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 02/06/2026.
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& 103 and ground(s) of nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in the prior Office action to claims 1-8 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s present claim amendment canceling all previously pending/rejected claims 1-8.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 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 region around an ignition energy generation portion in 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 a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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.
Additionally, and as similarly set forth in the previous Office action, 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. 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 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 Maeyama et al. (WO 2015/136981 A1) in view of Yoda et al. (JP 2005-344658 A) or Negishi (JP 2008-082224 A) 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 Maeyama et al., Yoda et al., and Negishi are with respect to the English language machine translation of the Office’s supplied copies of the references unless specified otherwise.
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., 5+ 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). 6.7 m/s is within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 5 m/s.
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. Greater than 2 m/s overlaps and encompasses the claimed range of greater than or equal to 5 m/s.
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 5+ 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 overlaps and encompasses the claimed limitation of a 5+ m/s refrigerant flow rate through region(s) around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion.
The two combinations of the above references each 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 region(s) around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion in 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 a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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 the above combinations of 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 Maeyama et al. in view of Yoda et al. or Negishi in order to obtain sufficiently operate the 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 Maeyama et al. in view of Yoda et al. or Negishi in order to obtain sufficiently operate, control, or drive the compressor and/or apparatus (and internal compressor flow rates thereof) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the claimed pressure of refrigerant flowing through a 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 the references as they ultimately teach that what is claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 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 5+ m/s range).
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 the above references, arguendo, provision of such a refrigerant discharge pressure from a compressor is notoriously well-known in the art and would certainly be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to the compressor/apparatus of Maeyama et al. in view of Yoda et al. or Negishi 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 Maeyama et al. in view of Yoda et al. or Negishi in order to obtain sufficiently operate the compressor/apparatus (and compressor discharge pipe flow rates thereof) within known normal and typical parameters with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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). The compressor further comprises 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.
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), which is certainly a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion (e.g., the electrical terminal, lead wire, and/or electric motor).
The cited example has a refrigerant flow rate though a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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 5 m/s.
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, and that corresponds to the claimed flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor) 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 a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion in 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 a refrigerant flow rate at a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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, 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 around/nearby an energy ignition portion in the compressor 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.
Double Patenting
Claim 9 is are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 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 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 a region around an ignition energy portion in the compressor while the reference application’s claims recite the 5+ m/s flow rate is at the compressor’s discharge pipe. However, the two sets of claims are obvious variants of one another. The location of a compressor’s discharge pipe broadly reads on a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor, meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed flow rate near an ignition energy portion region would flow naturally from or be directly equivalent to the reference application’s discharge flow rate. 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 5 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.
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 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Maeyama et al. (WO 2015/136981 A1) in view of Yoda et al. (JP 2005-344658 A) or Negishi (JP 2008-082224 A) fails to teach controlling a compressor so that the flow rate of the refrigerant flowing through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor is 5 m/s or higher and a pressure of the refrigerant at the discharge pipe of the compressor is greater than or equal to 1 MPa.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the combined teachings of Maeyama et al. with Yoda et al. or Negishi amount to a prima facie overlap of the claimed refrigerant flow rate through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor is 5 m/s or higher. There are detailed rationales as to why set forth in the 103 rejection, above, and the arguments to the references not teachings a 5+ m/s flow rate are not persuasive for those reasons.
Regarding the claimed pressure of refrigerant flowing through a 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 the references as they ultimately teach that what is claimed (a compressor compressing a refrigerant comprising 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 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 Maeyama et al. in view of Yoda et al. or Negishi 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 Maeyama et al. in view of Yoda et al. or Negishi 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 through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor, 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 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.
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 a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor 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, 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, through a region around/nearby an ignition energy generation portion, 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 through a region around an ignition energy generation portion in the compressor, 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 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights