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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/13/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s request for continued examination filed 08/12/2026 and amendment/remarks filed 07/13/2026.
Claim 9 is currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over or based on Hamada et al. (WO 2018/142505 A1) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over or based on Bissell et al. (WO 2019/171087 A2) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The current rejection also utilizes new primary references under new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claim. See the new 103 rejections, below.
The rejection of claim 9 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending application 18/091,670 is maintained and has been revised to reflect the changes in claim scope made by Applicant’s present/recent claim amendments to both sets of claims. Under a one-way test for distinctness, the pending claim of the copending application meets the instant claim as amended. See below.
Claim Interpretation
The pending claim recites an apparatus comprising "a refrigerant circuit including a compressor, and a controller" where "the controller is configured to control the compressor to compress a refrigerant" and where "the controller is configured to control the compressor so that a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition ... is greater than or equal to 10 m/s."
For purposes of claim interpretation, absent a special definition in the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a controller-related limitation beginning as "controller configured to" limits the associated controller (a broad device such as a computer device or a mechanical device) to one that can perform the recited function "as-is" without additional modification. The Office has carefully reviewed the specification and found no special definition for the controller or its function that should be read into the claims. While the specification discusses the controller 7 may include a CPU and memory, may have an outdoor unit controller 27 and indoor unit controller 34, and the controller 7 controls the operating frequency of the compressor 21 to control its volume to attain predetermined target temperatures, these are merely preferred embodiments/limitations (that would be improper to read into the claims) rather than a special definition for the claims.
Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that the limitation requires the apparatus' compressor must comprise or be configured to 1) compress a refrigerant (which, note, is inherent of all compressors as compressors inherently compress things) and 2) have a refrigerant flow rate at its discharge pipe of greater than or equal to 10 m/s. In the present case, the term "configured to" encompasses a wide variety of structure, such as but not limited to purely mechanical elements (even the compressor itself by double inclusion), for accomplishing the recited controller function. A discrete controller is not required but the recited function is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minor et al. (US 2006/0243945 A1) in view of one of Considerations for Proper Sizing of Refrigerant Lines “NPL 1” (Air Condition Contractors of America, published 2017, https://hvac-blog.acca.org/considerations-for-proper-sizing-of-refrigerant-lines/) and Refrigerant line sizing - Part I: general principles and liquid lines “NPL 2” (Unilab Heat Transfer Software, published 2019, https://www.unilab.eu/articles/refrigerant-line-sizing/), and optionally in view of any one or more of Makino (EP 2157389 A1), Yamashita (US 2017/0097176 A1), Longsworth (US 5,337,572 A), Tojo et al. (US 6,006,542 A), Khatri (US 7,114,347 B2), and/or Kontomaris et al. (US 8,765,004 B2).
Minor et al. teach compositions for use in refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump apparatus comprising a fluoroolefin (abstract). The apparatus comprises an evaporator, a compressor, a condenser, and an expansion device in a vapor-compression cycle re-using the refrigerant where liquid refrigerant enters an evaporator through an expansion device, the liquid refrigerant boils in the evaporator at a low temperature to form a gas and produce cooling, the low-pressure gas enters a compressor where the gas is compressed to raise its pressure and temperature, the higher-pressure (compressed) gaseous refrigerant then enters the condenser in which the refrigerant condenses and discharges its heat to the environment, and the refrigerant returns to the expansion device through which the liquid expands from the higher-pressure level in the condenser to the low-pressure level in the evaporator, thus repeating the cycle (para. 0174), which reads on a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising a refrigerant circuit including a compressor compressing a refrigerant. Minor et al. teach many refrigerants, including refrigerants comprising 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234ze) and their performance in said refrigeration cycle apparatus (see, e.g., Table 11 spanning p.35-39).
Minor et al. fail to teach the flow rate of refrigerant at a discharge pipe of the compressor.
However, regarding flow rates, NPL 1 teach, concerning proper refrigerant line sizing in refrigeration apparatus, the discharge line from a compressor, i.e., the compressor discharge flow rate, may typically be 1,500 to 3,000 feet per minute, i.e. 7.62 to 15.24 m/s (p.2). NPL 2 also teach, concerning proper refrigerant line sizing in refrigeration apparatus, the discharge line from a compressor, i.e., the compressor discharge flow rate, may typically be 10 to 18 m/s (p.1).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a common or typical compressor discharge pipe refrigerant flow rate as taught by either of the NPL references to the refrigeration cycle apparatus of Minor et al. in order to obtain a sufficiently operating vapor compression refrigeration cycle apparatus, including the compressor discharge flow rate within known normal and typical parameters, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, the combination of references fully meet the claimed limitation that in the refrigeration cycle apparatus there is a controller configured to control the compressor to compress a refrigerant and for a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition is greater than or equal to 10 m/s. As stated in the Claim Interpretation section of record, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and “the controlled configured to” limitation is that the limitation requires the apparatus' compressor must comprise or be configured to compress a refrigerant and have a refrigerant flow rate at its discharge pipe of greater than or equal to 10 m/s, which it does for the rationale set forth above. In the present case, the term "configured to" encompasses a wide variety of structure, such as but not limited to purely mechanical elements (even the compressor itself by double inclusion), for accomplishing the recited controller function. A discrete controller is not required by the claim.
If Applicant insists Minor et al. or the other secondary references fail to teach a discrete controller in the apparatus and/or the claim expressly requires one, while the Office disagrees the claim has this interpretation, arguendo, provision of a discrete controller to control operation of a compressor in refrigeration/vapor-compression apparatus is notoriously well-known in the art and would certainly be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to the compressor/apparatus of Hamada et al. in order to obtain sufficiently operate their compressor/apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. As supporting evidence thereof, see either Makino or Yamashita.
Makino teaches a heat exchange and air conditioner where a compressor therein controls the flow velocity of the refrigerant supplied to the heat exchanger and that a controller controls the frequency of the compressor (para. 0031-0032). See also Fig. 2 and para. 0106-0107.
Yamashita teaches a compressor and refrigeration cycle apparatus thereof where an outdoor unit 1 includes the compressor 10 and a heat source-side heat exchanger 12, and a controller 60. As the compressor 10, for example, there is used a compressor having a high-pressure shell structure including a compression chamber defined inside a hermetic container placed under a high-refrigerant pressure atmosphere so as to discharge high-pressure refrigerant compressed in the compression chamber into the hermetic container. The controller 60 configured to control the devices such as a driving frequency of the compressor 10. See para. 0029.
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if needed, to provide a controller as taught by Makino or Yamashita to the compressor/apparatus of Minor et al. (or Minor et al. in view of one of the NPLs) in order to obtain sufficiently operate, control, or drive Minor et al.’s compressor/apparatus (and compressor flow rates thereof) and compress a refrigerant passing through with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed pressure of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa, absent a showing to the contrary, the claimed limitation that the pressure of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa would flow naturally from the cited teachings of Minor et al. (or Minor et al. in view of one of the NPLs) as the reference(s) teach a compressor and apparatus thereof with the same structure as that claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 1,1,1,3-teterafluoropropene such that a flow rate of the refrigerant composition at a discharge pipe and around/nearby a crankshaft and bearing in the compressor and high pressure condition of the compressor substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed 10+ m/s range).
If Applicant insists Minor et al. fail to teach or suggest the claimed pressure of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa and this would not flow naturally from the cited teachings of Minor et al. (or Minor et al. in view of one of the NPLs and optional secondary references), arguendo, provision of such a refrigerant discharge pressure from a compressor is notoriously well-known in the art and would certainly be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to the compressor/apparatus of Minor et al. in order to obtain sufficiently operate their compressor/apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. As supporting evidence thereof, see any of Longsworth, Tojo et al., or
Longsworth is a cited reference of interest refrigeration compressors commonly produce discharge pressures in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 MPa (col. 2 lines 34-38).
Tojo et al. is a cited reference of interest teaching refrigeration compressors, especially compressors with a bearing that supports and contacts a driving/crank shaft, commonly produce and operate with a compressor discharge pressure and temperature of 3 MPa or more (col. 2 line 61 to col. 3 line 2, Table 1, and claim 5).
Khatri is a cited reference of interest that compressors in refrigeration systems generally operate at the outlet or high pressure side (i.e., discharge pressure) in the range of from about 1.4 MPa to about 2.5 MPa (col. 6 lines 9-20).
Kontomaris et al. is a cited reference of interest drawn to refrigeration apparatus comprising a tetrafluoropropene-based refrigerant where a compressor in the apparatus can have a high discharge pressure such as up to either 8.3 MPa or 35 MPa depending on the type of compressor (col. 11 lines 41 to 67).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if needed, to provide a common or typical refrigerant discharge pressure from a compressor as taught or evidenced by Longsworth, Tojo et al., Khatri, or Kontomaris et al. to the compressor/apparatus of Minor et al. or Minor et al. in view of one of the NPLs in order to obtain sufficiently operate the compressor/apparatus (and compressor discharge pipe flow rates thereof) within known normal and typical parameters with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low (WO 2020/165571 A1) in view of one of Considerations for Proper Sizing of Refrigerant Lines “NPL 1” (Air Condition Contractors of America, published 2017, https://hvac-blog.acca.org/considerations-for-proper-sizing-of-refrigerant-lines/) and Refrigerant line sizing - Part I: general principles and liquid lines “NPL 2” (Unilab Heat Transfer Software, published 2019, https://www.unilab.eu/articles/refrigerant-line-sizing/), and optionally in view of Makino (EP 2157389 A1) or Yamashita (US 2017/0097176 A1).
Low teaches compositions for use as a working fluid in a heat pump system comprising 1,1-difluoroethylene (R-1132a) (abstract). The heat pump system is a heat transfer device that is a refrigeration device or an air-conditioning device (p.8 line 21+) and such a device comprises a cycle with a compressor, condenser, and evaporator (see Table 10, etc.), which read on a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising a refrigerant circuit including a compressor compressing a refrigerant. Note that these unit ops must be contained and connected by pipes or else the refrigerant would not pass nor cycle to each unit op (the refrigerant would leak and dissipate into the surrounding environment and ultimately the atmosphere). Low further teach and exemplify many 1,1-difluoroethylene-containing refrigerants and their performance in said refrigeration cycle apparatus (see, e.g., the Tables beginning on p.13). There are slews of exemplary compositions that operate/perform in the apparatus with compressor discharge pressures, i.e., a compressor discharge pipe pressure, in excess of 1 MPa. See, for example, Table 10 on p.22 where every example containing 1,1-difluoroethylene (R1132a) has a compressor discharge temperature of at least 20 bar, i.e., a predetermined high-pressure condition comprising a pressure of at least 2 MPa as the disclosed magnitudes directly meet the one claimed and a compressor’s discharge pipe is indeed at the high pressure condition/portion of a compressor as compressors inherently compress things and discharge a relatively high(er)-pressure condition than what is inputted.
Low fails to teach the flow rate of refrigerant at a discharge pipe of the compressor.
However, regarding flow rates, NPL 1 teach, concerning proper refrigerant line sizing in refrigeration apparatus, the discharge line from a compressor, i.e., the compressor discharge pipe flow rate, may typically be 1,500 to 3,000 feet per minute, i.e. 7.62 to 15.24 m/s (p.2). NPL 2 also teach, concerning proper refrigerant line sizing in refrigeration apparatus, the discharge line from a compressor, i.e., the compressor discharge pipe flow rate, may typically be 10 to 18 m/s (p.1).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a common or typical compressor discharge pipe refrigerant flow rate as taught by either of the NPL references to the refrigeration cycle apparatus of Low in order to obtain a sufficiently operating heat pump/refrigeration device, including the compressor discharge flow rate within known normal and typical parameters, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, the combination of references fully meet the claimed limitation that in the refrigeration cycle apparatus there is a controller configured to control the compressor to compress a refrigerant and for a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition is greater than or equal to 10 m/s. As stated in the Claim Interpretation section of record, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and “the controlled configured to” limitation is that the limitation requires the apparatus' compressor must comprise or be configured to compress a refrigerant and have a refrigerant flow rate at its discharge pipe of greater than or equal to 10 m/s, which it does for the rationale set forth above. In the present case, the term "configured to" encompasses a wide variety of structure, such as but not limited to purely mechanical elements (even the compressor itself by double inclusion), for accomplishing the recited controller function. A discrete controller is not required by the claim.
