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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure (emphasis by examiner).
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract compares the invention to the prior art, discussing the merits provided (e.g. “The disclosed method may allow for a more environmentally friendly refrigerant to be used as a replacement for a less environmentally friendly one…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 teaches a method which includes a teaching that “a total pressure within the tank at an ambient temperature is at least 95% of the equilibrium vapor pressure of liquid R-134a at the ambient temperature”. It is not clear from this recitation whether the method requires the tank being actually provided at this ambient temperature and exhibiting this pressure (as the claim teaches that the pressure “is” the claimed value rather than, for example, “would be”) or if the temperature and pressure are recited only as hypothetical properties which would be exhibited by the tank and its contents (as there is no clear or positive recitation of bringing the tank to “an ambient temperature). For this reason, the scope of claim 1 and the steps which are or are not required and the claim is rejected as being indefinite.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and has not been interpreted as requiring that the tank actually be brought to “an ambient temperature” or actually exhibit the claimed pressure. This is in contrast to independent claim 15 which positively teaches that a tank is filled “to a first filled state to achieve a first pressure at the first filled state and at an ambient temperature”.
Claim 10 teaches that “the liquid refrigerant has a boiling point less than 0 °F (-17.78 °C) at one atmosphere (101.325 kPa).” While it appears that applicant intends to identify the same value using both imperial and metric units, the metric value given for temperature is an approximation (as 0 ºF is equivalent to -
17
.
7
-
ºC and -17.78 ºC is equivalent to -0.004 ºF). This difference in values between the given numbers renders the claim indefinite as it is not clear whether a refrigerant with a boiling point between the two values (for example, of -0.001 ºF) would fall within the claim’s scope (as this exemplary value of -0.001 ºF is less than 0 ºF but also greater than -17.78 ºC, being equal to -
17.778
3
-
ºC). Because the claim thus teaches a range for which the endpoint cannot be positively determined so that it is unclear whether certain values would fall within or outside of the range, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 11-15 and 17 include values of temperature and pressure expressed in the same manner discussed above with regard to claim 10 and are each rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons set forth with regard to this claim.
For purposes of examination, examiner has taken the values given in imperial units (degrees F, atmospheres, and psia) as the values positively recited and required by the claims.
Claims 2-9, 16 and 18-20 are rejected as each depending upon a base claim which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
It is noted that claims 5, 16, and 20 are not found to be indefinite in their teachings despite each of them teaching a temperature “up to and including 131 ºF (55 ºC)” because 55 ºC is exactly equal to 131 ºF rather than being an approximation as discussed above. These claims are, however, rejected as depending upon base claims which are indefinite as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honeywell International Inc.: “HOW TO PRESSURIZE A 100 LB. (45.4 KG) CYLINDER USING NITROGEN” (hereafter Honeywell 1), a copy of which was provided by applicant with the Information Disclosure Statement of 1 October 2024.
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 1, a method of filling a tank, comprising:
filling a tank (the “100 LB cylinder”, also referred to as the “blowing agent cylinder to be pressurized” in step 2 on pg. 4 of Honeywell 1) with a predetermined amount of a liquid refrigerant under pressure (Honeywell 1 refers to the liquid filled in the cylinder by the tradename “Solstice” in pg. 2. Applicant states in ¶ 32 of the instant specification that a preferred refrigerant for the practice of the method of the invention is “R-1234ze(E) (Preferred IUPAC Name: trans-1,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene), which was developed by Honeywell and is sold under the brand name SOLSTICE”. Honeywell International Inc.: “SOLSTICE® GAS BLOWING AGENT | Technical Information” (hereafter Honeywell 2), provided by examiner with this Office Action, confirms on pg. 2 that “Honeywell Solstice® Gas Blowing Agent (GBA) is the tradename for trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene, also known as HFO-1234ze(E)” with “R-1234ze(E)” and “HFO-1234ze(E)” representing slightly differing notations to refer to the same chemical compound, trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene.); and
supplying an inert gas into the tank (supplying nitrogen in Step 3, taught on pg. 5 of Honeywell 1);
wherein, after the filling and supplying steps, a total pressure within the tank at an ambient temperature is at least 95% of the equilibrium vapor pressure of liquid R-134a at the ambient temperature (as taught in Step 3, substep 1 on pg. 5 of Honeywell 1, and the “Checks and Preparation” section, “Check the Cylinders” subsection on pg. 3, the pressure of the cylinder may reach but should not exceed 100 psi (690 kPA). Applicant teaches in ¶ 8 of the instant specification that the “the equilibrium vapor pressure of liquid R-134a is about 93 psia (641.2 kPa)” for an ambient temperature of about 75 ºF so that 100 psi (690 kPA) taught by Honeywell 1 satisfies the limitation of being greater than 95% of this value.)
Honeywell 2 is cited here to illustrate the properties of the material described in Honeywell 1 and not as a teaching reference to modify Honeywell 1 and the claim is therefore found to be anticipated by Honeywell 1 rather than being obvious over Honeywell 1 in view of Honeywell 2.
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid refrigerant is R-1234ze(E) (as discussed in the above rejection of claim 1, “Solstice” in Honeywell 1 is a tradename used to refer to trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene or R-1234ze(E)).
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 3, the method of claim 1, wherein the inert gas is nitrogen (as taught in step 3 of Honeywell 1, nitrogen is used to pressurize the cylinder.)
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 4, the method of claim 1, wherein the filling step is performed before the supplying step (as the cylinder has been filled with the Solstice® GBA prior to pressurization with nitrogen).
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 6, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid refrigerant (SOLSTICE® GBA) has a GWP (global warming potential) value less than 150 (SOLSTICE® GBA is taught to have a “Global Warming Potential,100 year time horizon” of “<1” in the table shown on pg. 2 of Honeywell 2).
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 7, the method of claim 6, wherein the liquid refrigerant (SOLSTICE® GBA) has a GWP value less than 50 (SOLSTICE® GBA is taught to have a “Global Warming Potential,100 year time horizon” of “<1” in the table shown on pg. 2 of Honeywell 2).
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 8, the method of claim 6, wherein the liquid refrigerant (SOLSTICE® GBA) has a GWP value less than 10 (SOLSTICE® GBA is taught to have a “Global Warming Potential,100 year time horizon” of “<1” in the table shown on pg. 2 of Honeywell 2).
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 9, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid refrigerant is classified under ASHRAE 34 or ISO 817 as belonging to safety group class A1 or class A2L (the liquid is identified as SOLSTICE® GBA as discussed above. Honeywell International Inc.: “SOLSTICE ZE REFRIGERANT (HFO-1234ZE): Ultra-Low GWP Hydrofluoroolefins (HFO) Alternative to Hydrofluorocarbons” (hereafter Honeywell 3) teaches in the table found on pg. 2 that HFO-1234ze refrigerants, a family which includes HFO-1234ze(E)/SOLSTICE GBA, have a “ASHRAE Std. 34 Safety Classification” if A2L.)
As with Honeywell 2 above, Honeywell 3 is cited here to illustrate the properties of the material described in Honeywell 1 and not as a teaching reference to modify Honeywell 1 and the claim is therefore found to be anticipated by Honeywell 1 rather than being obvious over Honeywell 1 in view of Honeywell 3.
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 10, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid refrigerant (SOLSTICE® GBA) has a boiling point less than 0 °F (-17.78 °C) at one atmosphere (101.325 kPa) (Honeywell 3 teaches in the table found on pg. 2 that HFO-1234ze refrigerants, a family which includes HFO-1234ze(E)/SOLSTICE GBA, have a “boiling temperature @ 0psig” of -2.2 ºF, but does not identify a boiling point at one atmosphere. Applicant states in ¶ 32 of the instant specification that “R-1234ze(E) has a boiling point of -2.11 °F (-18.95 °C) at one atmosphere (101.325 kPa).” as a known property of the material.)
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein the liquid refrigerant (SOLSTICE® GBA) has an equilibrium vapor pressure of in a range from 60 to 90 psia (413.7 to 620.5 kPa) at 70 °F (21.1 °C). (While Honeywell 3 teaches in the table found on pg. 2 that R-1234ze(E) has a vapor pressure at 77 ºF of 72.304 psia, they do not teach a value for “an equilibrium vapor pressor… at 70 ºF. Applicant states in ¶ 33 of the instant specification that “at a temperature of 70 °F (21.1 °C), the equilibrium vapor pressure of R-1234ze(E) is about 63.2 psia (436 kPa)” as a known property of the material.)
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 15, a method of filling a tank, comprising:
filling a tank (the “100 LB cylinder” which is also referred to as the “blowing agent cylinder to be pressurized” in step 2 on pg. 4 of Honeywell 1) with a predetermined amount of R-1234ze(E) (Honeywell 1 refers to the liquid filled in the cylinder by the tradename “Solstice” in pg. 2. Applicant states in ¶ 32 of the instant specification that a preferred refrigerant for the practice of the method of the invention is “R-1234ze(E) (Preferred IUPAC Name: trans-1,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene), which was developed by Honeywell and is sold under the brand name SOLSTICE”. Honeywell 2 confirms on pg. 2 that “Honeywell Solstice® Gas Blowing Agent (GBA) is the tradename for trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene, also known as HFO-1234ze(E)” with “R-1234ze(E)” and “HFO-1234ze(E)” representing slightly differing notations to refer to the same chemical compound, trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene.) to a first filled state to achieve a first pressure at the first filled state and at an ambient temperature (the pressure in the cylinder prior to step 3 of the method of Honeywell 1, when the tank is filled with SOLSTICE® GBA but not yet pressurized with Nitrogen); and
supplying gaseous nitrogen into the tank to a second filled state (supplying nitrogen in Step 3, taught on pg. 5 of Honeywell 1) to achieve a second pressure within the tank at the ambient temperature, where the second pressure is in a range from 75 to 115 psia (517.1 to 792.9 kPa) and is greater than the first pressure (as taught in Step 3, substep 1 on pg. 5 of Honeywell 1, and the “Checks and Preparation” section, “Check the Cylinders” subsection on pg. 3, the pressure of the cylinder after pressurization may reach but should not exceed 100 psi (690 kPA). Applicant teaches in ¶ 8 of the instant specification that the “the equilibrium vapor pressure of liquid R-134a is about 93 psia (641.2 kPa)” for an ambient temperature of about 75 ºF so that 100 psi (690 kPA) taught by Honeywell 1 satisfies the limitation of being greater than 95% of this value.)
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.
Claims 5, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honeywell 1 as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 5, Honeywell 1 teaches a procedure for pressurizing a cylinder which has previously been filled with a quantity of SOLSTICE® GBA (a tradename for HFO-1234ze(E)) and then supplying into the cylinder a nitrogen gas to pressurize the cylinder to a predetermined pressure to dispense the GBA. Honeywell does not teach the filling of GBA in the cylinder to include filling an amount less than a limit so that the volume of the GBA in the cylinder is less than the total volume at any temperature up to 131 ºF. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the amount of the GBA filled into the tank, including the maximum limit thereof, to determine both the quantity of the fluid which may be filled, transported, and sold for a given size of cylinder as well as the pressure within the cylinder and safety of using and handling the cylinder under various conditions and would thus recognize this amount and maximum limit to be result effective variables. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Honeywell 1 teaches the limitations from claim 12, the method of claim 1, wherein, after the filling and supplying steps, the total pressure within the tank… is at least 81.6 psia (562.6 kPa) (Honeywell 1 teaches in pg. 4 that the pressure should be regulated at a consistent value of 100 psi (690 kPa) “to ensure a constant flow” during dispensing of the GBA.)
Honeywell 1 does not explicitly teach this pressure to be provided “at a temperature of 70º F (21.1 ºC)”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the temperature at which the dispensing process of Honeywell 1 is performed determines not only the properties (e.g. pressure) of GBA and nitrogen being employed in the process, but also the comfort of workers performing the process, and the heating and cooling requirements to maintain a consistent temperature in the space where the process is performed and would thus recognize this temperature to be a result effective variable. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Honeywell 1 teaches the limitations from claim 13, the method of claim 12, wherein, after the filling and supplying steps, the total pressure within the tank… is less than 135 psia (930.8 kPa). (Honeywell 1 teaches in pg. 4 that the pressure should be regulated at a consistent value of 100 psi (690 kPa) “to ensure a constant flow” during dispensing of the GBA.)
Honeywell 1 does not explicitly teach this pressure to be provided “at a temperature of 70º F (21.1 ºC)”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the temperature at which the dispensing process of Honeywell 1 is performed determines not only the properties (e.g. pressure) of GBA and nitrogen being employed in the process, but also the comfort of workers performing the process, and the heating and cooling requirements to maintain a consistent temperature in the space where the process is performed and would thus recognize this temperature to be a result effective variable. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Honeywell 1 teaches the limitations from claim 14, the method of claim 13, wherein, after the filling and supplying steps, the total pressure within the tank. is in a range from 82 to 115 psia (565.4 to 792.9 kPa). (Honeywell 1 teaches in pg. 4 that the pressure should be regulated at a consistent value of 100 psi (690 kPa) “to ensure a constant flow” during dispensing of the GBA.)
Honeywell 1 does not explicitly teach this pressure to be provided “at a temperature of 70º F (21.1 ºC)”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the temperature at which the dispensing process of Honeywell 1 is performed determines not only the properties (e.g. pressure) of GBA and nitrogen being employed in the process, but also the comfort of workers performing the process, and the heating and cooling requirements to maintain a consistent temperature in the space where the process is performed and would thus recognize this temperature to be a result effective variable. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Regarding the limitations of claim 16, refer to the above rejection of claim 5.
Honeywell 1 teaches limitations from claim 17, a method of filling a tank, comprising:
filling a tank (the “100 LB cylinder”, also referred to as the “blowing agent cylinder to be pressurized” in step 2 on pg. 4 of Honeywell 1) with a predetermined amount of a liquid refrigerant under pressure (Honeywell 1 refers to the liquid filled in the cylinder by the tradename “Solstice” in pg. 2. Applicant states in ¶ 32 of the instant specification that a preferred refrigerant for the practice of the method of the invention is “R-1234ze(E) (Preferred IUPAC Name: trans-1,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene), which was developed by Honeywell and is sold under the brand name SOLSTICE”. Honeywell 2 confirms on pg. 2 that “Honeywell Solstice® Gas Blowing Agent (GBA) is the tradename for trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene, also known as HFO-1234ze(E)” with “R-1234ze(E)” and “HFO-1234ze(E)” representing slightly differing notations to refer to the same chemical compound, trans-1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene.); and
supplying an inert gas into the tank (supplying nitrogen in Step 3, taught on pg. 5 of Honeywell 1);
wherein, after the filling and supplying steps, a total pressure within the tank is in a range from 75 to 115 psia (517.1 to 792.9 kPa). (Honeywell 1 teaches in pg. 4 that the pressure should be regulated at a consistent value of 100 psi (690 kPa) “to ensure a constant flow” during dispensing of the GBA.)
Honeywell 1 does not explicitly teach this pressure to be provided “at a temperature of 70º F (21.1 ºC)”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was effectively filed would have recognized the temperature at which the dispensing process of Honeywell 1 is performed determines not only the properties (e.g. pressure) of GBA and nitrogen being employed in the process, but also the comfort of workers performing the process, and the heating and cooling requirements to maintain a consistent temperature in the space where the process is performed and would thus recognize this temperature to be a result effective variable. It has been held that determining an optimum or workable value for a result effective variable by routine experimentation is a matter of routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 and MPEP 2144.05 II. Obviousness of Ranges.
Regarding the limitations of claim 18, refer to the above rejection of claim 2.
Regarding the limitations of claim 19, refer to the above rejection of claim 3.
Regarding the limitations of claim 20, refer to the above rejection of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C COMINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-7385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/DANIEL C COMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763