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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 was filed on or after the mailing date of the Application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes phrases which can be implied, such as “Provided are…”. The phrase does not aid in understanding the invention and said phrasing is expressly discouraged in order to clearly and concisely describe the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds either 15 lines of text or 150 words. Applicant should check and attempt to amend the abstract so that it is as concise as the disclosure permits in order to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsukura et al. (US 20180066871 A1, hereinafter “Matsukura”), and further in view of Saito et al. (US 20200017795 A1, hereinafter “Saito”) and Matsumoto (US 20170335230 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsukura teaches a heat source machine [1; Fig.1] in which a compressor [3], a condenser [5], an expansion valve [at least 9, 19], and an evaporator [11] are connected to each other via a main pipe to form a refrigerant circulation circuit configured to circulate a refrigerant [¶ 0078-0079], and the refrigerant circulation circuit is filled with HFO-1336mzz (Z) as a refrigerant [¶ 0068-0070; the system may comprise refrigerant containing a hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)], the heat source machine comprising:
a refrigerating machine oil supply unit [at least 32, 33, 34, 35, 36] configured to supply a refrigerating machine oil to the compressor [¶ 0099; Fig. 1; oil is supplied from tank 32 via pipe 34 to the compressor],
wherein the refrigerating machine oil supply unit includes a storage unit [32] storing the refrigerating machine oil [¶ 0099; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection],
wherein the refrigerating machine oil includes an ester-based base oil [¶ 0100; oil may be ester-based] and an epoxy-based acid scavenger [¶ 0031-0032; Epoxy based acid acceptor; acid acceptors or acid scavengers are often known as interchangeable/equivalent in the context of polymer stabilization; as evidence, see NPL1: Acid Acceptors a Historical Perspective, Pgs. 6 and 9] at a mass that is greater than or equal to 0.1% by mass and less than or equal to 6% by mass with respect to a total mass of the refrigerating machine oil [¶ 0049; acid acceptor is preferably at least 0.2% to 3% by mass].
While Matsukura discloses that the compressor is capable of increasing the temperature of the refrigerant to about 230 °C [¶ 0080], Matsukura does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine design temperature is greater than or equal to 130 °C and less than or equal to 225 °C, or wherein the refrigerating machine oil has a dynamic viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 mm2/s and less than or equal to 180 mm2/s at 40 °C.
However, Saito teaches a refrigeration oil composition and working fluid for refrigeration system [Figs. 1-3] comprising at least one of a polyol ester oil and a polyvinyl ether oil [Abstract]. Saito further discloses that a polyol ester oil at 40 °C is preferably from 68 to 350 mm2/s, wherein Saito further emphasizes that the kinematic viscosity should trend differently depending on the application (i.e. air conditioner vs high temperature heat pump, trending to more narrow ranges with higher temperature systems) [¶ 0023-0024]. Saito discloses that the claimed viscosity range ensures good lubricity of the oil [¶ 0024]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the viscosity as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the viscosity would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to ensure good lubricity of the oil, thereby improving performance of the system [¶ 0024].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Matsukura to have wherein the refrigerating machine oil has a dynamic viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 mm2/s and less than or equal to 180 mm2/s at 40 °C, in view of the teachings of Saito where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to ensure good lubricity of the oil, thereby improving performance of the system.
Furthermore, while Matsukura discloses that the temperature of the system may reach the maximum claimed range, the prior art is not entirely clear as to the consistent operation temperature. Matsumoto teaches a lubricant composition for refrigeration machines, wherein the system may comprise a compressor, a condenser, an expansion mechanism, and an evaporator, wherein a composition for the refrigerant may be made from known refrigerants and oil from poly ester compounds [¶ 0026-0029, 0133-135]. Matsumoto conducted a thermal stability test of the combination solution (refrigerant oil mixture) at 175 °C for 336 hours, thereby demonstrating that the oil composition is capable of stability in the claimed temperature ranges, and is therefore known and capable to work consistently when applied to a heat pump system. Given the general disclosure of the claimed range in the prior art, the limitations may be considered an optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05 II.A] and may therefore not be considered inventive. Additionally, ¶ 0013 of the instant specification further describes how the machine oil claimed employs predetermined solutions using predetermined machine oil (i.e. arriving at a configuration through routine experimentation). Specifically, because at least Matsumoto has disclosed experiments of a refrigerant oil solution in the claimed temperature range, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. improving thermal stability and sufficiently suppresses the formation of sludge [Matsumoto ¶ 0008], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsukura by providing the machine design temperature to be greater than or equal to 130 °C and less than or equal to 225 °C, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 2, Matsukura teaches an operation method of a heat source machine [1; Fig.1] in which a compressor [3], a condenser [5], an expansion valve [at least 9, 19], and an evaporator [11] are connected to each other via a main pipe to form a refrigerant circulation circuit configured to circulate a refrigerant [¶ 0078-0079], and the refrigerant circulation circuit is filled with HFO-1336mzz (Z) as a refrigerant [¶ 0068-0070; the system may comprise refrigerant containing a hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)],
the operation method comprising:
supplying a refrigerating machine oil to the compressor [via at least 32, 33, 34, 35, 36; ¶ 00999; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection], the refrigerating machine oil including an ester-based base oil [¶ 0100; oil may be ester-based] and an epoxy-based acid scavenger [¶ 0031-0032; Epoxy based acid acceptor; acid acceptors or acid scavengers are often known as interchangeable/equivalent in the context of polymer stabilization; as evidence, see NPL1: Acid Acceptors a Historical Perspective, Pgs. 6 and 9] at a mass that is greater than or equal to 0.1% by mass and less than or equal to 6% by mass with respect to a total mass of the refrigerating machine oil [¶ 0049; acid acceptor is preferably at least 0.2% to 3% by mass].
While Matsukura discloses that the compressor is capable of increasing the temperature of the refrigerant to about 230 °C [¶ 0080], Matsukura does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine design temperature is greater than or equal to 130 °C and less than or equal to 225 °C, or wherein the refrigerating machine oil has a dynamic viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 mm2/s and less than or equal to 180 mm2/s at 40 °C.
However, Saito teaches a refrigeration oil composition and working fluid for refrigeration system [Figs. 1-3] comprising at least one of a polyol ester oil and a polyvinyl ether oil [Abstract]. Saito further discloses that a polyol ester oil at 40 °C is preferably from 68 to 350 mm2/s, wherein Saito further emphasizes that the kinematic viscosity should trend differently depending on the application (i.e. air conditioner vs high temperature heat pump, trending to more narrow ranges with higher temperature systems) [¶ 0023-0024]. Saito discloses that the claimed viscosity range ensures good lubricity of the oil [¶ 0024]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the viscosity as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the viscosity would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to ensure good lubricity of the oil, thereby improving performance of the system [¶ 0024].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Matsukura to have wherein the refrigerating machine oil has a dynamic viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 mm2/s and less than or equal to 180 mm2/s at 40 °C, in view of the teachings of Saito where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to ensure good lubricity of the oil, thereby improving performance of the system.
Furthermore, while Matsukura discloses that the temperature of the system may reach the maximum claimed range, the prior art is not entirely clear as to the consistent operation temperature. Matsumoto teaches a lubricant composition for refrigeration machines, wherein the system may comprise a compressor, a condenser, an expansion mechanism, and an evaporator, wherein a composition for the refrigerant may be made from known refrigerants and oil from poly ester compounds [¶ 0026-0029, 0133-135]. Matsumoto conducted a thermal stability test of the combination solution (refrigerant oil mixture) at 175 °C for 336 hours, thereby demonstrating that the oil composition is capable of stability in the claimed temperature ranges, and is therefore known and capable to work consistently when applied to a heat pump system. Given the general disclosure of the claimed range in the prior art, the limitations may be considered an optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05 II.A] and may therefore not be considered inventive. Additionally, ¶ 0013 of the instant specification further describes how the machine oil claimed employs predetermined solutions using predetermined machine oil (i.e. arriving at a configuration through routine experimentation). Specifically, because at least Matsumoto has disclosed experiments of a refrigerant oil solution in the claimed temperature range, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. improving thermal stability and sufficiently suppresses the formation of sludge [Matsumoto ¶ 0008], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsukura by providing the machine design temperature to be greater than or equal to 130 °C and less than or equal to 225 °C, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 3, Matsukura teaches a refrigerating machine oil [¶ 0029] for a heat source machine [1; Fig.1] in which a compressor [3], a condenser [5], an expansion valve [at least 9, 19], and an evaporator [11] are connected to each other via a main pipe to form a refrigerant circulation circuit configured to circulate a refrigerant [¶ 0078-0079], and the refrigerant circulation circuit is filled with HFO-1336mzz (Z) as a refrigerant [¶ 0068-0070; the system may comprise refrigerant containing a hydrofluoroolefin (HFO)],
wherein the heat source machine comprises a refrigerating machine oil supply unit [at least 32, 33, 34, 35, 36] configured to supply the refrigerating machine oil to the compressor [¶ 0099; Fig. 1; oil is supplied from tank 32 via pipe 34 to the compressor], the refrigerating machine oil supply unit includes a storage unit [32] storing the refrigerating machine oil [¶ 0099; Fig. 1; apparent from inspection],
the refrigerating machine oil for a heat source machine comprising: an ester-based base oil [¶ 0100; oil may be ester-based] and an epoxy-based acid scavenger [¶ 0031-0032; Epoxy based acid acceptor; acid acceptors or acid scavengers are often known as interchangeable/equivalent in the context of polymer stabilization; as evidence, see NPL1: Acid Acceptors a Historical Perspective, Pgs. 6 and 9] at a mass that is greater than or equal to 0.1% by mass and less than or equal to 6% by mass with respect to a total mass of the refrigerating machine oil [¶ 0049; acid acceptor is preferably at least 0.2% to 3% by mass].
While Matsukura discloses that the compressor is capable of increasing the temperature of the refrigerant to about 230 °C [¶ 0080], Matsukura does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine design temperature is greater than or equal to 130 °C and less than or equal to 225 °C, or wherein the refrigerating machine oil has a dynamic viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 mm2/s and less than or equal to 180 mm2/s at 40 °C.
However, Saito teaches a refrigeration oil composition and working fluid for refrigeration system [Figs. 1-3] comprising at least one of a polyol ester oil and a polyvinyl ether oil [Abstract]. Saito further discloses that a polyol ester oil at 40 °C is preferably from 68 to 350 mm2/s, wherein Saito further emphasizes that the kinematic viscosity should trend differently depending on the application (i.e. air conditioner vs high temperature heat pump, trending to more narrow ranges with higher temperature systems) [¶ 0023-0024]. Saito discloses that the claimed viscosity range ensures good lubricity of the oil [¶ 0024]. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the viscosity as claimed by known methods and that in combination, the viscosity would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e. providing a means to ensure good lubricity of the oil, thereby improving performance of the system [¶ 0024].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Matsukura to have wherein the refrigerating machine oil has a dynamic viscosity that is greater than or equal to 100 mm2/s and less than or equal to 180 mm2/s at 40 °C, in view of the teachings of Saito where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e. providing a means to ensure good lubricity of the oil, thereby improving performance of the system.
Furthermore, while Matsukura discloses that the temperature of the system may reach the maximum claimed range, the prior art is not entirely clear as to the consistent operation temperature. Matsumoto teaches a lubricant composition for refrigeration machines, wherein the system may comprise a compressor, a condenser, an expansion mechanism, and an evaporator, wherein a composition for the refrigerant may be made from known refrigerants and oil from poly ester compounds [¶ 0026-0029, 0133-135]. Matsumoto conducted a thermal stability test of the combination solution (refrigerant oil mixture) at 175 °C for 336 hours, thereby demonstrating that the oil composition is capable of stability in the claimed temperature ranges, and is therefore known and capable to work consistently when applied to a heat pump system. Given the general disclosure of the claimed range in the prior art, the limitations may be considered an optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05 II.A] and may therefore not be considered inventive. Additionally, ¶ 0013 of the instant specification further describes how the machine oil claimed employs predetermined solutions using predetermined machine oil (i.e. arriving at a configuration through routine experimentation). Specifically, because at least Matsumoto has disclosed experiments of a refrigerant oil solution in the claimed temperature range, a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, i.e. improving thermal stability and sufficiently suppresses the formation of sludge [Matsumoto ¶ 0008], it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 (KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Incl, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsukura by providing the machine design temperature to be greater than or equal to 130 °C and less than or equal to 225 °C, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is within the abilities of one having ordinary skill. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH S MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5102. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/KEITH STANLEY MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763