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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hesse (DE 102019119194 A1).
With regard to claims 1-6, Hesse teaches a refrigerant mixture comprising carbon dioxide (first component, CO2 or R744, Abstract), a fluorinated hydrocarbon such as monofluoromethane (second component, R41, para 0011), and a hydrocarbon such as ethane (third component, R170, para 0010) at a temperature glide of less than 5 K (para 0023). Hesse teaches the preferred mass percentages of the ternary mixture as: carbon dioxide ranging from 20% to 50% (para 0017), monofluoromethane ranging from 0% to 26% (para 0018) and 34% to 72% (para 0019), and ethane ranging from 1% to 6% (para 0017). The preferred concentration of carbon dioxide and monofluoromethane overlap those claimed. Hesse teaches the incorporation of ethane leads to almost azeotropic behavior (para 0003). Hesse further teaches the incorporation of a hydrocarbon such as ethane behaves favorably with lubricants so the lubricant can be transported from the evaporator back to the compressor even at very low temperatures and that providing a high proportion of ethane/hydrocarbon can enable operation at low evaporation temperatures down to as low as -80°C, which reads on or overlaps a bubble point below 0°C to -80°C (para. 0003).
However, Hesse fails to explicitly teach a higher concentration of ethane at the claimed ranges.
With regard to the concentration of ethane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to increase the mass concentration of ethane in Hesse’s composition in order to obtain an azeotropic composition comprising carbon dioxide, monofluoromethane, and ethane. With respect to optimal ranges, it is not inventive to discover such regimens by routine experimentation when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(II). The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the modification to improve lubricant transport behavior and operation at very low evaporation temperatures with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 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.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761