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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 01/30/2026.
Claim 9 is currently pending.
All the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, & 103 and ground(s) of nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in the prior Office action to claims 1-8 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s present claim amendment canceling all previously pending/rejected claims 1-8.
New grounds of rejection are set forth below regarding the newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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. 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claim recites "... a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition, where a pressure of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa, is greater than or equal to 5 m/s." It is unclear (from an antecedent basis perspective) whether the recited "a pressure of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa" is the same or different from the prior "a predetermined high-pressure condition". Is the compressor refrigerant discharge pipe pressure of greater than or equal to 1 MPa the predetermined high-pressure condition of the compressor (and required by the apparatus) or is one of the two terms/limitations merely potential/hypothetical and the other required (e.g., does the claim merely require any broad "predetermined" pressure and the 1 MPa pressure is merely potential/hypothetical of the compressor, i.e., the compressor is capable of obtaining the 1 MPa pressure but not required, or does the claim require the compressor have a discharge pressure of 1 MPa and the "predetermined" pressure is merely potential/hypothetical of the compressor)?
For purposes of further claim interpretation, limitations will be broadly construed to the best extent understood from the claims. Note that compressors inherently compress things and discharge a relatively high(er)-pressure condition than what is inputted.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 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 5 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 have a refrigerant flow rate at its discharge pipe of greater than or equal to 5 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 Hamada et al. (WO 2018/142505 A1) optionally in view of any one or more of Makino (EP 2157389 A1), Yamashita (US 2017/0097176 A1), Longsworth (US 5,337,572 A), Khatri (US 7,114,347 B2), and/or Kontomaris et al. (US 8,765,004 B2). Citations to Hamada et al. are with respect to the English language machine translation of the Office’s supplied copy of the reference unless specified otherwise.
Hamada et al. teach a compressor that compresses and discharges a refrigerant (abstract & technical field). The compressor comprises a discharge pipe and discharges the refrigerant during operation (see, e.g., p.2 and ref. no. 4 in Fig. 1). The discharge pipe feeds the compressed, discharged refrigerant gas to a refrigerant circuit (p.5), which, in view of all the foregoing, meets the limitations of a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising a refrigerant circuit including a compressor. If this were not enough, Hamada et al. also teach the refrigerant has condensation and evaporation temperatures and is part of a refrigeration cycle (p.4, 7, & 9).
Hamada et al. teaches a variety of parameters that can be calculated/varied and are related to the compressor’s discharge pipe such as the refrigerant flow velocity, i.e., flow rate, (p.5-6). Refrigerant flow rate, U in m/s, is represented by formula (2): U = (4rVst)/(πd2) where r is the compressor rotation speed (rps), Vst is the stroke volume (m3), and d is the diameter of the discharge pipe (m) (p.6 and [0036] of original document). An example, with conditions, is set forth in Table 2 utilizing 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (R1234yf) as a refrigerant, a compressor rotation speed of 60 rps, a stroke volume of 6 x 10-6 m3, and a discharge pipe diameter of 0.01 m (see p.6 and [0042] of original document), which corresponds to a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 4.58 m/s via the above formula (e.g., (4∙60∙0.000006)/(π∙0.01∙0.01)). This meets the limitations of the compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene where a flow rate of the 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene at a discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition (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; see also p.2-6 and Fig. 1 generally disclosing a suction pipe intakes the refrigerant at a low pressure and provides it to a compression mechanism and then discharges it).
The cited example has a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 4.58 m/s which is below the claimed flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 5 m/s. The example’s flow rate falls just outside (below) the claimed flow rate.
However, Hamada et al. further teach the discharge pipe diameter may range 4x10-3 m < d < 20x10-3 m (p.6 and [0044] of original document), i.e., d is greater than 0.004 m and less than 0.02 m. Hamada et al. also further teach alternative refrigerant compositions other than simply R1234yf for provision in their compressor such as a blend of difluoromethane (R32), R1234yf, and 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (R1123) and even a comparative example of R1123 alone (p.9-10 and [0066] of original document). Here, Hamada et al. specifies the choice of refrigerant actually changes the minimum and maximum permissible stroke volumes and discharge flow rates of the refrigerant. Table 5 at [0042] of the original document calculates and specifies the minimum and maximum stroke volumes for several exemplary, specific refrigerants in cubic centimeters (see the last two col. of the Table). In the Table, a R1123-containing composition “A” has a minimum Vst of 5.8 cc and a maximum Vst of 64.1. Possible min/max flow rates can be calculated after converting these cc to m3 by dividing by 1,000,000, using the above-disclosed diameter range, and assuming the compressor rotation speed is 60 rps (a very reasonable assumption for calculations as the prior working example previously described utilizes such a speed). As there are two ranges, four flow rate values, all in m/s, are obtained U(dmin,Vstmin) = 26.7, U(dmax,Vstmin) = 306, U(dmin,Vstmax) = 1.1, & U(dmax,Vstmax) = 12.2. As these (and/or subsets thereof) are the possible flow rates for refrigerant “A”, the flow rates for refrigerant “A” collectively overlap that claimed under a prima facie case of obviousness. Similarly note the R1123-only comparative example having a minimum Vst of 4.9 cc and a maximum Vst of 53.6, which amount to flow rate values, in m/s, of U(dmin,Vstmin) = 23.4, U(dmax,Vstmin) = 280, U(dmin,Vstmax) = 0.94, & U(dmax,Vstmax) = 11.2 and also collectively overlap that claimed under a prima facie case of obviousness.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to and within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary and modify the discharge pipe diameter and/or the stroke volume of the compressor as taught by Hamada et al. in order to tailor, including increase, the refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of the compressor (that is at a high pressure condition as compressors inherently compress things and discharge a relatively high(er)-pressure condition than what is inputted) with a reasonable expectation of success that meets and overlaps the claimed flow rate range. For example, the Office has calculated the R1123-containing composition “A” has a flow rate spanning 1.1 m/s to 306 m/s (shown above), which overlaps the claimed range of 5 m/s or greater.
There is additional rationale to arrive at the claimed range from simply modifying the parameters of the Example within the limits specified. As described above, refrigerant flow rate, U in m/s, is represented by formula (2): U = (4rVst)/(πd2) where r is the compressor rotation speed (rps), Vst is the stroke volume (m3), and d is the diameter of the discharge pipe (m) (Id. at p.6 and [0036] of original document). The cited Example employing 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene as a refrigerant has a compressor rotation speed of 60 rps, a stroke volume of 6 x 10-6 m3, and a discharge pipe diameter of 0.01 m (Id. at p.6 and [0042] of original document), which corresponds to a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 4.58 m/s via the above formula (e.g., (4∙60∙0.000006)/(π∙0.01∙0.01)). However, the discharge pipe diameter may range 4x10-3 m < d < 20x10-3 m (Id. at p.6 and [0044] of original document), i.e., d is greater than 0.004 m and less than 0.02 m. Also, Hamada et al. further teach the stroke volume (Vst) in m3 is related to the discharge pipe diameter d by the expression: 5 x 10-6 < Vst < 9 x (d – 4x10-3) x 10-3 + 1 x 10-5 (abstract).
Modifying the above working example by only changing the diameter of the discharge pipe from 0.01 m to 0.0095 m (still within the range d of 0.004-0.02 m) and keeping all other parameters constant (i.e., 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene as a refrigerant, compressor rotation speed of 60 rps, and stroke volume of 6 x 10-6 m3 [which is still within the reference’s stroke volume expression as with a d of 0.0095 m the expression amounts to 5 x 10-6 < Vst < 5.95 x 10-5]) corresponds to a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 5.08 m/s via the above formula (e.g., (4∙60∙0.000006)/(π∙0.0095∙ 0.0095)).
Alternatively, modifying the same working example by only changing the stroke volume of the compressor from 6 x 10-6 m3 to 7 x 10-6 m3 (still within the reference’s stroke volume expression as with a d of 0.01 m the expression amounts to, in m3, 5 x 10-6 < Vst < 6.4 x 10-5) and keeping all other parameters constant (i.e., 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene as a refrigerant, compressor rotation speed of 60 rps, and d of 0.01 m) corresponds to a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 5.35 m/s via the above formula (e.g., (4∙60∙0.000007)/(π∙0.01∙ 0.01)).
Alternatively, modifying the same working example by only changing the compressor rotation speed of 60 rps to 70 rps and keeping all other parameters constant (i.e., 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene as a refrigerant, d of 0.01 m, and stroke volume of 6 x 10-6 m3) corresponds to a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 5.35 m/s via the above formula (e.g., (4∙70∙0.000006)/(π∙0.01∙ 0.01)).
In view of the foregoing, while the claimed flow rate is not anticipated by the reference it is certainly encompassed and overlapped by the teachings of the reference.
Additionally, the cited teachings of Hamada et al. fully meet the claimed limitation that in the refrigeration cycle apparatus there is a controller configured to control the compressor so that a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition is greater than or equal to 5 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 have a refrigerant flow rate at its discharge pipe of greater than or equal to 5 m/s, which it does for the reasons and calculations 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 Hamada et al. fails 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 Hamada et al. in order to obtain sufficiently operate, control, or drive Hamada et al.’s compressor/apparatus (and compressor discharge pipe flow rates thereof) 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, while this limitation is ultimately unclear for the reasons set forth in the prior 112 rejection, arguendo, 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 Hamada et al. (optionally in view of Makino or Yamashita) as Hamada et al. teach a compressor and apparatus thereof with the same structure as that claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and/or 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene such that a flow rate of the refrigerant composition at a discharge pipe and high pressure condition of the compressor substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed 5+ m/s range).
If Applicant insists Hamada et al. fails 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 Hamada et al. (optionally in view of Makino or Yamashita), 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 Hamada 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, Khatri, or Kontomaris et al.
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).
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, Khatri, or Kontomaris et al. to the compressor/apparatus of Hamada et al. in order to obtain sufficiently operate Hamada et al.’s 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 Bissell et al. (WO 2019/171087 A2) optionally in view of any one or more of Makino (EP 2157389 A1), Yamashita (US 2017/0097176 A1), Longsworth (US 5,337,572 A), Khatri (US 7,114,347 B2), and/or Kontomaris et al. (US 8,765,004 B2).
Bissell et al. teach a vapor compression, i.e., refrigeration cycle, apparatus comprising a compressor and a refrigerant that flows in a circuit therein (abstract, p.4 lines 18-36, p.10 lines 32-36, and Fig. 1). Bissell et al. teach pipes and path are selected in a way to facilitate the refrigerant should be flowing as a gas velocity of about 1 m/s to 5 m/s (p.16 lines 1-5). Note that, in refrigeration cycle/vapor compression apparatus, refrigerants are in the gas phase between the evaporator and condenser including when the refrigerant passes through (and is pressurized by) a compressor (see also p.4 lines 35-36, Id.; also note the disclosed terminology of “vapour compression” meaning the compressor compresses vapor). Accordingly, Bissell et al. effectively teach a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the apparatus’ compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition is at an amount of about 1-5 m/s. Preferred and exemplary refrigerants include 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroethylene (R1234ze) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroethylene (R1234yf) (Table on p.7).
While the teachings of the reference fail to meet the claimed refrigerant flow rate of 5+ m/s under the meaning of anticipation, the disclosed refrigerant flow rate substantially overlaps the claimed range under a prima facie case of obviousness. About 1-5 m/s touches and overlaps the claimed 5+ m/s range as the disclosed upper boundary is the lower boundary of the claimed and there is also some overlap due to the “about” modifier of the range which includes some values slightly above the stated boundary. The cited teachings of the reference render obvious the claimed limitations as a person of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage (be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select) a vapor compression apparatus comprising 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroethylene or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroethylene circulating therein at the discharge pipe (and high pressure side) of the compressor at a flow rate of about 1 m/s to 5 m/s which touches and overlaps the claimed flow rate.
Additionally, the cited teachings of Bissell et al. fully meet the claimed limitation that in the refrigeration cycle apparatus there is a controller configured to control the compressor so that a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor under a predetermined high-pressure condition is greater than or equal to 5 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 have a refrigerant flow rate at its discharge pipe of greater than or equal to 5 m/s, which it does for the reasons and calculations 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. The reference meeting the claimed flow rate at the discharge pipe location meets the claimed “controller configured to” limitation under a mechanical (the apparatus includes the function required by the broad mechanical or electronic controller). A discrete controller is not required by the claim.
If Applicant insists Bissell et al. fails 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 Bissell 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 Bissell et al. in order to obtain sufficiently operate, control, or drive Bissell et al.’s compressor/apparatus (and compressor discharge pipe flow rates thereof) 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, while this limitation is ultimately unclear for the reasons set forth in the prior 112 rejection, arguendo, 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 Bissell et al. (optionally in view of Makino or Yamashita) as Bissell et al. teach a compressor and apparatus thereof with the same structure as that claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene such that a flow rate of the refrigerant composition at a discharge pipe and high pressure condition of the compressor substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed 5+ m/s range).
If Applicant insists Bissell et al. fails 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 Bissell et al. (optionally in view of Makino or Yamashita), 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 Bissell 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, Khatri, or Kontomaris et al.
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).
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, Khatri, or Kontomaris et al. to the compressor/apparatus of Bissell et al. in order to obtain sufficiently operate Bissell et al.’s compressor/apparatus (and compressor discharge pipe flow rates thereof) within known normal and typical parameters 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 an ethylene-based fluoroolefin, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, and/or 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene refrigerant being at least 5 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 attain the refrigerant flow and a pressure of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor is at least 1 MPa.
The only difference between the two sets of claims is that the instant claims recite the 5+ m/s flow rate is at the compressor’s discharge pipe while the reference application’s claims recite the 5+ m/s flow rate is at a region around an ignition energy portion in the compressor. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a compressor’s internals, where an ignition energy portion is contained, has a wider diameter than a discharge pipe diameter after the compression mechanism, meaning a 5 m/s internal flow rate at an ignition energy portion of a compressor would have a discharge pipe flow rate greater than 5 m/s, as claimed. See, for example, Fig. 5 and p.7+ of the reference application. In any event, the reference application’s specification also discloses setting a 5+ m/s flow rate in the internals of the compressor near 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 filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hamada et al. (WO 2018/142505 A1) fails to teach controlling a compressor so that the flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is 5 m/s or higher and a pressure thereof is greater than or equal to 1 MPa. Applicant notes Hamada et al.’s working example corresponds to a discharge pipe flow rate of approximately 4.58 m/s.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because Hamada et al.’s teachings amount to a prima facie overlap of the claimed refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe flow rate. While the claimed flow rate is not anticipated by the reference it is certainly encompassed and overlapped by the teachings of the reference. There are detailed rationales as to why set forth in the 103 rejection, above, and the arguments to the reference not teachings a 5+ m/s flow rate are not persuasive for those reasons.
Regarding the claimed pressure of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa, while this limitation is ultimately unclear for the reasons set forth in the prior 112 rejection, arguendo, 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 the reference(s) of record as Hamada et al. teach a compressor and apparatus thereof with the same structure as that claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene and/or 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene such that a flow rate of the refrigerant composition at a discharge pipe and high pressure condition of the compressor substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed 5+ m/s range).
Alternatively, if 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 the reference, 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 Hamada 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 (US 5,337,572 A), Khatri (US 7,114,347 B2), or Kontomaris et al. (US 8,765,004 B2) and the rationale thereto set forth in the rejection of record above. In this instance, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Hamada et al. are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant's additional argument that the present invention suppresses propagation of a disproportionation reaction by providing the recited discharge pipe pressure and flow rate, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant similarly argues Bissell et al. (WO 2019/171087 A2) fails to teach controlling a compressor so that the flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is 5 m/s or higher and a pressure thereof is greater than or equal to 1 MPa.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because Bissell et al.’s disclosed flow rate range of about 1-5 m/s touches and overlaps the claimed equal to or greater than 5 m/s range.
Regarding the claimed pressure of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa, while this limitation is ultimately unclear for the reasons set forth in the prior 112 rejection, arguendo, 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 the reference(s) of record as Bissell et al. teach a compressor and apparatus thereof with the same structure as that claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene or 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene such that a flow rate of the refrigerant composition at a discharge pipe and high pressure condition of the compressor substantially overlaps and encompasses the claimed 5+ m/s range).
Alternatively, if 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 the reference, 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 Bissell 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 (US 5,337,572 A), Khatri (US 7,114,347 B2), or Kontomaris et al. (US 8,765,004 B2) and the rationale thereto set forth in the rejection of record above. In this instance, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Bissell et al. are moot because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant's additional argument that the present invention suppresses propagation of a disproportionation reaction by providing the recited discharge pipe pressure and flow rate, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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./
April 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights