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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/11/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s request for continued examination filed 07/14/2026 and amendment/remarks filed 06/11/2026.
Claim 9 is currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over or based on Maeyama et al. (WO 2015/136981 A1) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.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 Hamada et al. (WO 2018/142505 A1) is generally maintained and has been revised to reflect the changes in claim scope made by Applicant’s present claim amendments. Additional/alternative teachings of Hamada et al. cited, and new optional secondary references are cited. See below.
The rejection of claim 9 on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending application 18/091,038 is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. Under a one-way test for distinctness, the pending claim of the copending application does not fairly read on the instant claim as amended.
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 region around an ignition energy generation portion in 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 the controller-related limitations 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 a region around the recited ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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.
Additionally, and as similarly set forth in previous Office actions, the claim recites a limitation quantifying “a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor” which is a relative limitation that is clear and definite, albeit broad. The quantified flow rate is in a region around an ignition energy generation portion inside the compressor. While the claim later recites the ignition energy generation portion isa portion where a crankshaft and a bearing portion (that rotatably supports the crankshaft) are in contact with each other, “around” is a very broad term that is construed to mean nearby.
Additionally, the limitation to a “predetermined high-pressure condition” is clear and definite, albeit broad. Compressors inherently compress things and inherently discharge a relatively high(er)-pressure condition than what is inputted. Additionally, while it is noted the claim has been amended to recite a particular minimum temperature and pressure of the refrigerant flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor that limitation regards the conditions at the discharge pipe rather than the ignition energy portion. The ignition energy portion continues to have a broad “predetermined high-pressure condition”.
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), Tojo et al. (US 6,006,542 A), and/or Sun et al. (JP 2019-210929 A). Citations to Hamada et al. and Sun et al. are with respect to the English language machine translations of the Office’s supplied copies of the references 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). The compressor further comprises a rotary shaft 31 that is rotatably supported by a main bearing 32 (see, e.g., p.3 and Fig. 1), which reads on the claim ignition energy generation portion; the refrigerant flows around and/or nearby this region when the compressor operates. Also, note where the refrigerant enters the compressor in the Figure; once the refrigerant passes the cylinder/rolling pistons (near the inlet of the compressor), at any point thereafter, it is at a high pressure condition as claimed. In other words, refrigerant passing by, around, or even nearby the rotary shaft and main bearing is at a high pressure condition as claimed.
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; 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 discharge pipe refrigerant flow rate of approximately 4.58 m/s which is below the claimed flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor is greater than or equal to 10 m/s.
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, meaning the discharge flow rates for refrigerant “A” span the range of 1.1 to 306 m/s. 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, meaning the discharge flow rates for R1123-only refrigerant span 0.9 to 280 m/s.
There is additional rationale to arrive at high refrigerant discharge flow rates 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 0.006 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 0.006 m the expression amounts to 5 x 10-6 < Vst < 2.8 x 10-5]) corresponds to a refrigerant flow rate at the discharge pipe of approximately 12.73 m/s via the above formula (e.g., (4∙60∙0.000006)/(π∙0.006 ∙ 0.006)). More rationale exists but is not stated for purposes of brevity.
In view of the foregoing, the reference’s compressor is disclosed to obviously discharge (or be obviously capable of discharging) the refrigerant at very high flow rates.
Referencing Hamada et al.’s Fig. 1, it is noted that the reference’s refrigerant flow rates are with respect to discharge flow rates out of the discharge pipe 17 rather than around or nearby where the crankshaft 31 contacts the main bearing 32 that Applicant terms the ignition energy portion. Hamada et al.’s Fig. 1 shows the discharge pipe is at the top of the compressor and the crankshaft/bearing are in the middle or slightly below the middle of the compressor. Thus, while Hamada et al. certainly teaches high flow rates of refrigerant, Hamada et al. fail to explicitly quantify the flow rate around or nearby where the crankshaft 31 contacts the main bearing 32.
However, the Office’s position is the claimed refrigerant flow rate (at a region broadly around or nearby where the crankshaft and bearing meet) of greater than or equal to 10 m/s would flow naturally from Hamada et al.’s very high discharge pipe flow rates of the disclosed 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene-containing (R1234yf) and ethylene-based fluoroolefin-containing (R1123) refrigerants (e.g., 1.1 to 306 m/s and 0.9 to 280 m/s, Id.). Note the instant application’s specification indicates and depicts the flow rates of refrigerant around/nearby where crankshaft 84 and bearing portion 91 and at the discharge pipe are roughly equal (“greater than or equal to 10 m/s”) (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant application), which means if Hamada et al.’s compressor discharge flow rate is at least 10 m/s (which is certainly/obviously is for the reasons disclosed above) and an around/nearby where a crankshaft and bearing meet and discharge pipe flow rates are roughly equal then Hamada et al.’s compressor also has a flow rate in an ignition energy portion region meeting/encompassing/overlapping that claimed.
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 to compress a refrigerant and for a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a region around/nearby the recited ignition energy generation portion in 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 a refrigerant flow rate at a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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 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 flow rates thereof) and compress a refrigerant passing through with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed pressure and temperature of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa and greater than or equal to 90°C, absent a showing to the contrary, the claimed limitation that the pressure and temperature of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa and greater than or equal to 90°C 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 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 Hamada et al. fails to teach or suggest the claimed pressure and temperature of refrigerant flowing through the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa and greater than or equal to 90°C 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, Tojo et al., or Sun 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).
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 and 100°C or more (col. 2 line 61 to col. 3 line 2, Table 1, and claim 5).
Sun et al. is a cited reference of interest teaching refrigeration compressors, especially compressors with a bearing that supports and contacts a rotary/crank shaft, for compressing a tetrafluoropropene-based refrigerant, commonly produce and operate with a compressor refrigerant discharge temperature of 100 to 150°C (p. 7, 8, and 10).
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 pressures and temperatures from a compressor as taught or evidenced by Longsworth, Tojo et al., or Sun 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 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/), Tojo et al. (US 6,006,542 A), 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), and/or Sun et al. (JP 2019-210929 A). Citations to Sun et al. are with respect to the English language machine translation of the Office’s supplied copy of the reference unless specified otherwise.
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 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234yf) and/or 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (HFC-1234ze) and their performance in said refrigeration cycle apparatus (see, e.g., Table 11 spanning p.35-39). The Table specifically identifies exemplary and operating HFC-1234yf- and HFC-1234ze-containing refrigerants with compressor discharge temperatures well in excess of 90°C, which reads on the claimed temperature flowing through a discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 90°C as claimed.
Minor et al. fail to teach the flow rate of refrigerant in the compressor, the compressor includes a crankshaft and bearing portion rotatably supporting the crankshaft, and the flow rate of refrigerant around/nearby where the crankshaft and bearing portion are in contact with each other (termed an ignition energy portion by Applicant).
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).
Regarding compressor structure, Tojo et al. teach a refrigeration compressor comprising a driving shaft 5 for driving the compressor mechanism and a bearing 9a/9b which is a is a radial type rolling bearing excellent in slidability which supports a force generated upon compressing the refrigerant at the compressor mechanism by the rotation of the driving shaft (col. 2 line 61 to col. 3 line 2, col. 6 lines 14-25, Fig. 1, and claim 5). Tojo et al.’s bearing configuration has lowered/improved wear properties. Tojo et al.’s driving shaft and bearing read on the claimed ignition energy generation portion; the refrigerant flows around and/or nearby this region when the compressor operates. Also, note where the refrigerant enters the compressor in the Figure; once the refrigerant passes the scroll members of the compression mechanism (near the inlet of the compressor), at any point thereafter, it is at a high pressure condition as claimed. In other words, refrigerant passing by, around, or even nearby the driving shaft and bearing is at a high pressure condition as claimed. Also note that the driving shaft 5 and bearing 9a/9b are nearby/around the discharge pipe 13 (see Fig. 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 and also provide the wear-improving bearing-supported driving/crank shaft as taught by Tojo et al. 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.
Regarding the claimed flow rate of being with respect to the flow rate around/nearby the ignition energy portion generation portion rather than the discharge pipe, the Office’s position is the claimed refrigerant flow rate (at a region broadly around or nearby where the crankshaft and bearing meet) of greater than or equal to 10 m/s would flow naturally from the combination of references disclosing compressor discharge pipe flow rates exceeding 10 m/s. Note the instant application’s specification indicates and depicts the flow rates of refrigerant around/nearby where crankshaft 84 and bearing portion 91 and at the discharge pipe are roughly equal (“greater than or equal to 10 m/s”) (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant application), which means if the compressor discharge flow rate taught by the above combination of references is at least 10 m/s (which is certainly/obviously is for the reasons disclosed above) and an around/nearby where a crankshaft and bearing meet and discharge pipe flow rates are roughly equal then Minor et al.’s compressor (or Minor et al. in view of one of the NPLs and Tojo et al.) also has a flow rate in an ignition energy portion region meeting/encompassing/overlapping that claimed. Additionally note that Tojo et al.’s compressor structure (provided to Minor et al.) explicitly has the discharge pipe around/nearby the shaft and bearing such that the discharge pipe flow rate reasonably reads on the claimed region around an ignition energy portion.
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 region around/nearby the recited ignition energy generation portion in 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 a refrigerant flow rate at a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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 and Tojo et al.) 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 and Tojo et al.) as the reference(s) 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 1,1,1,3-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). Nevertheless, Tojo et al. also teach 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).
If Applicant insists the above references 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 Tojo et al.), 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 Longsworth or Sun 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).
Sun et al. is a cited reference of interest teaching refrigeration compressors, especially compressors with a bearing that supports and contacts a rotary/crank shaft, for compressing a tetrafluoropropene-based refrigerant, commonly produce and operate with a compressor refrigerant discharge temperature of 100 to 150°C (p. 7, 8, and 10).
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 pressures and temperatures from a compressor as taught or evidenced by Longsworth or Sun et al. to the compressor/apparatus of Minor et al. or Minor et al. in view of one of the NPLs and Tojo et al. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to obviate the new grounds of rejection set forth above.
First, Applicant’s arguments do not apply to all of the cited references presently of record (new optional secondary references are cited and relied upon, see above; additionally a new primary reference is cited and relied upon under an entirely new grounds of rejection, see above).
Second, there is new rationale of record over previously relied upon references of record (new rationale and newly cited teachings of Hamada et al. are relied upon, see above). Applicant presented no direct arguments to Hamada et al.’s teachings preemptively disputing the newly cited teachings of the reference.
Third, regarding Applicant’s argument that none of the cited references could have predicted an effect that propagation of a disproportionation reaction is suppressed by increasing the flow rate to 10 m/s or greater even if disproportionation were to occur, 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). Also, if this argument is intended to be an allegation of unexpected results, the argument is not persuasive because the specification has no comparative showing demonstrating a comparison to the closest prior art of record or criticality.
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 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights