DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 1/26/2026. The objection to the drawings have been withdrawn. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 16-19 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 20110126575) in view of Performance evaluation on an internal auto-cascade refrigeration cycle with mixture refrigerant R290/R600a, Yan et al, Applied Thermal Engineering 75 (2015) 994-1000.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a freezer (1), the freezer is an ultra-low temperature ULT device (paragraph 0002) comprising a cooled interior (8) and comprising a wall (4) that surrounds the cooled interior at least in regions, and comprising a refrigeration circuit (2, paragraph 0033) being a single-stage refrigeration circuit (fig. 2) wherein the wall is formed at least in part by a vacuum insulation body (7, paragraph 0035) and in that the refrigeration circuit comprises a refrigerant mixture (mixture, paragraph 0047), where in the single-stage refrigeration circuit comprises a precooler (21) and a compressor (14); and a temperature in the cooled interior is between −150° C. and −36° C (-85 degree C, paragraph 0002, 0050) but fails to explicitly teach to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15
However, Yan teaches the compressor is configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15 (6.86, 6.07, Table 1) to provide increased evaporation pressure, leading to higher volumetric capacity and better ability to operate at lower external air temperatures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the freezer of Kobayashi to include the compressor is configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15 in view of the teachings of Yan to improve overall system performance.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…to compress...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches that the wall forms part of a housing (fig. 1) of the freezer.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches an inner vacuum insulation panel (7, paragraph 0034) or outer vacuum insulation panel (7, paragraph 0034) is arranged on the wall (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches, as modified, the refrigeration circuit is configured to cool the cooled interior (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches the refrigeration circuit comprises a or exactly one condenser (15) and evaporator (13), and one or exactly one expansion member (18).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the compressor is configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 10 (6.86, 6.07, Table 1 of Yan).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches the precooler is a microstructure, plate, tube-in-tube, or multi tube-in-tube heat exchanger (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches the refrigerant mixture comprises two or more than two natural hydrocarbons (paragraph 0047) or comprises a binary, tertiary, quaternary, refrigerant mixture of natural hydrocarbons (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches the freezer is configured for storing biological material (specimen, paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches the refrigerant mixture comprises a quaternary or higher-order (>4 component) refrigerant mixture comprising the natural hydrocarbons isobutane, propylene, ethylene and methane (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches a temperature in the cooled interior is between −150° C. and −90° C (-85 degree C, paragraph 0002, 0050).
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi, as modified, teaches a temperature in the cooled interior is between −90° C. and −36° C (-85 degree C, paragraph 0002, 0050).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings the compressor is configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 9 (6.86, 6.07, Table 1 of Yan).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Yan and in further view of Gadhiraju (US 20070181848).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fails to explicitly the refrigerant mixture further comprises nitrogen.
Gadhiraju teaches the refrigerant mixture further comprises nitrogen (nitrogen, paragraph 0013) to achieve better efficiency or a greater cooling effect or both.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the freezer of Kobayashi to include the refrigerant mixture further comprises nitrogen in view of the teachings of Gadhiraju to achieve better efficiency or a greater cooling effect or both.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments, on page 5, against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For clarity, Kobayashi has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach an ultra-low temperature device. In other words, the teachings of Yan have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the ultra-low temperature device of Kobayashi to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Yan has been relied upon for making obvious a compressor configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the compressor pressure ratio disclosed by Yan is capable of being applied to the compressor of Kobayashi to efficiently to improve overall system performance. Combining the pressure ratio of Yan with the ultra-low temperature device of Kobayashi would enhance efficiency of apparatus. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on page 5 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., refrigerant mixtures) are not recited in the claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 broadly recites refrigerant mixtures. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments, on pages 5-6, against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For clarity, Kobayashi has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach an ultra-low temperature device, including a temperature in the cooled interior is between -150°C and -36°C. In other words, the teachings of Yan have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the ultra-low temperature device of Kobayashi to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Yan has been relied upon for making obvious a compressor configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the compressor pressure ratio disclosed by Yan is capable of being applied to the compressor and the temperatures ranges of Kobayashi to efficiently to improve overall system performance. Combining the pressure ratio of Yan with the ultra-low temperature device disclosing the temperature ranges of Kobayashi would enhance efficiency of apparatus. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on page 6 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. performance simulation results calculated under basic conditions) are not recited in the claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 broadly recites refrigerant mixtures. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's arguments, on pages 6-7, against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For clarity, Kobayashi has been established in the rejection as the primary reference to teach an ultra-low temperature device with a precooler and compressor, including a temperature in the cooled interior is between -150°C and -36°C. In other words, the teachings of Yan have been relied upon for making it obvious to modify the ultra-low temperature device of Kobayashi to have one feature. MPEP 2123 states "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned" Section 2123 goes on to state "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonable suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art". Yan has been relied upon for making obvious a compressor configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that the compressor pressure ratio disclosed by Yan is capable of being applied to the compressor and the temperatures ranges of Kobayashi to efficiently to improve overall system performance. Combining the pressure ratio of Yan with the ultra-low temperature device disclosing the temperature ranges of Kobayashi would enhance efficiency of apparatus. It has been held that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 6-7 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. specific refrigerant mixtures) are not recited in the claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 broadly recites refrigerant mixtures. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Finally, the combined teachings disclose all the structural features of the claim 1 including “an ultra-low temperature (ULT) device comprising…a compressor configured to compress at a pressure ratio of less than or equal to 15”. Kobayashi clearly shows an ultra-low temperature (ULT) device including a compressor, and Yan describes compressor pressure ratios less than or equal to 15. Moreover, Applicant has not provided a specific refrigerant mixture in the refrigeration circuit including the precooler and the compressor. Thus, the combined teachings disclose all the structural features of the claim and are capable of performing the intended use functions. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 7 regarding claim 10, applicant argues the Kobayashi and Yan fail to teach or suggest the features of claim 1. As provide above, the Examiner disagrees. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant does not separately argue claims 2-7, 9, 11, 16-19. Therefore the rejections are considered proper and maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3840. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-3:00 CT pm M-F.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights