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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 12/05/2025. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-13 and 17-28 are cancelled. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14-16 and 29 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseley et al. (US20140212311A1) in view of Rached (US20190367789A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Moseley teaches a method of replacing a first refrigerant composition comprising R-404A with a second refrigerant composition [where R-404A is one example of a list of suitable refrigerants that may be used in the vapor compression system; 0045] within a refrigeration system [Figure 2, vapor compression system 300] including a hermetic compressor [Figure 1 and 2, compressor 2 with compressor shell 98] and an evaporator [Figure 2, evaporator 306] with the second refrigerant [where R-404A is one example of a list of suitable refrigerants that may be used in the vapor compression system; 0045] but does not teach an explicit step of replacing the first refrigerant composition contained within the refrigeration system including an evaporator with the second refrigerant where the second refrigerant composition essentially consisting of 79 to 83 weight percent 2,3,3,3- tetrafluoropropene,16 to 18 weight percent difluoromethane, and 1.0 to 4.0 weight percent propane, and optionally one or more non-refrigerant components, based upon the weight of the second refrigerant composition.
However, Rached teaches a composition containing 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, which can be used for refrigeration, air conditioning and for heating [0001] including a step of replacing the first refrigerant composition contained within a refrigeration system [where the composition of the present invention replace R-404A; 0014] where a refrigerant composition essentially consisting of difluoromethane (R-32) present in an amount of 16 to 18 weight percent [5 to 45 wt % difluoromethane; 0009], 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf) present in an amount of 79 to 83 weight percent [5 to 80 wt % tetrafluoropropene; 0009], and propane (R-290) present in an amount of 1.0 to 4.0 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition [2 to 50 wt % of at least one group-C compound such as propane; 0009], and optionally one or more non-refrigerant components, based upon the weight of the second refrigerant composition [where the refrigerant may also contain 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene stabilizers; 0020] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements, a first refrigerant for a second refrigerant, for another and yield predictable results, i.e. improve efficiency of the refrigeration loop [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Moseley to have a method comprising a step of replacing the first refrigerant composition contained within a refrigeration system where refrigerant composition comprises: difluoromethane (R-32) present in an amount of 16 to 18 weight percent, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R-1234yf) present in an amount of 79 to 83 weight percent, and propane (R-290) present in an amount of 1.0 to 4.0 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition, in view of the teachings of Low where the substitution of known elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., improve efficiency of the refrigeration loop [0008].
Moseley further does not teach where the average evaporator temperature is below -5 degrees Celsius.
However, Rached further teaches a vapor compression circuit with an evaporator [0217] and a refrigeration composition [0010] where the average evaporator temperature is below -5 degree Celsius [where a low temperature refrigeration facility operates at an average evaporation temperature of -35 degrees Celsius; 0250; Table 3], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e. providing ow-temperature refrigeration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of the combined teachings to have where the average evaporator temperature is below -5 degrees Celsius in view of the teachings of Rached where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., providing low-temperature refrigeration.
Moseley does not teach where the compressor discharge temperature is below the compressor discharge temperature of R-457A at the same operating conditions. However, the claim language does not require the prior art to perform an additional method step nor does it require additional structure beyond claim 14. Therefore, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent. MPEP § 2112.01
Regarding Claim 2, Moseley, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 and further teaches where the hermetic compressor [Figure 2, compressor 2 with compressor shell 98] is a rotary, scroll, or reciprocating compressor [where the compressor may be a rotary compressor, screw compressor, swag link compressor, scroll compressor, spool compressor, centrifugal compressor, or turbine compressor; 0037].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moseley et al. (US20140212311A1) in view of Rached (US20190367789A1) and in further view of Kremer et al. (US20180335233A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Moseley, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 and does not teach where the hermetic compressor [Figure 2, compressor 2 with compressor shell 98] is a medium back pressure (MBP) or a low back pressure compressor (LBP).
However, Kremer teaches a hermetic compressor [0001] that is a low back pressure compressor [where it is tested to be operational under ASHRAE LBP conditions; 0040] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., ensuring consistent operation for low-temperature refrigeration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Moseley to have where the hermetic compressor is a low back pressure compressor in view of the teachings of Kremer where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., ensuring consistent operation for low-temperature refrigeration.
Claims 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Moseley et al. (US20140212311A1) in view of Rached (US20190367789A1) and in further view of Rebrovic et al. (US20130200295A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Moseley, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 and further teaches where the second refrigerant composition comprises a non-refrigerant compound [where the refrigerant may also contain stabilizers; 0020; See Rached as applied to the rejection of claim 14 above] but does not teach the non-refrigerant compound has an amount of 0.01 to 49 weight percent based on the weight of the second refrigerant composition.
However, Rebrovic teaches a refrigeration compressor lubricant [0002] as a non-refrigerant compound in an amount of 0.01 to 49 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition [where stabilizers may be present at less than 10%, 0.1 to 5%, or about 0.2 to 2% by weight of an additive; 0046], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., minimizing degradation of the refrigerant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the non-refrigerant compound has an amount of 0.01 to 49 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition in view of the teachings of Rebrovic where the substitution of known elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing degradation of the refrigerant.
Regarding Claim 9, Moseley, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14, but does not teach the non-refrigerant compound includes a lubricant selected from the group consisting of mineral oil, alkylbenzene, polyol esters, polyalkylene glycols, polyvinyl ethers, polycarbonates, perfluoropolyethers, silicones, silicate esters, phosphate esters, paraffins, naphthenes, polyalpha-olefins, and combinations thereof.
However, Rebrovic teaches a refrigeration compressor lubricant [0002] as a polyol ester lubricant [0024; 0025] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e., minimizing wear of the compressor [0004;0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have a non-refrigerant compound includes a lubricant selected from the group consisting of mineral oil, alkylbenzene, polyol esters, polyalkylene glycols, polyvinyl ethers, polycarbonates, perfluoropolyethers, silicones, silicate esters, phosphate esters, paraffins, naphthenes, polyalpha-olefins, and combinations thereof in view of the teachings of Rebrovic where the substitution of known elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing wear of the compressor [0004;005].
Regarding Claim 15, Moseley, as modified, teaches the method of claim 14 but does not teach wherein the second refrigerant composition further comprises a non-refrigerant compound in an amount of 0.01 to 50 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition.
However, Rebrovic teaches a refrigeration compressor lubricant [0002] as a non-refrigerant compound in an amount of 0.01 to 50 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition [where ester based lubricant is present at less than or equal to about 50% by weight of working fluid; 0061; 0062], where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e. minimizing wear of the compressor [0004;0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Moseley to have where the non-refrigerant compound has an amount of 0.01 to 49 weight percent based on the weight of the refrigerant composition in view of the teachings of Rebrovic where the substitution of known elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing wear of the compressor [0004;005].
Regarding Claim 16, Moseley, as modified, teaches the method of claim 15 and does not teach wherein the non-refrigerant compound includes a lubricant selected from the group consisting of mineral oil,alkylbenzene, polyol esters, polyalkylene glycols, polyvinyl ethers, polycarbonates, perfluoropolyethers, silicones, silicate esters, phosphate esters, paraffins, naphthenes, polyalpha-olefins, and combinations thereof.
However, Rebrovic teaches a refrigeration compressor lubricant [0002] as a polyol ester lubricant [0024; 0025] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying the substitution of known elements for another and yield predictable results, i.e. minimizing wear of the compressor [0004;0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Moseley to have a non-refrigerant compound includes a lubricant selected from the group consisting of mineral oil, alkylbenzene, polyol esters, polyalkylene glycols, polyvinyl ethers, polycarbonates, perfluoropolyethers, silicones, silicate esters, phosphate esters, paraffins, naphthenes, polyalpha-olefins, and combinations thereof in view of the teachings of Rebrovic where the substitution of known elements for another would have yielded predictable results i.e., minimizing wear of the compressor [0004;005].
Regarding Claim 29, Moseley, as modified, teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the first refrigerant composition comprises R-290 [where refrigerant that may be used in vapor compression system 300 include propane (R-290); 0045]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Mosely and Low fail to disclose the claimed second refrigerant composition where Low discloses refrigerant compositions that require the presence of R-1132a such that the Moseley, Low and Rached teaching would not have resulted in the claimed invention. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 35. U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered but are not persuasive. Rached does teach a refrigerant composition that essentially consists of the claimed composition where the composition is a substitute for a first refrigerant. Refer to the updated mapping of the rejection of claim 14 above. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
On page 5 of the remarks, Applicant further argues Kremeer fails to cure deficiencies of Mosely, Low and Rached. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 35. U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered but are not persuasive See discussion of Rached above and the updated mapping of the rejection of claim 14 above. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
On page 6 of the remarks Applicant further argues Rebrovic fails to cure deficiencies of Mosely, Low and Rached. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claim 14 under 35. U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered but are not persuasive See discussion of Rached above and the updated mapping of the rejection of claim 14 above. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
On page 6 of the remarks, Applicant further preemptively argues the prior art of record in alone or in combination fail to disclose or suggest the subject matter of new claim 29. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mosely discloses the refrigerant that may be used in vapor compression system 300 may include propane (R-290), 0045. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 15 and 16 except for their dependence upon claim 14. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763