If Applicant insists Low or the other secondary references fail to teach a discrete controller in the apparatus and/or the claim expressly requires one, while the Office disagrees the claim has this interpretation, arguendo, provision of a discrete controller to control operation of a compressor in refrigeration/vapor-compression apparatus is notoriously well-known in the art and would certainly be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to the compressor/apparatus of Low in order to obtain sufficiently operate their compressor/apparatus with a reasonable expectation of success. As supporting evidence thereof, see either Makino or Yamashita.
Makino teaches a heat exchange and air conditioner where a compressor therein controls the flow velocity of the refrigerant supplied to the heat exchanger and that a controller controls the frequency of the compressor (para. 0031-0032). See also Fig. 2 and para. 0106-0107.
Yamashita teaches a compressor and refrigeration cycle apparatus thereof where an outdoor unit 1 includes the compressor 10 and a heat source-side heat exchanger 12, and a controller 60. As the compressor 10, for example, there is used a compressor having a high-pressure shell structure including a compression chamber defined inside a hermetic container placed under a high-refrigerant pressure atmosphere so as to discharge high-pressure refrigerant compressed in the compression chamber into the hermetic container. The controller 60 configured to control the devices such as a driving frequency of the compressor 10. See para. 0029.
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if needed, to provide a controller as taught by Makino or Yamashita to the compressor/apparatus of Low (or Low in view of one of the NPLs) in order to obtain sufficiently operate, control, or drive Low’s compressor/apparatus (and compressor flow rates thereof) and compress a refrigerant passing through with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/091,670 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of pertain to the flow rate of overlapping refrigerant species (ethylene-based fluoroolefins in the copending claim, which encompass 1,2-difluoroethylene, 1,1-difluoroethylene, monofluoroethylene, and tetrafluoroethylene, which is itself a perhaloolefin, as obvious variants thereof and are disclosed as such in the reference application’s specification, as well as precisely reciting 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, too) being at least 10 m/s in some positional aspect within a compressor under a predetermined high pressure condition where the compressor is contained in a refrigerant circuit and refrigeration cycle apparatus. Both sets of claims also recite there is a controller configured to control the compressor to compress the refrigerant and attain the refrigerant flow and a pressure of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor is at least 1 MPa. The copending claim is even more specific than the instant claim further reciting the discharge temperature of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is at least 90°C.
The only difference between the two sets of claims is that the instant claims recite the 10+ m/s flow rate is at the compressor’s discharge pipe while the reference application’s claims recite the 10+ m/s flow rate is at a region around an ignition energy portion in the compressor defined as the portion where a crankshaft and a bearing rotatably supporting the crankshaft are in contact with each other. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a compressor’s internals, where such an ignition energy portion is contained, has a wider diameter or annular ring width than a discharge pipe diameter after the compression mechanism, meaning a 10 m/s internal flow rate at an ignition energy portion of a compressor would have a discharge pipe flow rate greater than 10 m/s, as claimed. See, also for example, Fig. 5 and p.7+ of the reference application. In any event, the reference application’s specification also discloses setting a 10+ m/s flow rate in the internals of the compressor near such an ignition energy portion can effectively result in a discharge flow rate of 10+ m/s (see, e.g., Fig. 5), which certainly encompasses the instantly claimed limitations. Note that it is proper to construe a claim using the reference patent disclosure to ascertain whether a claim defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in a reference patent. See MPEP 804, II, B, 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection. The arguments pertain to former primary references (Hamada et al. and Bissel et al.) and the new grounds of rejection utilize new primary references.
In response to applicant’s request to hold in abeyance a response, such as, a terminal disclaimer to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of record, it is noted that the filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot be held in abeyance since that filing “is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims” as set forth in MPEP § 804 (I)(B)(1): “As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”
The remaining references listed on Forms 892 and 1449 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or described above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights