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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujitaka (EP1491608).
Regarding claim 1, Fujitaka teaches a refrigerant liquid mixture comprising carbon dioxide and isobutane (Abstract, Fig 1).
Fujitaka teaches the limitations of the instant claims; hence, Fujitaka anticipates the claims.
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.
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.
Claim 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitaka (EP1491608) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mathias et al (US Patent 6,662,519).
Regarding claims 2-4, Fujitaka discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Fujitaka teaches the features above. Fujitaka teaches a refrigerant mixture comprising isobutane and carbon dioxide, wherein carbon dioxide is 60wt% or lower (Paragraph 9). However, Fujitaka fails to specifically disclose liquid nitrogen, a composition comprising 20-30wt% of isobutane, 50-70wt% of carbon dioxide and 10-20wt% nitrogen, a composition comprising 20wt% of isobutane, 70wt% of carbon dioxide and 10wt% nitrogen, a composition comprising 20-30wt% of isobutane, 30-50wt% of carbon dioxide, 15-25wt% nitrogen and 1-10wt% of benzotriazole or a composition comprising 29wt% of isobutane, 49wt% of carbon dioxide, 19wt% nitrogen and 3wt% of benzotriazole.
In the same field of endeavor, Mathias et al teaches a liquid refrigerant including nitrogen, ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and mixtures thereof (Col. 3, Lines 1-24). Mathias et al further teaches 10vol% of nitrogen in the refrigerant composition (about 8wt%) (Col. 11, Lines 5-15).
With regard to liquid nitrogen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided liquid nitrogen in Fujitaka in view of Mathias et al in order to provide an additional refrigerant to the refrigerant composition. It is well settled that it is prima facie obvious to combine ingredients, each of which is targeted by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In re Linder 457 F,2d 506,509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972).
With regard to a composition comprising 20-30wt% of isobutane, 50-70wt% of carbon dioxide and 10-20wt% nitrogen, a composition comprising 20wt% of isobutane, 70wt% of carbon dioxide and 10wt% nitrogen, it would have ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided 20-30wt% of isobutane, 50-70wt% of carbon dioxide and 10-20wt% nitrogen, a composition comprising 20wt% of isobutane, 70wt% of carbon dioxide and 10wt% nitrogen in Fujitaka in view of Mathias et al because Fujitaka teaches up to 60wt% of carbon dioxide with the remainder of the compositions the remaining refrigerants including isobutane and nitrogen in view of Mathias et al; it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to optimize the amount of the isobutane and nitrogen in the composition. Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitaka (EP1491608) in view of Mathias et al (US Patent 6,662,519) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and in further view of Dick et al (US Patent Application 2004/0040336).
Regarding claims 5-8, Fujitaka and Mathias et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Fujitaka and Mathias et al teach the features above. However, Fujitaka and Mathias et al fails to specifically disclose benzotriazole and a composition comprising 20-30wt% of isobutane, 30-50wt% of carbon dioxide, 15-25wt% nitrogen and 1-10wt% of benzotriazole or a composition comprising 29wt% of isobutane, 49wt% of carbon dioxide, 19wt% nitrogen and 3wt% of benzotriazole.
In the same field of endeavor, Dick et al teaches a heat transfer/refrigerant composition comprising up to 4 wt% of benzotriazole as a corrosion inhibitor (Paragraph 14).
With regard to benzotriazole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided benzotriazole in Fujitaka and Mathias et al in view of Dick et al in order to provide corrosion inhibiting properties to the refrigerant/heat medium composition.
With regard to a composition comprising 20-30wt% of isobutane, 30-50wt% of carbon dioxide, 15-25wt% nitrogen and 1-10wt% of benzotriazole or a composition comprising 29wt% of isobutane, 49wt% of carbon dioxide, 19wt% nitrogen and 3wt% of benzotriazole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a composition comprising 20-30wt% of isobutane, 30-50wt% of carbon dioxide, 15-25wt% nitrogen and 1-10wt% of benzotriazole or a composition comprising 29wt% of isobutane, 49wt% of carbon dioxide, 19wt% nitrogen and 3wt% of benzotriazole in Fukitaka and Mathias et al in view of Dick et al because Fujitaka teaches up to 60wt% of carbon dioxide with the remainder of the compositions the remaining refrigerants including isobutane and nitrogen in view of Mathias et al and up to 4 wt% benzotriazole in view of Dick et al; it would only be obvious to the ordinary artisan to optimize the amount of the isobutane and nitrogen in the composition. Where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANISHA DIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday and Friday, 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/TANISHA DIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761 September 17, 2025