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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the third species or the embodiment characterized by the refrigerant being made of 1,2-difluoroethylene, R32, and R1234yf in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
No claims are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 6, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 13, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
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 it contains unclear phrases (i.e., “containing 3.0 wt% or more and 5.0 wt% or less” should be replaced with “containing from 3.0 wt% up to and including 5.0 wt%” or similar), and because it contains typographical and/or grammatical informalities (i.e., both occurrences of “one or more types of hydrofluorocarbon” should be replaced with “one or more types of hydrofluorocarbons”; both occurrences of “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefin” should be replaced with “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefins”; and, “the refrigerant being at least one of” should be replaced with “the refrigerant being at least one of:”). 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities, for example: “contains 3.0 wt% or more and 5.0 wt% or less” appearing throughout the specification should be replaced with “contains from 3.0 wt% up to and including 5.0 wt%” or similar, “one or more types of hydrofluorocarbon” appearing throughout the specification should be replaced with “one or more types of hydrofluorocarbons”; “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefin” appearing throughout the specification should be replaced with “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefins”; “at least one of” appearing throughout the specification should be replaced with “at least one of:”, and, “SUS” appearing in the first full paragraph on page 16 should be replaced with or appear in conjunction with the corresponding term written out in full, all for at least one of improved readability, clarity, grammatical correctness, and/or idiomatic correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Refrigerant Mixture for a Refrigeration Cycle apparatus”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 through 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a pressure” [claim 1, line 6; claim 2, line 6; claim 3, line 6; claim 4, line 6; claim 5, line 6] should be replaced with “the pressure” because pressure is an inherent property; “contains 3.0 wt% or more and 5.0 wt% or less” [claim 1, line 7; claim 3, line 7] should be replaced with “contains from 3.0 wt% up to and including 5.0 wt%” or similar); “a temperature” [claim 1, line 9; claim 2, line 9; claim 3, line 9; claim 4, line 9; claim 5, line 7] should be replaced with “the temperature” since temperature is an inherent property; “one or more types of hydrofluorocarbon” [claim 1, line 12; claim 1, line 14; claim 2, line 12; claim 2, line 14; claim 3, line 12; claim 3, line 14; claim 4, line 12; claim 4, line 14; claim 5, line 10; claim 5, line 12] should be replaced with “one or more types of hydrofluorocarbons”; “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefin” [claim 1, line 13; claim 1, line 14; claim 2, line 13; claim 2, line 14; claim 3, line 13; claim 3, line 14; claim 4, line 13; claim 4, line 14; claim 5, line 11; claim 5, line 11] should be replaced with “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefins”; “the refrigerant comprises at least one of” [claim 1, line 11; claim 2, line 11; claim 3, line 11; claim 4, line 11; claim 5, line 9] should be replaced with “the refrigerant comprises at least one of:”; “a value” [claim 6, line 3] should be replaced with “the value” because a value is an inherent outcome of the substitution in the equation; “an equation” [claim 6, line 4] should be replaced with “the equation” because the equation“; “an amount” [claim 8, line 2; claim 8, line 3] should be replaced with “the amount” because an amount is inherently present; “SUS” [claim 9, line 2] should be replaced with the corresponding term written out in full for improved readability and clarity given that the acronym “SUS” is not a widely known acronym; “the refrigerant is one of” [claim 10, line 2] should be replaced with “the refrigerant is one of:”; “a number of” [claim 11, line 3] should be replaced with “the number of” since a number of rotations of the compressor is inherently present; and, “based on a result of detection” [claim 11, line 4] should be replaced with “based on detection”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “compression element” appearing throughout the claims and “temperature detection unit” as recited in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that the above sections relating to claim interpretation do not constitute either an objection or a rejection of any sort.
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 through 11 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.
Regarding each of base claims 1 through 5, the phrases "one or more types of hydrofluorocarbon" (emphasis added) and “one or more types of hydrofluoroolefin” renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "types of"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regard to claim 6 as written, it is not clear whether any particular previously recited or additional structure or composition of the inventive refrigeration cycle is necessarily required by the functional language and by the mathematical equation as recited by the claim, thus further rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of protection sought by the claim. Furthermore, as written, the limitations of claim 6 as written hinge on the calculated temperature using the equation but the equation is not written in such a way that one side of the equation corresponds to the the temperature of the refrigerating machine oil whereas the other side of the equation corresponds to the input values that are used in calculating the temperature of the refrigerating machine, thus leading to a less clear-cut claim than is desirable.
Claim 8 (which depends from base claim 1) recites the limitation "the refrigerant enclosed in the refrigerant circuit” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because claim 1 merely recites a refrigerant but not a refrigerant enclosed in the refrigerant circuit as now recited in dependent claim 8.
Any claim not specifically mentioned is at least rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a mathematical formula into which an air pressure value is to be inserted such that the value of the desired upper limit of the temperature of the refrigerating machine oil is calculated. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is merely directed to performing a calculation using a measured air pressure value and substituting the same into a mathematical formula to obtain a desired temperature limit value for the temperature of the refrigerating machine oil. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the structural features of the inventive refrigeration cycle apparatus as recited in base claim 1 from which claim 6 depends are not patentable over the prior art as evidenced by the prior art rejections as applied hereinbelow, and the functional limitations in claim 6 reciting the judicial exception/abstract idea/mathematical formula do not appear to add anything of a patentably significant nature relating to the inventive refrigeration cycle apparatus and its structure and composition taken as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best can be understood in view of the indefiniteness of the claims, claims 1 through 11 would be allowable if rewritten without patentably significant broadening to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not show nor reasonably suggest the particular combinations of elements and operating parameters as recited by base claims 1 through 5 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The additional and/or related prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LJILJANA V CIRIC whose telephone number is (571)272-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Saturday, flexible.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/Ljiljana V. Ciric/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
LJILJANA (Lil) V. CIRIC
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights