely states that when the amount of propylene increases so does the COP. Kamimura does not state that any particular values is preferred or desired. Applicant’s statement that Kamimura teaches reducing the CO2 to below 50% to obtain better performance is not a teaching found in Kamimura.
Applicant states that the expressly taught range of Kamimura of 40-90 mass% CO2 is “simply an attempt to be overly inclusive in the patent application of Kamimura” and “is not actually contemplated in Kamimura” and further that the range of Kamimura is “unsupported and speculative”. Applicant’s position is highly unpersuasive and lacks merit. Kamimura teaches the range and therefore that range is held as supported and contemplated by Kamimura. Kamimura even teaches adjusting across that range for a purpose i.e. tuning the COP ([0032]). Applicant cannot discredit the disclosure of Kamimura by mere allegation because a range is broader than they wish it to be or believe it could be.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 8-10 and 15-16 as unpatentable over Kamimura (US PGPub 2004/0123608) in view of Singh (US PGPub 2002/0121623) and further in view of Otake (US PGPub 2010/0300135) is maintained. Note the inclusion of the evidentiary reference of Bissell (WO 2019/171087 A2) as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 12-13) have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of Kamimura, Singh, or Otake recite R449A or R452A. The Examiner notes that this new recitation has been addressed in the above rejection and is obvious under Otake’s teachings as evidenced by Bissell (see above).
Applicant argues that the cited arts do not teach the recitation of ‘testing under different environmental conditions’. The Examiner notes that this new recitation of intended use has been addressed in the above rejection and further notes that working temperature range usage of the apparatus of Otake reads sufficiently on ‘different’ conditions.
Applicant argues that a standard household refrigerator “certainly” does not have an insulated space within which a mechanical body is tested under different environmental conditions. The Examiner notes that 1) ‘different environmental conditions’ is a relative term undefined by the claims or the specification meetable by the working range of the apparatus of Otake (who is not limited to standard household refrigerators), 2) testing under different environmental conditions is a recitation of intended use of the apparatus claimed and is not limiting (see above), and 3) it is commonly known that standard household refrigerators do in fact contain an insulated interior space where the items to be frozen or refrigerated are placed. Applicant’s assertion that a refrigerator is not tested under different environmental conditions ignores the selectable working temperature range of a refrigerator.
New claims 17 and 18 are addressed in the rejection(s) above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights