Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
The Drawings filed 12/30/2022 are approved by the examiner.
The IDS statements filed 12/30/2022, 05/01/2023, and 06/28/2024 have been considered. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “A method comprising using a composition as a refrigerant in a compressor” with two wherein clauses (one wherein clause to defining the broad content of the composition, and another wherein clause defining a flow rate of the refrigerant through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor). However, the claim is indefinite because the claim merely recites a use (“using a composition as a refrigerant in a compressor”) without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. A claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See also MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 2-4, 7, and 8 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Notwithstanding the above rejection, the claims will be examined to the best extent understood from the language in which they are presented.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites “the composition comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of ethylene-based fluoroolefins, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, and 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene” which requires the presence of an ethylene-based fluoroolefin (e.g., monofluoroethylene, difluoroethylene, trifluoroethylene, tetrafluoroethylene, or other ethylene compounds with fluorine and other halogens), 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, or 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene as a required component.
Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, recites “the composition comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of 1,2-difluoroethylene, 1,1-difluoroethylene, 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene, monofluoroethylene, and perhaloolefins”. Here, the 1,2-difluoroethylene, 1,1-difluoroethylene, 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene, and monofluoroethylene species limit the “ethylene-based fluoroolefin” compound of the parent claim. However, the perhaloolefin species fails to further limit and/or include all the limitations of the parent claim because the compound of the parent claim is limited to two general groups of compounds (ethylene-based fluoroolefins and certain tetrafluoropropene isomers, Id.) whereas perhaloolefins (perhalogenated olefins, i.e., compounds with a double bond and no particular carbon count) seriously extends the scope of the prior-recited compounds only one of which broadly might be a perhaloethylene. While there are several ethylene-based fluoroolefins that are perhaloolefins (tetrafluoroethylene, monochlorotrifluoroethylene, etc.), there are more perhaloolefin compounds than ethylene-based fluoroolefins (tetrachloroethylene, perfluoropropene, etc.).
Claim 7 is also rejected for its dependency on claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 5 recite limitations quantifying “a flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor” which are relative limitations that are clear and definite, albeit broad. The quantified flow rate is in a region around an ignition energy generation portion inside the compressor.
Around is a very broad term that is construed to mean nearby. An ignition energy generation portion is broadly any structure capable of generating an ignition energy. Applicant has a discussion in the specification that compressor components that are electrical in nature and/or have electrical current therein are an ignition energy generation portion that sufficiently forms a broad standard as to what is meant by an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor (spec., p.12).
Additionally, the limitations to a “predetermined high-pressure condition” in claims 1 and 5 are clear and definite, albeit broad. Compressors inherently compress things and inherently discharge a relatively high(er)-pressure condition than what is inputted.
Claim 5 recites “A compressor for compressing a refrigerant, the refrigerant comprising one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of ethylene-based fluoroolefins, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, and 1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, wherein: 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 1 m/s.” which has an unusual format, and the following is noted. The transitional phrase “comprising” actually describes the content of what the refrigerant comprises rather than what the compressor comprises. The claim actually never states what the compressor “comprises” or “includes”. However, the claim is interpreted as meaning the compressor comprises the recited refrigerant species and the recited flow rate of the refrigerant at a broad region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion of the compressor. Also, in some situations, preamble statements like “for compressing a refrigerant” are extended little patentable weight, but in the present situation the claimed compressor actually comprises the recited refrigerant due to the wherein clause “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 1 m/s” in the body of the claim that breathes life into the preamble recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeyama et al. (WO 2015/136981 A1) in view of Yoda et al. (JP 2005-344658 A) or Negishi (JP 2008-082224 A). Citations are with respect to the English language machine translation of the Office’s supplied copy of the reference unless specified otherwise.
As to claims 1, 5, and 6, Maeyama et al. teach a compressor that compresses a refrigerant and refrigeration cycle apparatus thereof (abstract & technical field). The refrigerant comprises 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (R1123) (p.3). The refrigerant circulates/flows through the refrigeration cycle apparatus, including in the compressor, in a refrigerant circuit (see, e.g., bottom of p.2 to top of p.3 and Fig. 1 & 2). The compressor comprises an electric element 40 with a variety of subcomponents (e.g., stator cores 43, winding portions 44, etc.) that drives the compressor’s compressing function, a terminal 24 that connects the compressor to an external power source, and a lead wire 45 that connects the terminal 24 to the electric element 40 (see p.4, p.6 and Fig. 3), which all separately read on an ignition energy generation portion. Note that these electrical/ignition energy generation portion occur after the compressing element 30, which means the flowing refrigerant at this portion of the compressor is on the high-pressure side of the flow and is therefore under a predetermined high-pressure condition. In sum, the refrigerant flows through a compressor comprising a variety of ignition energy generation portions and therefore through regions around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion under a predetermined high-pressure condition as claimed.
While Maeyama et al. clearly has a refrigerant flowing through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion, Maeyama et al. fail to sufficiently quantify the flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through region(s) around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion (e.g., 1+ m/s, as claimed).
However, Yoda et al. teach an electrically-powered compressor for compressing a refrigerant flowing therein (abstract) where a refrigerant flow velocity, i.e., flow rate, is set to 6.7 m/s within the compressor in order to sufficiently saturate the compressor’s compression mechanism while also sufficiently permitting lubricating oil to be sucked into a chamber by a Venturi effect and properly lubricate a sliding part in the compressor (p.6).
Alternatively, Negishi teaches a compressor for refrigeration apparatus where Negishi strongly discourages reduction of a flow rate to about 2 m/s while a compressed (i.e., high pressure) refrigerant passes between the compressor’s armature windings in its stator due to the potential separation of refrigerant from its lubricating oil (p.2). Considering the opposite of what Negishi strongly discourages, Negishi effectively strongly suggests, if not direct teaches, to maintain a refrigerant flow rate in a compressor as the refrigerant passes armature windings in the stator, i.e., as the refrigerant flows through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion, above 2 m/s for the compressor to sufficiently operate.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide/set a refrigerant flow rate of 6.7 m/s in a compressor as taught by Yoda et al. to Maeyama et al.’s compressor in order to sufficiently saturate the compressor’s compression mechanism and/or sufficiently lubricate a wear-prone/sliding part in the compressor with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Yoda et al.’s teachings/beneficial flow rate to Maeyama et al.’s compressor with electrical/ignition energy generation portions arrives at/within the claimed limitation of a 1+ m/s refrigerant flow rate through region(s) around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion.
Alternatively, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide/set a refrigerant flow rate above 2 m/s around/nearby windings and the stator in a compressor as taught by Negishi to Maeyama et al.’s compressor in order to for the compressor to sufficiently operate and/or maintain sufficient mixture of the refrigerant and the compressor’s lubricating oil with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Negishi’s flow rate suggestion/teaching pertaining to a refrigerant flow rate around electrical/ignition energy generation portions to Maeyama et al.’s compressor with electrical/ignition energy generation portions arrives at/within the claimed limitation of a 1+ m/s refrigerant flow rate through region(s) around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion.
As to claims 2 and 3, the refrigerant comprises 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (Id.).
As to claims 4, 7, and 8, Maeyama et al. further teach the compressor comprises a discharge pipe 22 (p.4, p.6, and Fig. 1). Absent a showing to the contrary, the claimed limitation that the refrigerant’s high pressure condition at the compressor’s discharge pipe is at least 1 MPa would flow naturally from the cited and combined teachings of the references as they ultimately teach that what is claimed (using/compressing a refrigerant composition 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene such that a flow rate of the refrigerant composition through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion is overlapping/within the claimed 1+ m/s range).
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as being anticipated by Hamada et al. (WO 2018/142505 A1). Citations are with respect to the English language machine translation of the Office’s supplied copy of the reference unless specified otherwise.
As to claims 1 and 5, Hamada et al. teach a compressor that compresses and discharges a refrigerant (abstract & technical field). The compressor comprises a discharge pipe 4 that discharges the refrigerant during operation and also a lead wire 18 that is around/nearby the discharge pipe 4 (see, e.g., p.2, p.3 and Fig. 1). The lead wire 18 is connected to a terminal 16 for an electrical connection to an electric motor unit 2 (p.2-3) and read on an ignition energy generation portion. A variety of parameters that can be calculated and are related to the discharge pipe are disclosed 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 anticipates the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as the example specifically corresponds to a compressor for compressing 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), which is certainly a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion (e.g., the electrical terminal, lead wire, and/or electric motor), is ≥1 m/s and a related method comprising using/compressing 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in a compressor with the recited flow rate.
As to claim 4, Hamada et al. teach a method comprising using/compressing 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene in a compressor with a recited flow rate through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion at a predetermined high-pressure condition precisely within the claimed range and discharged out of a discharge pipe (Id.). As the claimed and prior art products are substantially identical, if not precisely identical, in structure and composition, absent a showing to the contrary, the claimed limitation that the refrigerant’s high pressure condition at the compressor’s discharge pipe is at least 1 MPa is presumed inherent from the exemplary teachings of the reference. See MPEP 2112.
As to claim 6, Hamada et al. teach the discharge pipe feeds the compressed, discharged refrigerant gas to a refrigerant circuit (p.5), which meets the limitations of a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising a refrigerant circuit including the 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).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. (WO 2018/142505 A1).
The disclosure of Hamada et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
While independent claims 1 and 5 are anticipated by Hamada et al. (Id.), there are other alternative teachings in the reference that overlap the claimed limitations that serve as a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention.
The above disclosure of Hamada et al.’s compressor structure and flow rate formula are incorporated herein. 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” in a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion (e.g., the electrical terminal, lead wire, or electric motor), 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.
As to claims 2 and 3, the refrigerant comprises 1,1,2-trifluoroethylene (Id.).
As to claims 4, 7, and 8, absent a showing to the contrary, the claimed limitation that the refrigerant’s high pressure condition at the compressor’s discharge pipe is at least 1 MPa would flow naturally from the cited teachings of Hamada et al. as Hamada et al. teach a compressor with the same structure as that claimed (using/compressing a refrigerant composition 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, a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion, and high pressure condition of the compressor substantially overlaps the claimed 1+ m/s range).
As to claim 6, Hamada et al. teach the discharge pipe feeds the compressed, discharged refrigerant gas to a refrigerant circuit (p.5), which meets the limitations of a refrigeration cycle apparatus comprising a refrigerant circuit including the 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/091,038 (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 1 m/s in some positional aspect within a compressor in a method of using a composition as a refrigerant in a compressor, a compressor itself, and refrigerant cycle apparatus thereof. Both sets of claims also recite 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 1+ m/s flow rate is at a region around an ignition energy portion in the compressor while the reference application’s claims recite the 1+ m/s flow rate is at the compressor’s discharge pipe. However, the two sets of claims are obvious variants of one another. Review the reference application’s specification reveals the copending limitation pertaining to the flow rate is for the purpose of suppressing a disproportionation reaction and can be 3+ m/s, 5+ m/s, or even 10+ m/s (p.12-13 of reference application spec.), which is the same purpose/magnitude as that disclosed in the present application’s specification such that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed flow rate near an ignition energy portion region would flow naturally from the reference application’s discharge flow rate(s). Also note that the instant application’s specification indicates and depicts the flow rates of refrigerant in some ignition energy portion regions and discharge pipe are roughly equal (see, e.g. Fig. 5 of the instant application), which means if the reference application’s compressor discharge flow rate is at least 1 m/s and some ignition energy portion regions and discharge pipe are roughly equal then the reference application’s compressor also has a flow rate in an ignition energy portion region meeting/encompassing/overlapping that claimed. 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.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Makino (EP 2157389 A1) is a cited reference of interest that teaches, in vapor compression refrigeration apparatus, compressors control the flow velocity of refrigerant [0031].
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 discussed 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./
November 3, 2025